Categories
Science United States of America

December 18, 1970 – Science article about “Man-Made Climatic Changes”

On this day, December 18 in 1970, an article was published in Science, about “Manmade climatic changes,” written by Helmut  Landsberg.

Landsberg (who would be dismissive of Stephen Schneider later in the decade) ran through a number of possible ways in which humans might inadvertently alter the climate – carbon dioxide was only one route, and as he noted, perhaps a little disingenuously, given that he knew CO2 levels were rising,

“our estimates of CO2 production by natural causes, such as volcanic exhalations and organic decay, are very inaccurate; hence the ratio of these natural effects to anthropogenic effects remains to be established.”

Landsberg (1970)

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 326ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now, well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The first big wave of eco-concern about global issues (beyond smog and DDT, onto extinction, overpopulation, and, yes, climate change) was in full swing. Earlier in the year the first report of the President’s council on environment quality had even mentioned the possibility of carbon dioxide build up being a Very Serious Thing.

Why this matters. 

It perhaps gives you pause for thought?  We’ve been failing to act on climate for half a century.

What happened next?

Stockholm conference on the Environment in 1972. Didn’t give us much, but UNEP, and UNEP and the WMO shepherded the climate agenda forwards…  That took another sixteen long years…

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

December 11, 1895 – Arrhenius reads his “Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air” paper to Swedish Academy of Science…

On this day, December 11 in 1895,  Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius read his would-eventually-be-’famous’ paper On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground  at the Swedish Academy of Science. 

It was published the following year

You can read it here – https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

For discussion, see

Hamblyn, R. 2009. The whistleblower and the canary: rhetorical constructions of climate change. Journal of Historical Geography, Vol. 35, pp.223-236

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 295ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters

This has become the touchstone for “how long we’ve known” pieces.

What happened next

Arrhenius’ assumptions (and those whose work he drew on) were challenged by Angstrom et al.  The idea that a build up of carbon dioxide could cause warming was thrown in the dustbin, and – despite Guy Callendar – only really got pulled out in the 1950s…

Categories
Canada Science Scientists

December 10, 1978 – Academic workshop on “Climate/Society Interface” begins in Toronto…

On this day, December 10, 1978  a five day Workshop co-hosted by the CSU and SCOPE 

“Workshop on Climate/Society Interface” began in Toronto..

This was (presumably?!) a kind of sequel/follow up to the February 1978 IIASA workshop “Carbon Dioxide, Climate and Society” which had been cosponsored by WMO, UNEP, and SCOPE, February 21 – 24, 1978.

Papers included

Margolis, H. (December 1978) Estimating social impacts of climate change–What might be done versus what is likely to be done.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 335ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Categories
Science United States of America

December 3, 1972 – #climate scientists write “gizza grant” letter to President Nixon

On this day, December 3 in 1972, some climate scientists wrote a “give us money to study climate” letter to President Nixon.

“After the conference the conference organizers, (the late G. J. Kukla and R. K. Mathews) wrote to President  Nixon (December 3, 1972) calling for federal action on possible climate change. At that time, with no consensus on climate change, their letter was an important impetus to expanding research. The letter noted that the “main  conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.” On the question of “artificial heating” of the atmosphere, as opposed to orbital changes for ice ages, the letter concluded  that “knowledge necessary for understanding the mechanism of climate change is lamentably inadequate and the ultimate causes remain unknown” (Kukla and Mitchell, 1972) [4]  

Hecht, A. 2014, Past, Present and Future: Urgency of Dealing with Climate Change. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences
Vol.04 No.05

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 327ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Everyone knew there’d be new money for this sort of science, and wanted a piece of the action. Not to be cynical or anything.

Why this matters. 

Kulka and Mitchell were wrong.  We need to remember that there isn’t this “straight narrow line” from ignorance to knowledge. The real world is messy af.

What happened next?

Iirc, they got some dosh, but within a couple of years it became obvious they were wrong

Categories
Denial IPCC Science

November 21, 1994 – Skeptic invited to engage with IPCC (Spoiler, he doesn’t)

On this day, November 21, an invitation to climate “skeptic” Pat Michaels to take part in the IPCC’s second assessment report was sent by a lead author, Tom Wigley.

“Patrick Michaels was invited to contribute to Chapter 8. He declined to do so. One of the lead authors of Chapter 8, Tom Wigley, wrote to Pat Michaels on November 21, 1994, and on February 21, 1995, soliciting comments on the portrayal of Michaels’s Franklin Institute paper in a December 8, 1994 version of Chapter 8. Prof. Michaels did not respond to these requests.”

Gelbspan, R. (1998)   Page 235 [Compare to Saudis not attending ad hoc group that Houghton organised at end of 1995 in Madrid!!  Easiest way is to not turn up, then continue sniping!!]

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 359ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The first IPCC assessment report, in 1990, had come under attack by the usual suspects of oil industry lobbyists and various goons (see here).  The climate denial machine geared up, knowing that they would need to get ahead of the game for the second assessment report, to weaken and discredit in advance.

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that the scientists did provide the information. The politicians chose to ignore it. The social movements were not good enough – they were outgunned and outspent. The propaganda blitzes, and the institutional biases away from truth and sanity were too strong.

What happened next?

Michaels declined Wigley’s offer.

The second assessment report came out, and sure enough, the denialist machine launched as ferocious attack on it as it could manage.

Categories
International processes Science Scientists

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

On this day in 1980 an international gathering of scientists took place in Villlach, Austria.

“The first major initiative to result from the establishment of the WCP was an international conference on climate change, held in Villach, Austria, from 17 to 22 November 1980. Under the chairmanship of Professor Bert Bolin of the University of Stockholm, the delegates issued a warning that the accumulation of greenhouse gases posed a great risk to the earth’s natural equilibria; they declared that the issue consequently had to be addressed with some urgency. Although their pronouncement drew some attention, its political impact was negligible.”

(Rowlands,1995: 71-2)  

 https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=3173

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 338.7ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters

This is part of the long slow growth of awareness and concern

What happened next.
One of the attendees was Australian scientist Graeme Pearman. Later that year, in September 1980, the Australian Academy of Science held a symposium about carbon dioxide build-up in Canberra.

In 1985 another Villach meeting set the international ball properly rolling, thanks to US Senators paying close attention…

And the emissions? Oh, they kept climbing.  Of course they did. I mean, we didn’t stop burning the fossil fuels, did we?

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

November 15, 1958 – Academic Paper on “Changes in Carbon Dioxide Content of Atmosphere and Sea Due to Fossil Fuel Combustion” submitted

On this day, November 15, in 1958 one of the first papers about, well, our current problem, was submitted for publication.

1958 Bolin and Eriksson’s classic paper         “Changes in the Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere and Sea Due to Fossil Fuel Combustion” submitted.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 315ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Through the 1950s, American and Swedish scientists (and others) were looking at carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and saying to themselves “now that’s interesting.”

Why this matters. 

We knew

What happened next?

Bolin? It became Bolin’s life work.  He shepherded the climate science agenda forward with skill and patience for decades. He was a key player all through the 1970s and 1980s. First chair of the IPCC.  Thank goodness for him he died when he did, before the farce of Copenhagen and so on.

Categories
Science United Kingdom

November 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

On this day, November 14 in 1977,  John Mason the boss of the UK Meteorological Office, was forced to concede ground in his fight against climate science.

“Mason’s calling into existence of an ad hoc group of departmental chief scientists began as an attempt to keep a measure of control, from a sceptical Met Office point of view, on a topic that other bodies, national and international, were expanding active programmes of research. It was not an attempt to solve an issue rated by the Met Office as a priority or significant problem. It was nonetheless to turn into the channel for raising the issue of anthropogenic climate change at the highest levels of government. The first gathering of chief scientists and other government experts took place on 14 November 1977 at Bracknell.”

AGAR 2015

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 333ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Through the 1970s, scientists became more aware of – and alarmed about the possible long-term consequences of – carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  But there was institutional resistance from those who dismissed it as just another lefty/hippy scare.

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that any new knowledge is seen through eyes used to old ways of seeing. And often those older eyes are right – not every “New Thing” matters.  But we have this inertia at the personal, organisational and societal level.  It will be the death of us.

What happened next?

In 1980 the Prime Minister was briefed, and dismissed it with the phrase “You want me to worry about the weather.”  That PM? Margaret Thatcher…

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

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

On this day, November 1 in 1975, climate scientist Stephen Schneider tried to keep folks eyes on the prize, given how many various books and hypotheses were already being thrown around

On the Carbon Dioxide–Climate Confusion  Stephen H. Schneider J. Atmos. Sci. (1975) 32 (11): 2060–2066.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 331ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

By the mid 1970s, a cottage industry had grown up around “weird weather.”

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that there were claims and counter-claims, some outlandish

What happened next?

By the late 70s it was pretty damn clear that it was a carbon dioxide problem…

Categories
Science Scientists

October 26, 1975 – “The Endangered Atmosphere” conference begins…

On this day, October 26, 1975 the “Endangered Atmosphere” conference begins in…

It was co-organised by Stephen Schneider and Margaret Mead. 

To quote from the preface of “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering” book that followed – 

“When Dr. Margaret Mead was a Visiting Scholar at the Fogarty  International Center, one of her interests focused on the interactions  between the world society and its planetary environment. She saw a  conflict developing, and yet there was surprisingly little public awareness  of the growing problems and few efforts to develop long-term national  and international solutions to these problems. She therefore persuaded the Fogarty International Center to sponsor a conference on the  atmospheric environment which would explore the ways to maintain it  as a healthy place in which to live. 

An organizing committee planned the Conference, and its members are listed in these Proceedings. We were fortunate in being able to enlist the help of Dr. William W. Kellogg, of the National Center for  Atmospheric Research, to work with Dr. Mead as co-organizer and co-editor of the Proceedings; he is known internationally for his work on  climate change and mankind’s influence on climate. Four able and  dedicated rapporteurs were also enlisted, and this report owes its existence largely to their efforts. They are Mr. Anthony Broderick, Doctors Richard S. Greeley and J. Dana Thompson, and Ms. Barbara West

1975  26-29 “Endangered Atmosphere” conference

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 328.36ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – more and more climate scientists, agronomists, anthropologists etc were getting interested in what would happen if (when) temperatures started to go up.

Mead had known about carbon dioxide build-up as early as 1964 (and probably earlier) – she had been on the atmosphere group of the President’s Science Advisory Committee with Roger Revelle.

Why this matters. 

Good people have been thinking about this for almost fifty years. And here we are…

What happened next?

In 2007 the denialists got hold of it. A terrible article – held up as an exemplar of good practice by the denialists, of course – was published. It’s all Rockefeller’s fault…