Category: Science

Categories
Australia Science Scientists

January 19, 2016 – Australian Chief Scientific Advisor advises…

Nine years ago, on this day, January 19th, 2016,

Taylor, L. 2016.Outgoing chief scientist Ian Chubb says tougher greenhouse gas targets inevitable. The Guardian, 19 January. 

Chubb also says hostility towards climate science may be easing but scientists still have a duty to offer unflinching advice

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had had chief scientific advisers since 1988 and they had all been saying, “you got to do more on climate,” Including, of course, the first female, and only female so far, Chief Scientific Adviser, Penny Sackett, who quit om 2011 once she realized that Julia Gillard was not going to try to do more than was legislatively on the table. 

What we learn is that scientists are definitely on tap, but they’re never on top, and that anyone who thinks they are is deluded. 

What happened next

Advice kept getting given. We’ve bucket loads of the stuff.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 19, 1968 – Engineers are not ecologists…

January 19, 1976 – The carbon consequences of cement get an early discussion.

January 19, 1992 – they gambled, we lost

January 19, 2015 -Four utilities pull out of an EU CCS programme…

Categories
Science Scientists

January 6, 1989 – “Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment” 

Thirty five years ago, on this day, January 6th, 1989, an article with the snappy title Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment was published. Its lead author was  V. Ramanathan.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The starting gun for *public* concern about climate change had been fired a few months before (June 1988), thanks to both James Hansen’s testimony to a Senate committee in Washington DC, a very hot summer, and other events (including statements by senior politicians such as George HW Bush and Margaret Thatcher). Ramanthan’s work on the effect of all the other trace gases on estimated temperature rise had been one factor in making the Villach meeting of 1985 what it was.

What I think we can learn from this

That smart people have been scratching their heads/worrying about the earth’s radiation budget and imbalance for a long long time.

What happened next

Scientists kept sciencing, and the emissions kept climbing.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

V. Ramanathan R. D. Cess, E. F. Harrison, P. Minnis, B. R. Barkstrom, E. Ahmad and D. Hartmann 1989. Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment  Science  Vol. 243, No. 4887 (Jan. 6, 1989), pp. 57-63

Also on this day: 

Categories
Media Science Scientists United States of America

December 29, 1972 – Schneider meets Sullivan

Fifty two years ago, on this day, December 29th, 1972,

In Baltimore in December 1972 I gave a talk on the issue of human weather control to the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). AAAS meetings are internationally known because they bring together research scientists and policy makers to discuss the societal implications of new knowledge…. After speaking for half an hour or so, on how various kinds of human activities could change the climate, I concluded that, unfortunately, only a relatively few people were aware of the possibilities. I then quipped: “Nowadays, everybody is doing something with the weather, but nobody is talking about it.”

At the front of the audience, a distinguished-looking gentleman was taking notes: he turned out to be the doyen of all science writers, Walter Sullivan of the New York Times….

Sullivan, W. 1972. Goals for US Urged on Weather Control. New York Times, Dec 29, p.50.

(Schneider, 1989: 200)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Stephen Schneider is perhaps being a little naive here, because he’d already made headlines the previous year, thanks to a paper that he had co-written that had talked about the possibility of an ice age thanks to all the dust and smoke that was being put up. That paper turned out to be wrong and was used as a club by denialists to hit Schneider over the head with it for the rest of his life. Because that’s who they are. As for Sullivan, he had been aware of the CO2 possibility at the latest 1961 but much more likely, by 1957; he had after all written a book about the International Geophysical Year. 

What we learn is that by the early 1970s carbon dioxide buildup as a problem was getting more attention. There had been an article earlier the same year in May I want to say 1972 in The New York Times. There was of course by now, the United Nations Environment Program setting up shop. 

What happened next: The carbon dioxide build-up issue kept getting random reports all through the 1970s. Only in 1988 did it finally punch through.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

December 29, 1969 – AAAS symposium on “Climate and Man”

December 29, 1995 – Sydney Morning Herald points out year has been hottest yet…

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

December 9, 2004 – “Real Climate” hits the web, bless it.

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 9th, 2004, Real Climate is launched..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that denial of climate change and spurious science to back it up was still a major thing. And this was before social media, before it was very easy for scientists to explain what they were doing, how they were doing it, why they were doing it, and so forth. Real Climate was a real boon to a lot of people who wanted to keep up with what was going on, and to refute the latest denialist talking points.

What we learn is that good scientists have been willing to spend precious time explaining the facts and the theories and the observations and where the facts, theories and observations might not necessarily mesh. And this has, perhaps over time, reduced the confusion. in some people’s minds, maybe. Of course, the simple fact is that a lot of people are choosing not to understand, because if they did understand, it would be pretty bad for their egos and their worldviews. Ignorance is bliss. Alethophobia is a thing. 

What happened next Real Climate still going 20 years later. It’s a solid performance and a solid achievement. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

December 9, 1974 – UK Department of Energy launches “energy efficiency” programme

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment

Categories
Science Weather modification

November 25, 1968 – First atmospheric layers collection of carbon dioxide…

Fifty six years ago, on this day, November 25th, 1968, some carbon dioxide samples got collected…

INADVERTENT MODIFICATION OF WEATHER AND CLIMATE
BY ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTANTS E.W. Barrett , R.F. Pueschel , H.K. Weickmann , and P.M. Kuhn, in this

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that scientists were beginning to start to measure CO2 locally along with other pollutants because by 1968 some people were starting to get a little bit worried about all this. This is a really minor event. I’m not pretending that it deserves much of a place, I only include it because we need to know that people were looking at this stuff. It was part of the mix. 

What we learn: The concerns go back to the sixties…

What happened next Earl Barrett was in Melbourne in 1970 to present some of this work, and then had a letter in science in I want to say September of 1971. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

November 25, 1993 – House of Commons briefing on carbon taxes

November 25, 2000 – CoP meeting ends in official disarray…

Categories
Science

November 17, 2023 – two degrees warmer, for the first time…

One year ago, on this day, November 17th, 2023, the globe was, according to one data set, two degrees warmer than pre-industrial levels for the first time in human history.

We now have results from a modern reanalysis product (ERA5) that shows November 17th was in fact the first day the world has experienced that was 2C above the preindustrial (1850-1900) average. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 423ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

A year ago today, we broke two degrees for the first time. 

At time of writing (or narrating) this in December 2023 it looks like a pretty sure bet that those temperature records will fall again, because we have an El Nino year on the way, and our emissions are higher. And we are about to get seriously smacked between the eyes. As Matt Damon, as Jason Bourne, said to the journalist at Waterloo, “you have no idea what you’re into”.

And as of November 2024 – yeah,the El Nino ended but the tempatures did not come down as some expected. Have a look at this

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/13/opinion/climate-change-heat-planet.html

[I will update this post closer to the time that I will also leave this text in. It’s the safest predictions I’ve made. I will be astounded if we don’t break that record.]

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

November 17, 1968 – UK national newspaper flags carbon dioxide danger…

November 17, 1980 – International meeting about carbon dioxide build up.

November 17, 2018 – XR occupy five bridges in London

Categories
Science

November 12,1976 – “Greenhouse Effects due to Man-Made Perturbations of Trace Gases” in Science

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, November 12th, 1976, an article appears in the journal Science.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that more and more articles were getting published in especially Science more than Nature, because there was a proper research effort going on in the United States. And that was not the case in the United Kingdom.

What we learn is long before 1981 when Hansen got wrapped over the knuckles for telling the truth to a journalist, Walter Sullivan at the New York Times, Hansen was telling it like it was. It’s almost 50 years later now. And things have only gotten so much worse. 

What happened next. We were warned. We knew. Not enough of us could look into the abyss and also figure out how to do responsible citizenship in sustainable ways. And here we are.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

November 12, 1999 – John Howard and mates say “nope” to renewables

November 12, 2012 – Greenpeace smeared by Queensland extractors, of course

Categories
Science United States of America

October 22, 1969 – American Meteorological Society symposium on the Future of the Atmosphere, Madison, Wisconsin

Fifty years ago, on this day, October 22nd, 1969,

AMS Symposium on the Future of the Atmosphere, Madison, Wis., 22 October 1969.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that President Lyndon Johnson had made his special address to Congress in early 1965. It had included a short section (from Roger Revelle) about CO2 buildup. And were things going to get hotter or colder and no one knew for sure. So it’s logical that the American Meteorological Society would want to hold a seminar on the future of climate. One of the people present was Canadian scientist Kenneth Hare, who had been at a Guy Callendar’s talk in 1938 at the Royal Meteorological Society. And in his talk at this seminar, Hare talked about CO2 as one potential issue. 

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 1960s, people in the know were beginning to take note…

What happened next The issue was ‘there’ in the lead up to Stockholm, but there was not the hard evidence yet. By the late 1970s, it was obvious to anyone with intellectual integrity that there was a serious problem ahead (but ‘ahead’ might mean another thirty years).

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Hare, F.K. 1971. Future climates and future environments
F. Kenneth Hare Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 52, No. 6 (June 1971), pp. 451-456 (6 pages)

Also on this day: 

October 22, 1969 – Edmund Muskie mentions CO2 build up 

October 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat

Categories
Energy Science

October 18, 1974 – Weinberg’s “Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy” published

Fifty years ago, on this day, October 18th, 1974,

Alvin Weinberg, ‘Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy’, Science 186 (18 October 1974), 205. Weinberg wrote that the world might reach ‘climatological limits’ within 30–50 years. Noting the uncertainty surrounding the results so far, he called for two responses. ‘First, climatologists should recognize the profound implications of this question and do the basic research in global modelling … so that, say 20 years from now, we can base our energy policy on a much sounder understanding of this limit than we now possess’; and, second, since the ‘problem of global effects of energy production, like….’

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the United Nations Environment Programme had been going for a couple of years, since the Stockholm conference. Science had been publishing articles, Weinberg had been paying attention. The modelling conference had just finished in Sweden. Weinberg as a big fan of nuclear thought that this was another selling point for nuclear – that its carbon emissions were so much lower.

What we learn why it matters is that the pro nuclear gloss on climate mitigation has been around for a long time. Weinberg was a serious player. 

What happened next? Well, in 1979, Weinberg visited Australia and gave a speech which got reported in the Canberra Times and so forth. It explicitly mentioned nuclear as a climate solution. And again, that puts into context; what I thought was unusual in 1981 of the various Liberal and Country Party Senators talking about it was not that big a deal. People knew by the early 1980s, people knew who were paying any real attention.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

 October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

Categories
Austria Economics of mitigation Energy Science

October 13, 1993 – IIASA and the IAMs – Gaia help us all

Thirty one years ago, on this day, October 13th, 1993,

Nebojša Nakićenović, William Nordhaus, Richard Richels and Ferenc Toth, Integrative Assessment of Mitigation, Impacts, and Adaptation to Climate Change, Proceedings of a Workshop Held on 13–15 Oct. 1993 (Laxenburg: IIASA, 1993)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was tha the cold war -scientist shall talk unto scientist’ outfit the International Institute for Advanced Science Analysis (IIASA) was about 20 years old. It had a surprisingly long history of banging on about climate change and energy, back to 1975, with William Nordhaus and then Hafele’s energy studies. And they put together some workshops. And they were big fans of all their fancy computer models: really in love with them. 

What we learn.  And here we are 30 years later. And they just keep redrawing lines and magic shit into existence. Making heroic assumptions about the speed of development and deployment of offshore wind and hydrogen and so forth, bearing no resemblance to the real world. But how are you gonna make the numbers add up? 

So we’re trapped in these ridiculous mental models and computer models, because we don’t tell the truth to ourselves about ourselves. That we screwed the pooch and is it no one’s short-term career interest to be the one who says “hey guys, I think we screwed the pooch.” You are not going to get promoted – in fact, you’re not going to keep your bloody job full stop if you do that…

What happened next so I’m sure that in 1993 there were people with misgivings. They didn’t speak up. I’m sure that there were other people who had misgivings in 2003, didn’t speak up. 2013 didn’t speak up. 2023 didn’t speak up. Why would you? 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

October 13, 1990/97 – Ros Kelly defends the Interim Planning Target vs Australia does nothing

October 13, 2005 – “Climate Change: Turning up the Heat” published