Category: Science

Categories
Arctic Science Scientists United States of America

March 19, 1956 – Washington Post reports Revelle’s statements

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, March 19th, 1956, the question of possible climate change due to carbon dioxide build-up gets an airing (sorry) in the Washington Post.

19 March 1956 Washington Post story on Revelle’s predictions 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Roger Revelle as well as being a really good scientist was a really good political operator. He knew how to tell Senators interesting stories so that they would give big science, big money. And one of the stories Revelle was telling in ‘56, ahead of the impending International Geophysical Year was that carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere might cause some interesting physical effects. 

What we learn from this is that the idea of the independent scientists mucking around with his test tubes is a comforting myth, but only a myth. And already, by the end of the 40s, this was entirely obvious, given how the war had been one, Manhattan Project, Vannevar Bush, all of that stuff. 

What happened next? With some of the money, a tiny portion of the money that Revellel got, he hired Charles David Keeling to make fantastically accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2, giving us the Keeling Curve and evidence that yes, carbon dioxide was definitely building up in the atmosphere. Until that point this was not entirely certain, though it was strongly suspected. It’s always good to have proper evidence to back up your suspicions, isn’t it? 

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

Norman, L. 1956. Fumes Seen Warming Arctic Seas. The Washington Post and Times Herald; March 19,  pg. 3

Also on this day: 

March 19, 1990 – Bob Hawke gives #climate speech

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

Categories
Activism Australia Science Scientists

March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Ten years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2014, the wheels on the bus went round and round…

‘CARBON BUS’ NORTHERN TOUR 17-20 MARCH 2014

Eleven lucky applicants participated in the tour, which left from Townsville QLD and visited the Lansdown Research Station, ‘Trafalgar’ Station, ‘Wambiana’ Station and the Wambiana Research Site. Participants heard from leading specialists in climate science and agriculture and practising agriculturalists, including:

Professor Snow Barlow, University of Melbourne

Dr Ed Charmley, CSIRO

Dr Chris Stokes, CSIRO

Dr Steven Bray, QLD DAFF

Peter O’Reagain, QLD DAFF

Andrew Ash, QLD DAFF

Geoff Dickinson, QLD DPI

Roger Landsberg, ‘Trafalgar’ Station, Charters Towers

John Lyons and Michelle Lyons, ‘Wambiana’ Station, Charters Towers

The tour was enlightening and beneficial for all participants, but you don’t need to take our word for it, click here to hear from them direct…or watch the Virtual Tour video to see the tour highlights.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399.9ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Prime Minister Tony Abbott had recently abolished – or was in the process of abolishing – the emissions trading scheme that Julia Gillard had shepherded through parliament in 2011. And climate activists were at a low ebb, and understood that they really had to go out and engage people who didn’t “get” to the climate issue. The trouble is that these sorts of tours from the south, to educate the benighted, ignorant, rural savages don’t work. Now, for the avoidance of any doubt. I’m sure that that’s not what the organisers of this carbon bus tour thought or felt on any level: but it’s easy for their good intentions to be painted.as such. I don’t have a solution. I suppose the climate education has to come from within these communities, from people who are trusted?  Who those people are and how they might be supported, is beyond me. I guess. There’s always the internet….

What happened next? Well, the most infamous example of all this is the 2018 tour of Queensland by a whole bunch of greenies who thought that they were helping Bill Shorten get elected, and most definitely were not. This was something that was curiously absent from the Bob Brown hagiography about the tall giants or whatever it’s called. (see film review here). 

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: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

Categories
Denial Science

February 18, 2004 – “An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science”

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 18th, 2004, some scientists tried to expose the George W Bush (actually Cheney) Administration for what it was.

“Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science”- Statement to Bush from 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers

http://www.webexhibits.org/bush/1.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bush had pulled out of the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol, had called for the NAS to do a study and then ignored that study. And was generally being George Bush, aka Dick Cheney’s glove pocket. 

What we learn is that National Academy of Sciences sounds prestigious and powerful, but it has very limited power. They’ve been aware of the potential for climate change since well, at least 1957 when they produced booklets as part of the International Geophysical Year that pointed to it as a possibility. Then lots of research in the 1970s and 1980s… Pleaded with Dubya’s dad, to little (no?) effect. (see January 5,1989 – National Academy of Science tries to chivvy Bush.)

What happened next, Bush won the 2004 election and we had another four years of denial, obfuscation, outright stupidity. It is what it is.

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: 

Feb 18, 1978 – “#Climate Experts see a Warming Trend”

February 18, 2011 – Scientist quits advisor role (because ignored on climate?)

Categories
Science Swtizerland

February 12, 1979 – First World Climate Conference opens

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 12th, 1979,the First World Climate Conference began in Geneva.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that all through the 1970s, climatologists have become more and more convinced that climate change was happening, and that carbon dioxide was the principal culprit. And so a proposal had been accepted for the first world climate conference. And it opened at some big hall in Geneva where the World Meteorological Organisation is based.

What we learn is that if you want to have an impact, you need these sorts of conferences. Unfortunately, John Mason, the British head of the Meteorological Office was not helpful. 

What happened next? There was ongoing momentum around the climate issue ‘79-80. And then as Al Gore said, in 1988, it all ended once Reagan became president. Or rather, US political support did – the science kept going, best it could.

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: 

Feb 12, 1958- the Unchained Goddess is unchained…

February 12 1968 – The Motherfuckers do their motherfucking thing, with garbage in New York.

Categories
Science Scientists

January 8, 1968 – LaMont Cole to AAAS about running outta oxygen, build-up of C02 etc

Fifty six years ago, on this day, January 8th, 1968,

According to a Newsweek report (8 January 1968), Professor L. C. Cole of Cornell University (in a paper delivered at the 134th annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) asks whether man is not destroying the earth’s natural supply of oxygen. He points out (1) that the increasing combustion of fossil fuels has greatly accelerated the formation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and (2) that, in the United States alone, some one million acres of suburbanised forest and grassland each year lose their ability to regenerate the oxygen supply through photosynthesis.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was concern among a few scientists that levels of oxygen would drop and that we would all ultimately suffocate. That was rendered null a year or two after this, but there was generalised concern about oxygen levels, carbon dioxide levels, you name it. As the consequences of modernity, as we laughingly call it, were becoming apparent. Cynically, you could also say that people were so fed up with the Vietnam War, but there were costs attached to speaking out against that, that they found something else to be worried about….

What we can learn is that there have been scientists warning of trouble ahead. But those scientists may have sometimes understandably picked something to be concerned about that wasn’t actually there. That doesn’t mean that all warnings are bad warnings. 

What happened next, as above, the oxygen depletion thing was put to bed in 1970 or so. Lamont Cole died in I think, 1979. 

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

Cole, L. 1968. Can the World Be Saved? BioScience, Vol. 18, No. 7 pp. 679-684 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1294188 .https://doi.org/10.2307/1294188

Also on this day: 

Jan 8, 1958 – “The masters of infinity… could control the world’s weather”, says LBJ

January 8, 2003 – Energy firms plan to “bury carbon emissions”…

January 8, 2013 – Australian Prime Minister connects bush fires and #climate change

Categories
Science United States of America

January 1970 – Yale biologist muses on science, politics, pollution, warming.

In this month, 54 years ago, eminent Yale biologist G. Evelyn Hutchinson reflected on the effectiveness of Senate hearings for investigating environmental dilemmas, including carbon dioxide build-up.

“Though dire effects on climate of an increase in CO2 have been predicted, this is far from being adequately established (5). The cycle is not really fully understood, as was made clear in the discussion; carbon dioxide may well prove to be the least objectionable or in small amounts the only beneficial addition to the atmosphere from industrial sources. It is rather worrying to find one of our best senators and three eminent scientists trying to talk about the reversibility of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere from industrial sources without a single mention of a green plant”

(Hutchinson, 1970, p18-19).

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 some Senate hearings with Democrat Senator Edmund Muskie (who had been Vice President candidate in 1968) and so forth, SR 78, had happened. This was in the context of Richard Nixon being in the White House and trying to pick up the environment issue, but also raising concerns, with Earth Day impending. Yale biologist G. Evelyn Hutchinson had been talking about CO2 build up as a factor in changing biology since 1947-48, he was mates with Margaret Mead, and Gregory Bateson. And Hutchinson had promoted the idea of the Conservation Foundation holding a meeting specifically about CO2, in March 1963. And then he’d been too sick to attend. 

Anyway what’s interesting in this “Marginalia” thing is there’s a bunch of useful insights about how language works and so forth. But Hutchinson himself is understandably uncertain about what impact raised CO2 levels might have. Just because he’s been familiar with the issue, perhaps because he’d been familiar with the issue for a lot longer than anyone else. 

The other context is, of course, you know, the American Meteorological Society in October 1969 had held a symposium on the future of our atmosphere. Kenneth Hare had spoken at that. Everyone was at it; the AAAS had held a symposium on Global Environmental Pollution in Dallas at the end of 1968.

What we learn is that smart people had known about CO2 for a long time when we’re discussing it in ‘69. 

What happened next? The only real fruit of all this was UNEP and the modelling work done by Bolin et al as part of GARP. And it would take another 20 years, almost before the issue finally broke 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.

References

Hutchinson, G.E. 1970. Marginalia “Wisdom is justified of all her children.” American Scientist, Vol. 58, No. 1 pp. 17-20 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27828926

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

January 1, 1981- “Climate Change And Society” published

Forty three years ago, on this day, January 1st 1981,

 Climate Change and the Society: Consequences of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

was published.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American and European climate scientists had been pretty sure from the mid-1970s onwards serious warming of the planet was coming thanks to the additional carbon dioxide that was being put into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. I think they were also pretty sure that we wouldn’t, as a species, do anything serious to reduce our emissions. How right they were. And so the puzzle began, well, what impacts will come not just physical impacts, but sea level rise, heat, but how will that play out? How will society be affected? And how will society respond? One of the authors, William Kellogg had been in and around climate issues, carbon dioxide issues specifically, for a good 10 years. The other, Schware, had written this in 1980. And the International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis (IIASA) had been holding workshops about this sort of thing. So the book, although it seems very, very prescient, emerged as all books do, from strands of academic – or intellectual, for the two are not the same – work. 

What we can learn is that smart people could see this coming and couldn’t see a way of stopping it. I think for what it’s worth, there probably were ways of stopping it, but it would have required a fundamental rethink of what resistance to capital looks like. And also how those on the progressive left – or whatever it wants to call itself – organised themselves and each other, how they measured success, etc. None of that happened then. None of it is happening now. None of it is likely to happen.

What happened next – The Republican and conservative administrations of Reagan and Thatcher kept doing everything they could to keep environmental issues down the agenda. With Reagan who kind of overdid it, leading to a backlash (see Dunlap and McCright 2010). And with Thatcher, there was the persistent issues of acid rain and then ozone until finally, in 1988, even she had to concede that the greenhouse effect was a thing. Kellogg lived a long time, long enough to see most of its predictions come true.

In June of 1982 Kellogg and Schware had an article in Foreign Affairs, the major US foreign policy journal.

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

Schware, R. 1980. Toward A Political Analysis Of The Consequences Of A World Climate Change Produced By Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5415330

Also on this day: 

January 1 1958 – control the weather before the commies do!

January 1, 1988 – President Reagan reluctantly signs “Global Climate Protection Act” #CreditClaiming

January 1 2007 James Hansen – “If we fail to act, we end up with a different planet”

Categories
Science Scientists

December 30, 1957 – a letter from Gilbert Plass to Guy Callendar

Seventy six years ago, on this day, December 30, 1957, the English steam engineer Guy Callendar wrote to the Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass

“Plass wrote to Callendar that Revelle and Suess and Arnold and Anderson had “attacked the carbon dioxide climatic theory ‘quite vigorously’ at a meeting earlier this year.”

They claimed that it was absolutely impossible to have had a sufficient increase in the CO2 amount in this century for the reasons that were given in their articles. I think you have pointed out several ways that their conclusion could be in error and I feel that there are still several possible explanations. 64 (Fleming 2007, p.81)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American scientists who were studying carbon dioxide build-up and had been writing about it were still not quite sure what was going on. Understandably – if all the answers were obvious you wouldn’t need to explore anything, and that’s not how science works 

Guy Callendar had written the first serious “carbon dioxide is causing climate change” scientific article in 1938 presented it, to muted response, at the Royal Meteorological Society. 

Gilbert Plass was, more than anyone, responsible for putting carbon dioxide squarely on the agenda with his 1953 statements at the American Geophysical Union and then onwards in 1956 with his articles

What I think we can learn from this is that it’s always a messy murky picture in the early days of any issue. Later on it looks like a procession, but a good historian will try to remember the messiness and make it understandable, without removing the messiness.

Obviously that’s an ongoing process that we need to remember how little we knew and how confused the picture was.

What happened next

Callendar kept writing articles and letters. He died in 1964.

Gilbert Plass continued to be engaged for another few years on the climate issue and then wasn’t.

Roger Revelle died in 1991, having spent a long time trying to get the US state and others scientists politicians to take climate change seriously/

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.

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

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

Fifty four years ago, on this day, December 29, 1969, there was

Symposium on Climate and Man, 136th Meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science, Boston

This from a pre-symposium teaser, published in Science, tells you enough to be going on with –

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by 1969 environmental issues, air quality issues, long-term effects of carbon dioxide issues, were pretty well-known in the scientific community, the “environmental” community, and were becoming quite well known with anyone who could read any quality newspaper. A one-day symposium on the topic when everyone’s gathering together anyway for a meeting of the American Association for the advancement of science was quite fun.

What I think we can learn from this

There was early knowledge early discussion, if you want to call 1960s early.

What happened next

The next seriously consequential meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science with regards to climate change was the 148th in 1982 which was held in New York, with James Hansen and Herman Flohn both sounding off. Though I’m sure people who were involved in the big AAS processors in between will tell you otherwise

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

Battan, L. J. (1969). Climate and Man. Science, 166(3904), 536-537.

Categories
Science Scientists

December 26, 1968 – “Global Effects of Environmental Pollution” symposium

Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 26, 1968, Fred Singer, who had been present for the foundation meeting of the International Geophysical Year, and would go on to be a weapons-grade asshole denialist, organised a symposium (it was part of his day job). That symposium was about the global effects of environmental pollution for the American Association for the Advancement of Science

https://doi.org/10.1029/EO051i005p00476

Smart cookie called J. Murray Mitchell was there and laid it out.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US Federal Government was making some of the right noises about climate change. It had just found out that there would indeed be a United Nations meeting in 1972. But this meeting will have been organised months and months in advance of that final decision.

What’s amusing about it is that Fred Singer became one of the leading the nihilists denialists.

What I think we can learn from this

We knew way back when. We knew.

What happened next

Caroll Wilson organised the 1970 Workshop in Williamstown about Man’s Impact on the environment. The following year there was Man’s Impact on Climate, organised by William Kellogg, in Stockholm.

This 5 years was the period where are the new institutions and collaborations got hashed out – GARP, then SCOPE and so on…

J. Murray Mitchell was exceptionally blunt (and accurate) in his warning in 1976 – “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century then we’ve had it.”

We were and we have.

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.