Category: Science

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

July 23, 1979 – Charney Report people meet – will conclude “yep, global warming is ‘A Thing’.”

On this day, 23 July 1979, the  “Ad Hoc Study Group on C02 and Climate” begins at Woods Hole, giving us the  “Charney Report.”

Short version – a scientist (Gordon MacDonald) and a Friends of the Earth activist (Rafe Pomerance) had managed to get President Jimmy Carter’s science advisor (Frank Press) to get Carter to request a study on whether this “greenhouse effect” thing was gonna actually be the problem some were saying.

So folks met, under the leadership of one of the big original beasts of atmospheric science, Jule Charney.

And they came up with the view, “yes”.

See this excellent summary, written by Neville Nicholls, an Australian scientist

Here’s a flowery (but good) bit from Nathaniel Rich’s “Losing Earth”–

The scientists summoned by Jule Charney to judge the fate of civilization arrived on July 23, 1979, with their wives, children and weekend bags at a three-story mansion in Woods Hole, on the southwestern spur of Cape Cod. They would review all the available science and decide whether the White House should take seriously Gordon MacDonald’s prediction of a climate apocalypse. The Jasons had predicted a warming of two or three degrees Celsius by the middle of the 21st century, but like Roger Revelle before them, they emphasized their reasons for uncertainty. Charney’s scientists were asked to quantify that uncertainty. They had to get it right: Their conclusion would be delivered to the president. But first they would hold a clambake.

They gathered with their families on a bluff overlooking Quissett Harbor and took turns tossing mesh produce bags stuffed with lobster, clams and corn into a bubbling caldron. While the children scrambled across the rolling lawn, the scientists mingled with a claque of visiting dignitaries, whose status lay somewhere between chaperone and client — men from the Departments of State, Energy, Defense and Agriculture; the E.P.A.; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They exchanged pleasantries and took in the sunset. It was a hot day, high 80s, but the harbor breeze was salty and cool. It didn’t look like the dawning of an apocalypse.

Why this matters. 

“We” really knew enough by the late 70s. Everything since then has been footnotes.

What happened next?

Carter lost the 1980 election, handsomely. It would be another 8 years before the simulacrum of international action began.

Categories
Ignored Warnings Science United States of America

July 22, 1968 – Gordon Macdonald tries to warn about carbon dioxide build-up…

On this day in 1968 Gordon Macdonald’s  chapter on weather and climate modification, under the title “How to Wreck the Environment” (pdf here) appeared  Nigel Calder’s book “Unless Peace Comes a Scientific Forecast of New Weapons” was published 

July 22, 1968 – Viking Adult – ISBN: 978 067 074 1140

A shortened version of the chapter had already appeared in New Scientist in April of the same year

“How to wreck the environment.” New Scientist. 25 April 1968):180- 82;

MacDonald noted 

“There has been much controversy in recent years about conjectured overall effects on the world’s climate of emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from furnaces and engines burning fossil fuels, and some about possible influences of the exhaust from large rockets on the transparency of the upper atmosphere. Carbon dioxide placed in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has produced an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere of a few tenths of a degree Fahrenheit. The water vapour that may be introduced into the stratosphere by the supersonic transport may also result in a similar temperature rise. In principle it would be feasible to introduce material into the upper atmosphere that would absorb either incoming light (thereby cooling the surface) or outgoing heat (thereby warming the surface). In practice, in the rarefied and windswept upper atmosphere, the material would disperse rather quickly, so that military use of such a technique would probably rely upon global rather than local effects”

Why this matters. 

Anyone who had their eyes open knew there was probably trouble ahead. By the late 70s, that trouble was unmistakable. 

What happened next?

Ten years later Macdonald, with Rafe Pomerance, would get the wheels rolling for the Charney report (see Nathaniel Rich’s “Losing Earth”).

By then MacDonald was also appearing on the Macneil Lehrer hour (1978) and so on. There’s a nice oral history interview here– 

Basically, Macdonald is one of the (forgotten) good guys.

See this nice biographical memoir of the man (he died in 2002) by Munk, Oreskes and Muller

Categories
Ignored Warnings Science Scientists United States of America

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.”

On this day, July 19 in 1976, as drought grips the UK, US scientists are pondering.

“In any market, nervousness reflects uncertainty-and there are few things as uncertain as the weather. “We just can’t confidently predict long-range trends in climate,” says Murray Mitchell, a climatologist at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Washington. Mitchell and other specialists have advanced several theories to explain why droughts occur-and they range from speculation about sunspot cycles to a possible tilting of the earth’s axis. One notion holds that man himself is altering the climate with pollution. By burning fossil fuels, the theory runs, the industrialized world adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, creating a “greenhouse effect.” The carbon dioxide traps the sun’s heat, raising temperatures on the earth’s surface. “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century,” Mitchell warns, “then we’ve had it.”

Mayer, A. (1976) A World Praying for Rain. Newsweek, July 19, page 66.

Why this matters. 

Again, by the late 1970s, we knew enough…

What happened next?

By the late 1970s, the scientific reports were piling up. Carter paid a little attention. Then along came Reagan. And Thatcher…

Categories
Australia Science Scientists

July 14, 2011 – “Four Degrees or More: Australia in a Hot World” conference closes

On this day, 14 July 2011 the “Four Degrees or More: Australia in a Hot World” conference in Melbourne” closed… 

A sequel (the body count is always higher, the deaths more elaborate) to a 2009 scientific conference, it came as the fractious public debate about an emissions trading scheme (dubbed, brilliantly, “the great big tax on everything” by the wrecking ball disguised as an Opposition Leader that was Tony Abbott) was coming to a head.

The conference was briefly marred by some Lndon La Rouche nutjobs who brandished a noose and called Hans Joachim Schellnhuber a “Nazi.” Yeah, you keep being you, guys.

There’s an awe-inspiringly brilliant account of this conference in Nature Climate Change.

Why this matters. 

We were warned. About the unthinkable. Before it arrived.

What happened next?

The emissions trading scheme became law. Briefly. Since its repeal, chaos.

Categories
Science Scientists

July 13, 1971 – Stephen Schneider “predicts” an ice age (so the myth goes)

On this day, 13 July 1971.

“ world-leading researchers gathered in Stockholm, Sweden, concluded their presentations about human influence on climate, and opened the meeting to questions from the press. But rather than asking about the most important climate meeting yet, the assembled reporters first looked to the meeting’s 26-year old secretary. “Where is Dr. Schneider? When is the ice age coming?” they asked.” [source]

Stephen Schneider (RIP)’s baptism of fire, because he had co-authored a paper with dodgy assumptions, that suggested that lots more pollution could trigger.. an Ice Age.

Steve Schneider (left), Jim Hansen (centre), and S. Ichtiaque Rasool (right) at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, circa 1971.

Why this matters. 

It gets hauled out by denialists as “evidence” that climate science is a grift. Maybe they still do this? I stopped paying attention to them quite a while back. Life is short.

What happened next?

Schneider did what scientists should do – listened to criticism, checked his numbers and assumptions and realised that the big long-term problem was carbon dioxide. And until his death in 2010, he performed his task with intelligence, wit and vigour.

Categories
Science

July 1, 1957- A key “year” in climate science begins…

On this day, July 1st, 1957, the “International Geophysical Year” (actually 18 months!) began.  Sponsored jointly by WMO and the International Council for Scientific Unions (ICSU),  30,000 scientists from more than 1000 research stations in sixty-six countries participated. (source – Page 22 Paterson, M (1996))

Why this matters. 

People were already interested in carbon dioxide build-up, and it was with funding earmarked for the IGY that senior American scientist Roger Revelle was able to hire a young post-doc called Charles David Keeling to take absurdly accurate measurements of atmospheric C02. Within two years (by early 1960) Keeling had ended the debate about whether – as per Guy Callendar – C02 was in fact climbing.

And so a data set was born

What happened next?

The carbon dioxide. It kept climbing, because humans kept burning more and more fossil fuels. Some more than others. Like there was “no tomorrow.”

To read: Walter Sullivan  Assault on the Unknown

Categories
Science United Kingdom

June 22, 1976 – Times reports “World’s temperature likely to rise”

On this day 22nd June, 1976, the Times (pre-Murdoch) ran a story with the headline “World’s temperature likely to rise”’, buried at the bottom of page 9.

“A warning that significant rises in global temperature are probable over the next century has been issued here [Geneva] by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

This would be the consequence of a build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide – which has already risen by 10 per cent in the past 50 years – because of increased use of oil and coal fuels.”

WMO were, it turns out, having a spat with the “Ice Age is coming” folks… 

Why this matters. 

We. Knew. Enough. To. Be. Worried. And taking action, by the late 1970s. This was not a deep dark state secret. This was in the fricking newspapers.

What happened next?

Sank without trace. In 1979 the WMO held the First World Climate Conference, also in Geneva. Momentum, but not enough to survive the arrival of the Thatchers and Reagans of this world…

Categories
Science Scientists Uncategorized United Kingdom

June 18, 1976- UK Meteorological Office explains things to Cabinet Office

On this day, June 18 1976 the UK Meteorological Office’s director, John S. Sawyer, replied to a request from the Cabinet Office. Two days earlier they’d asked for his take on Reid Bryson, a prominent US atmospheric scientist. Bryson was predicting imminent climate change (but NOT from the build up of carbon dioxide, which he considered a non-issue.


Sawyer was scathing – Bryson was “completely misleading and alarmist”.

The context is that by the mid-70s, with a series of “weird weather events” (including the 1976 drought, then underway), policymakers were beginning to wonder if something was up with the weather.

You can read more about this,and where I got the above information from, in the excellent paper “Computing the Climate: When Models Became Political”“by Janet Martin-Nielson. The specific quote is this –

In 1976, the Cabinet Office wrote to the Meteorological Office’s director of research, John S. Sawyer, asking for his views on Bryson’s work. Bryson is ‘‘completely misleading and alarmist,’’ replied Sawyer only two days later, and, he continued, ‘‘the evidence that a permanent climatic change of significant magnitude is in train is at best exceedingly sketchy.’’42

 J. S. Sawyer to D. C. Thomas, 18 Jun 1976, KEW, CAB 164/1379  Martin-Nielson, 2018 Computing the Climate

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that it wasn’t a straight line, that carbon dioxide build-up was only one of the ways that scientists thought the weather could change. That uncertainty can be hard to recollect in the aftermath of 1985 onwards…

What happened next?

Bryson refused to accept that carbon dioxide was driving observed climatic changes. These things happen – people don’t like to admit they backed the wrong horse.

A report on climatic change finally got presented to Margaret Thatcher in 1980. Apparently her response was incredulity and “you want me to worry about the weather.” And this, from a chemist.

Categories
Ignored Warnings Science Scientists United States of America

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.”

On this day, June 10, 1986, climate scientist Robert Watson told United States Senators the grim news…

“I believe global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing “

The context was that in October 1985 there had been a crucial meeting of scientists in Villach, Austria. It had been sponsored by the World Meteorological Organisation, the United Nations Environment Program and the ICSU. The scientists had realised that predicted warming was likely to come harder and faster than they had been assuming. They started alerting politicians who were willing to listen (some of whom had already been engaged). Crucially, this included Republican senators (the party had completely swigged the Kool Aid yet).

1986 Peterson, C. 1986. A Dire Forecast for ‘Greenhouse’ Earth. Washington Post, 11 June. p1. 

Here’s an account

“More members of Congress became interested in climate change following Senate hearings of June 1986. In these hearings a NASA scientist, Robert Watson, testified that `I believe global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing ‘(SCEPW, 1986b, p. 22). The statement was picked up by major papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post briefly elevating what had been a relatively obscure scientific topic to national prominence. Administration officials testified before the Senate committee the next day. In general, the officials from EPA, Commerce, NASA, State, and Energy tried to downplay the significance of Watson’s comments, which only served to bring them into sharper relief. Following the testimony of the administration officials Senator John Chafee summarized the hearings as follows: `It was the scientists yesterday who sounded the alarm, and it was the politicians, or the government witnesses, who put the damper on it’ (SCEPW, 1986b, pp. 183}184). Chafee’s comments were an accurate characterization of the developing relationship between many in Congress who sought to heed the scientists’ alarm and those in the executive branch who tried to dampen it.”

(Pielke, 2000: 16-7)

See also Washington Post retrospective in 2016  very very explicit issue linkage – Pomerance acting as policy entrepreneur linking issues, at behest of Curtis Moore- see Nathaniel Rich Losing Earth

 

Why this matters

Good to know the scientists were speaking out before the magic years of 1988.

And that the administration was trying to gag them.

Useless, but good.

What happened next?

The issue stopped being so easily containable in the summer of 1988.

But the policy – of a global treaty – that was fought over, obviously. And as Leonard Cohen warned us “everybody knows the war is over, everybody knows the good guys lost.”

And Bob Watson? He was chair of the IPCC, until Exxon got Bush to sack him….

Categories
Germany Ignored Warnings Science Scientists

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

On this day, 6th June 1977, German climate scientist Hermann Flohn gave a talk entitled “Whither the Atmosphere and Earth’s Climates?” At the  “Growth without Ecodisasters?” conference, aka “the Second International Conference on Environmental Future (2nd ICEF), held in Reykjavik, Iceland, 5-11 June 1977.”

Among other gems, this –

“There is no question that the impact of Man on the climatic system has now reached a level near to that of natural climatic fluctuations, and that we are on the fringe of anthropogenic climatic fluctuations on a global or at least a hemispheric scale.” “

And this

“The present situation in the field of climate modelling, and the multitude of (mostly non-linear) feedback mechanisms within the climatic system preclude an early solution to problems concerning the prediction of climatic variations, even if we accept the above-mentioned assumptions without further discussion. In addition to this, the growth-rates of energy consumption,. and of the C02 content of the atmosphere and likewise of other trace-gases, depend on many social and economic developments and on political decisions: they are also largely unpredictable.”

You can get hold of a copy of Flohn’s talk here.

Meanwhile, here’s something he had had published a couple of months prior.

Why this matters. 

“We” knew.

What happened next?

Flohn kept going, informing politicians.  

The emissions kept climbing.