Category: Science

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

July 19, 2010 – Stephen Schneider dies

Sixteen years ago, on this day, July  11st, 2010 scientist Stephen Schneider died.

Stephen H. Schneider 1945-2010

Dr. Stephen H. Schneider was the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor of Biology, Professor (by courtesy) of Civil and Environ mental Engineering, and a Senior Fellow in the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. Dr. Schneider received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics from Columbia University in 1971. He studied the role of greenhouse gases and suspended particulate material on climate as a postdoctoral fellow at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 1972 and was a member of the scientific staff of NCAR from 1973-1996, where he co-founded the Climate Project.

Internationally recognized for research, policy analysis and outreach in climate change, Dr. Schneider focused on climate change science, integrated assessment of ecological and economic impacts of human-induced climate change, and identifying viable climate policies and technological solutions. He consulted with federal agencies and/or White House staff in the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama administrations.

[continues]

https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/References/Biography.html

Trenbeth at American Meteorological Jan 2011.  

https://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Paper180230.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was xxxppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Schneider’s first encounter with climate change/media had come in 1971, when he had co-authored a paper which got taken up as “an ice age is coming”. By the mid-1970s he was writing books like The Genesis Strategy and appearing on the Johnny Carson show

September 7, 1977 – #climate scientist Stephen Schneider on Carson for the last time…

. By the late 1970s he was giving clips to documentary makers like this –

Schneider was in Australia for the Greenhouse 88 conference(s), fielding media enquiries and generally doing a good job of being a public intellectual.

He was then first (iirc) ‘thinker in residence’ in South Australia.

Anyway, he died too young and there was a lot more he had to contribute.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

September 9, 1971 – Stephen Schneider’s letter, and a World Model

December 29, 1972 – Schneider meets Sullivan

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

January 28, 1990 –  Stephen Schneider and the dirty crystal ball.

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 19, 1968 – “man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable.” 

July 19, 1976 – , Scientist warns “ “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century, then we’ve had it.” 

July 19, 1977 – American public hears from a climate scientist 

July 19, 1979 – “a political view on C02”

Categories
Science United States of America

June 6, 1957 – CO2 build up studied by Charles David Keeling

On this day, June 6th, 1957, Charles Keeling submits a paper.

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Volume 13, Issue 4, 1958, Pages 322-334 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 

The concentration and isotopic abundances of atmospheric carbon dioxide in rural areas 

Charles D Keeling ∗ Division of Geological Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California U.S.A. Received 6 June 1957,   https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(58)90033-4 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 313ppm.  As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context for this was that after World War Two, it became possible to study the world with more precision and broader scope, thanks to radar, sonar, jet engines etc.

The specific context was that in 1950 the idea of an International Geophysical Year was proposed. And also by the mid 50s, people like Gilbert place, Charles Keeling, Roger Revelle and the Swedes, Ericsson and Rossby and so forth, were talking about carbon dioxide build up as a possible influence on the atmosphere, and this submission of this paper is part of that context. 

What I think we can learn is this: by the mid-late 50s, it was obvious that CO2 was indeed building up and that some people could foresee that there might be serious trouble ahead. 

What happened next: 

Four months after this, Sputnik was launched…

Roger Revelle was able to shake the money tree and get funding for measurement of carbon dioxide build-up, with stations in Hawaii and Antarctica (it was not necessarily expected that global levels would be increasing).

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

May 20, 1960 – Spengler suggests decline of the … whole shebang – All Our Yesterdays 

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 6, 1977 – German scientist Hermann Flohn asks “Whither the Atmosphere and the Earth’s climate?” – All Our Yesterdays

June 6, 1978 – Exxon presentation about carbon dioxide build-up

June 6, 1988 – Scientists say we are entering a new phase

Categories
Australia Science

April 29, 1997 – the “Challenge for Australia on Global Climate Change”

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, April 29th, 1997, 

“The challenge for Australia on global climate change”, 29-30 April 1997: summary of proceedings

 One of those chin-stroking talkfests organised by

National Academies Forum, Australian Academy of Science, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Australian Academy of the Humanities, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Australian Academy of Science, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Australian Academy of the Humanities, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, 1997.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian political elite had been warned about carbon dioxide through the 70s and 80s, and had chosen to ignore it until it couldn’t really be ignored any more, in ‘88. After an initial signal of willingness to be proactive and constructive, they had fairly quickly retreated into the asshole position that they hold today. 

In 1995 they had grudgingly signed on to the Berlin mandate – meaning they would come to the third COP (in 1997) with some plan for emissions reductions, and then had decided that they were not going to do that under new Prime Minister, John Howard. And most of 1997 was taken up with the Howard Government, sending diplomats around the place to try and get “differentiation” (an exemption for Australia).

Anyway, these sorts of conferences and seminars and events were happening because middle class people and so-called intellectuals want to believe that they are contributing to the betterment of the species and of its future. This is how they sleep at night, because having to admit that they were passengers on a train straight to hell would offend their amour-propre. 

The specific context was that it was obvious that the Prime Minister (John Howard) was scientifically illiterate and a climate denier who was doing everything he could (which was a lot) to fuck shit up (to use a technical term).  “Awks” as the kids used to say.

What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve been doing yakkety yak on climate for a very long time, and we will continue to do yakkety yak.

What happened next:  Australia got an insanely generous deal at the Kyoto conference, an emissions reduction quote, in quotes of 108% actually closer to 130 once you took into account the land clearing clause, the emissions kept climbing. Australia’s fossil fuel exports kept climbing. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 kept climbing. And after a certain delay, the despair and the fear of people who can read the Keeling Curve began climbing as well. 

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: 

April 29, 1967 – Canberra Times reviews Science and Survival – All Our Yesterdays

April 29, 1970 – Washington DC symposium talks about carbon dioxide

April 29, 1998 – Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Science United States of America

April 12,  1968 – brief mention of carbon dioxide build-up in Science

Fifty eight ago, on this day, April 12th, 1968,

12 April 1968. Brief mention of C02 build-up  Hibbard, W. R. (1968). Mineral Resources: Challenge or Threat?: Can technology meet our future needs for minerals and still preserve a livable environment? Science, 160(3824), 143–149. 

doi:10.1126/science.160.3824.143 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that by 1968 intelligent people involved in air pollution, atmospherics etc were well aware of carbon dioxide build up. It had been mentioned by Lyndon Johnson in the beginning of 1965 and in November 1965, the President’s Science Advisory Committee, PSAC had released a report Restoring the Quality of Our Environment, which had an entire chapter on CO2 build up. By 1967 in articles about air pollution in Time and Newsweek and so forth would have a paragraph on the topic.  

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 60s, the dangers were understood. It was not clear if they  would  the potential dangers were understood. It was not clear that they would definitely emerge, if there were competing theories, but knowledge was there.  

What happened next:  We kept ignoring the problem. In 1988 it “broke through” and became an issue. But we mostly continued to ignore 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.

Also on this day: 

April 12, 1955 – Coventry Evening Telegraph – “Melting Ice Could Menace the World” – All Our Yesterdays

April 12, 1992 – seminar asks “How sustainable is Australian Energy?” (proposes switch to gas)

April 12, 1993 – “environmental economics” gets a puff piece

Categories
International processes IPCC Science Scientists

April 8, 1995 – Fred Pearce writes “World lays odds on global catastrophe”….

Thirty one years ago today, New Scientist lays it out…

Fred Pearce article in New scientist about IPCC World Lays odds… 8-4-1995

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that  the New Scientist magazine had been going since the late 50s, And in an early issue, it had reported on carbon dioxide build up link and through the 70s and 80s, it had been regularly reported on the topic.   

The specific context was that Fred Piearce had been at the Berlin COP which had just finished, and it was clear that progress was going to be much slower than it had initially been hoped and it needed to be. And Pearce was not stupid, and he was not hopeful about our chances of not being incredibly stupid. 

Pearce has a new book out, btw. Despite It All: A Handbook for Climate Hopefuls

What I think we can learn from this is that a decent science journalist is a relatively good guide to life. 

What happened next:  Well, the COPs are still going, but the emissions have climbed and climbed and climbed and the atmospheric concentrations are now climbing very rapidly, and we are in a world of shit of our own devising. What do we do about it? I don’t know that there is much that we can do. To be honest, why am I doing this? Because I can, because it’s a habit, because I don’t know why I’m doing this.

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: 

April 8, 1970 – Australian National University students told about C02 build-up…

April 8, 1980 – UK civil servant Crispin Tickell warns Times readers…

April 8, 1995 – Australian environment minister says happy with “Berlin Mandate”

April 8, 1995 – Journo points out the gamble on climate – All Our Yesterdays

April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

 1980 – Idiotic climate paper published in Science

Forty six years ago on this day, March 28th, 1980 a truly pathetic paper found its way into the pages of Science.

Idso, S. 1980 – The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth’s Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration 

The abstract ran(t) as follows. [source]

The mean global increase in thermal radiation received at the surface of the earth as a consequence of a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content is calculated to be 2.28 watts per square meter. Multiplying this forcing function by the atmosphere’s surface air temperature response function, which has recently been determined by three independent experimental analyses to have a mean global value of 0.113 K per watt per square meter, yields a value of </= 0.26 K for the resultant change in the mean global surface air temperature. This result is about one order of magnitude less than those obtained from most theoretical numerical models, but it is virtually identical to the result of a fourth experimental approach to the problem described by Newell and Dopplick. There thus appears to be a major discrepancy between current theory and experiment relative to the effects of carbon dioxide on climate. Until this discrepancy is resolved, we should not be too quick to limit our options in the selection of future energy alternatives.

And a few weeks later, there was this exchange…

From ‘Effects of Carbon Dioxide Buildup in the Atmosphere’, Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, April 3, 1980:

“Senator (Dale) BUMPERS. . . The fact that there has been no political response to the testimony we have had here for at least 3 years, the last 3 years, about the potential for dramatic climatic effect upon the earth by the buildup of CO2 (the point that the whole problem is such a long term problem) is well taken.

“Congress has not responded and we are getting some conflicting information too. People who have testified have not been . . . precise and definitive. …

“For example, ‘Science magazine’ on March 28 estimated that the average Earth temperature rise from doubling the world’s atmospheric CO2 is about 26 hundredths of one degree Celsius, which is about 1 tenth of the value generally estimated.

“Dr. (Gordon) MACDONALD (Chief Scientist of MITRE Corporation). Could I comment on that point?

“Senator BUMPERS. Yes.

“Dr. MACDONALD.I have looked in detail at that paper. It is a very strange paper.

“Senator BUMPERS. Shall I throw it away?

“Dr. MACDONALD. Yes. The final result is the product of two numbers. One is described very badly. The other is described as a result of the search under preparation. One can reconstruct the reasoning and do the proper calculations, and would have to multiply the second number by a factor of six, the first number by a factor of two to get the proper description, so that number is off by a factor of about 12.

“Dr. (William) KELLOGG (Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research): I quite agree with what Dr. MacDonald has said. The conclusion is based on a calculation at the surface at a point. It does not apply to the global carbon dioxide question as it stands.

“Dr. MACDONALD. That is correct.”

(Quoted in William Barbat’s wonderful CO2 Newsletter.)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that there are always scientists who need to be “edgy”. And that is fine, because science needs doubt, conflict etc.  But it has to be, you know, robust. Not demented.

The specific context was that Idso had form

What I think we can learn from this is that Idso was not the sharpest tool in the box. 

What happened next. Idso kept Idsoing. He’s dead now, which is a tragedy for climate science.

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

Barbat in CO2 Newsletter

Also on this day: 

 March 28, 2001 – (Vice) President George Bush nixes Kyoto

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”

Categories
Science United States of America

March 25, 1957 – Plass et al. at La Jolla

Sixty nine years ago today, March 25, 1957, Gilbert Plass was at a Scripps conference in La Jolla, California.

Proceedings of a Conference held at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, 25-26 March 1957: 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been doing science for, well, the word science comes from the 1820s before that, they were “natural philosophers.” Concern/awareness that carbon dioxide build up in the atmosphere might eventually warm up the Earth, I suppose can be dated to Svante Arrhenius in 1895-96. His work was contested and then largely, but not totally ignored. Guy Callender had given a presentation in 1938 to the British Royal Meteorological Society.  

The specific context was that in 1953 Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass, building on Arrhenius and Callendar, had started the ball rolling on “carbon dioxide build-up as a problem.” In the next couple of years other people had said similar. And then by this time, the International Geophysical Year was about to kick off.

And we know now, thanks to the work of Rebecca John that Charles David Keeling had been doing Carbon Dioxide measurement for various oil companies. 

Revelle and Seuss had been working on papers.

What I think we can learn from this is that by 1957 a whole bunch of American (mostly – though here I am doing a real injustice to the Swedes) scientists, including Joseph Kaplan etc, were looking at carbon dioxide and going, “you know, this might well be a serious problem.”  

What happened next Plass published another article in Scientific American in 1959 which was advertised in the Observer. Plass was there in January 1961 in New York, and again, 63 in New York at the Conservation Foundation’s meeting, and that was his last that I can find around any engagement with the CO2 issue. He had said everything he planned to say. He’d worked on it now for over 10 years, and he understandably moved on to other things. It was a basic physics problem that he had solved.

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: 

March 25, 1982 – congressional hearings and CBS Evening News report

March 25, 1988- World Meteorological Organisation sends IPCC invites.

March 25, 1995 – “Women and the Environment” conference in Melbourne 

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Categories
Germany Science

March 21,1977 – Workshop on the carbon cycle in Germany

Forty nine years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1977,


Workshop on the carbon cycle (1997:Ratzeburg Ger.) The global carbon cycle/workshop on the carbon cycle held at Ratzeburg, Federal Republic of Germany, 21-26 March 1977

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the late 60s, scientists had begun to take interest in what impact buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might have. This was also the case in Germany, where people like Wilfred Bach and perhaps Herman Flohn were looking at it. And what do scientists do? They hold workshops. And so in the late 70s, you see these sorts of efforts. You also see the Department of Energy, or ERDA, as it then was, in the States, CSIRO in Australia, and Iasa, based in Austria, all looking at aspects of fossil fuel induced carbon dioxide build up. 

The specific context was that the Miami Beach conference had happened a couple of weeks before and there were, I think, some overlapping attendees (probably Graeme Pearman, the Australian). And 5 months earlier there’d been a Dahlem conference…

What I think we can learn from this is that it is now basically 50 years since the scientists were pretty sure that there was serious trouble ahead.

What happened next More workshops, more conferences, the first world climate conference in 1979, the inability to get politicians to take it seriously, until 1988 when they were forced to take it publicly, but not necessarily 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.

Also on this day:

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

March 21, 1994 – Yes to UNFCCC, yes to more coal-fired plants. Obviously. #auspol

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

March 17, 1982 – An overview of US carbon dioxide/climate research is written. 

Forty four years ago, on this day, March 17th, 1982

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that since 1977, at the beginning of the Carter Administration, there had been workshops, seminars, conferences etc. By 1982 A LOT was known. 

The specific context was that this research was having precisely zero impact on policymakers, who were Reaganaut nutjobs

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew plenty and that we had our chances and we blew them.  

What happened next. The emissions kept climbing. And climbing. And so did the concentrations. 

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: 

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

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

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

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

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

March 7, 1980 – Carbon Balance in Northern Ecosystems and the Potential Effect of Carbon Dioxide Induced Climatic Change

Forty six years ago, on this day, March 7th, 1980,

Carbon Balance in Northern Ecosystems and the Potential Effect of Carbon Dioxide Induced Climatic Change

Report of a Workshop, San Diego, California, March 7-9, 1980 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822007443104&seq=7

and 

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Carbon_Balance_in_Northern_Ecosystems_an/cb0JAQAAIAAJ?hl=en

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was by about 1976-77 especially people within the senior levels of the United States science establishment – I’m thinking specifically of Alvin Weinberg, but it’s not just him – were really thinking hard about climate change from carbon dioxide build-up. So perhaps one of the key documents that I need to think about more is the August 1976 report from Oak Ridge. 

Anyway, there had been the Miami Beach meeting in 1977 and now more and more conferences and meetings, scientific workshops, all in the hope that the politicians could be persuaded to take it all seriously. And at this point, of course, the idea of synfuels were still in the mix as a response to the second oil shock. 

The specific context was that the first world climate conference had happened, and there was money from the Department of Energy for these sorts of workshops.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew enough in 1980 to be taking action (as per the CO2 Newsletter).

What happened next. More meetings. The crucial event was the election of Ronald Reagan that basically put the kibosh on all the effort, or most of the political policy efforts within the US.

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: 

March 7, 1988 – “We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate” 

March 7, 1991 – Australian Labor Party bragging about its green credentials…

 March 7, 1996 – Australia hauled over coals for its definition of “equity” #auspol

March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy

March 7, 2012 – George Christensen and his culture war hijinks.