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.
“ 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.
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.”
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…
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.
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.
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).
“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.”
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.
On this day, May 29, 1969, Dave Keeling gave an inaugural lecture. Its title –
“A Chemist Thinks About the Future”
I could quote for hours.
“Nevertheless, no atmospheric scientist doubts that a sufficiently large change in atmospheric carbon dioxide would change the climate: we need only compare our atmosphere with the very hot carbon dioxide-laden atmosphere of Venus to guess the consequences of unrestricted carbon dioxide increase. The question is: how much before it matters? “
The whole thing is worth a read- the citation is
Charles D. Keeling PhD (1970) A Chemist Thinks About the Future, Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal, 20:6, 764-777, DOI: 10.1080/00039896.1970.10665656 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00039896.1970.10665656
From the end (spoilers!) Keeling writes this
“Today we hold widely divergent views concerning possible peril. Have you noticed that practically all master plans do not project beyond the year 2000 AD? Our college students, however, today expect or hope to live beyond that date, and I predict that they will be the first generation to feel such strong concern for man’s future that they will discover means of effective action. This action may be less pleasant and rational than the corrective measures that we promote today, but 30 years from now, if present trends are a sign, mankind’s world will be in greater immediate danger than it is today. Immediate corrective measures, if such exist, will be closer at hand. If the human race survives into the 21st century with the vast population increase that now seems inevitable, the people living then, in addition to their other troubles, may face the threat of climatic change brought about by an uncontrolled increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuels.”
(Keeling, 1970: 776-7)
Btw, have you noticed that practically all of today’s master plans do not project beyond the year 2050 AD?
This graphic is darkly amusing –
We’re now at 420ppm, not 320. So it goes.
Why this matters.
It doesn’t, particularly, any more than any blog post on this site does. But it keeps me off the streets, so there’s that.
What happened next?
Keeling kept on counting.
The thing he kept counting kept climbing.
And here we are.
[but of course, beware the fetishization of carbon dioxide!]
On this day, 28 May 1956, Time magazine ran an article with the following text:
“Since the start of the industrial revolution, mankind has been burning fossil fuel (coal, oil, etc.) and adding its carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. In 50 years or so this process, says Director Roger Revelle of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, may have a violent effect on the earth’s climate… “Dr. Revelle has not reached the stage of warning against this catastrophe, but he and other geophysicists intend to keep watching and recording. During the International Geophysical Year (1957-58), teams of scientists will take inventory of the earth’s CO2 and observe how it shifts between air and sea. They will try to find out whether the CO2 blanket has been growing thicker, and what the effect has been. When all their data have been studied, they may be able to predict whether man’s factory chimneys and auto exhausts will eventually cause salt water to flow in the streets of New York and London.” –
“One Big Greenhouse,” Time magazine, May 28, 1956.
Why this matters
It’s nice context for the “puzzle” Roger Revelle asked Charles Keeling to look at.
What happened next?
Revelle hired Keeling (check out Joshua Wienberg’s “The next 100 years” for more about this.
