Category: Science

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

 March 28, 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.

Categories
Denial Science Scientists United States of America

March 6,1996 – Michael McCracken testimony about “skeptic” scientists

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 6th, 1996,

“On March 6, 1996, Michael MacCracken submitted prepared testimony to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives. One part of that testimony addressed recurring criticism by the skeptic scientists of IPCC findings that corroborate increased atmospheric warming and attribute that increase to human emissions of greenhouse gases”.

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 198

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  with the coming of the climate issue in 1988, the denial campaigns had cranked into gear. Initially it was attacks on James Hansen, but by 1989 it had spread thanks to outfits like the George C Marshall Institute, which had been set up to shill for Star Wars, the Space Defence Initiative, and outfits like Western Coal Association and the “Information Clearinghouse on the Environment.” Things had really cranked into higher gear in 1994-95 because the  IPCC second assessment report was being produced, and the denialists needed to attack it and cast doubt on it as much as they could.

The specific context was that the Second Assessment report had come out in November of ‘95 and had included the fateful phrase that humans were already exerting a “discernible” influence on the climate. I think the wording had been suggested by Bert Bolin. 

Anyway, here’s one of the good guys, Mike McCracken trying to educate congresspeople about scepticism, science, climate, etc. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the denialist campaigns are partly about rich white men wanting to stay rich. They also provide a platform for superannuated scientists like Nirenberg and Seitz and Singer to feel that they are somehow still relevant when frankly they’re not – or certainly not relevant scientifically, but somehow manage to have an enormously pernicious influence for the future of our species. 

Though, to be fair, even without the denialist campaigns, we would have probably still fumbled the ball. We’ll never know. 

What happened next. The denialist campaigns kept going. Within a year or two, they’d found what they thought was “soft target” in their ongoing “Serengeti Strategy” – Michael Mann, and the caravan went on.

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 6, 1992 – #survival emissions versus outright denial 

March 6, 2002 – ABARE cheerleads Bush. Blecch

March 6, 2009 – first “Low Carbon Industrial Strategy” announced 

March 6, 2009 – the UK gets its first “low carbon industrial strategy”

Categories
Italy Science Scientists World Meteorological Organisation

March 1, 1983 – WMO ICSU meeting of WCRP in Venice 

Forty three ago, on this day, March 1st, 1983, the scientists had been sciencing.

March 1 to 8 1983 WMO ICSU meeting of WCRP in venice 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had begun to really think hard about carbon dioxide build up as a problem in the late 60s. There had been a two or three week scientific meeting in the middle of 1971 about man’s impact on climate. By the mid 1970s, the World Meteorological Organisation was saying carbon dioxide was probably the problem. And in 1979 it had held the First World Climate Conference, which could – and should – have said, “carbon dioxide is the problem.” But for opposition from people like John Mason. 

The specific context was that by 1983 people were beginning to twig to this. There had been the Charney report and so forth, and various international efforts, a meeting with the ICSU as well. In a place like Venice! It would have been fun to be a fly on the wall. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the scientists were beavering away, as scientists do, and by the mid 1980s really, the verdict was in.

What happened next. The big, seminal moment, pivotal moment, according to people who know about these things, was Villach. Maybe Villach wasn’t quite so important scientifically, but it certainly was politically, and you can read about it here. LINK

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 1, 1954 – Lucky Dragon incident gives the world the word “fall out”

March 1, 1967 – Carbon dioxide as important waste problem

March 1, 1970 – so many tribes, so few common interests – All Our Yesterdays

March 1st 2010 – scientist grilled over nothing burger…

Categories
Science Scientists

February 27, 1953 – Gilbert Plass test-drives his presentation…

Seventy three years ago, on this day, February 27, 1953, Canadian scientist Gilbert Plass gives a presentation at Simon Newcomb Astronomical Society – 

Henry, F. 1953. Question of Eras, Tropical or Glacial. Baltimore Sun, March 1, p71

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 312ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that in the late 19th century, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius had suggested that carbon dioxide buildup would eventually warm the planet. He didn’t think this was a bad thing, and he thought it would take 1000s of years or hundreds at least.

Arrhenius’ predictions had been challenged.

In 1938 a British steam engineer called Guy Callendar, had moved the dial a little bit, perhaps, and had said that the warming was indeed already happening. This was mostly ignored in the UK, but some Americans were getting interested.

The specific context was that so were Canadians. Gilbert Plass was originally Canadian, and he had been working on this, and was going to be speaking at the American Geophysical Union meeting in May.

And here he is, about two months beforehand, testing out his presentation on a smaller audience, a less scientifically robust one 

What I think we can learn from this is that Plass didn’t just turn up on the fourth of May cold. He had tested out his argument and his presentation beforehand, which I think is kind of interesting, but I would because I’m the guy who has discovered this, and as anyone knows, who rustles around a lot in archives, just because you found something, doesn’t mean it’s important or significant. There is not a one to one relationship between the amount of effort you’ve expended and the importance of what you found.

What happened next: Plass gave his speech at the AGU which went around the world. Plass released more scientific studies and also something in American Scientist and Scientific American in 1959. Pllass was there in 1963 at the Conservation Foundation’s meeting in New York, and that was about it for Plass. He went on to other things; he’d said what he had to say.  The emissions kept climbing. Concentrations kept climbing. You know, the rest…

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: 

February 27, 1988 – Canberra “Global Change” conference ends

February 27, 1989 – Barron’s “Climate of Fear” shame…

February 27, 1992 – climate denialists continue their effective and, ah, well EVIL, work

Feb 27, 2003 – the “FutureGen” farce begins…

Categories
Science Scientists

February 20, 1979 “An Assessment of the Possible Future Climatic Impact of Carbon Dioxide Increases”

Forty seven years ago, on this day, February 20, 1979 the following was published – 

“An Assessment of the Possible Future Climatic Impact of Carbon Dioxide Increases Based on a Coupled One-Dimensional Atmospheric-Oceanic Model” Hunt and Wells

https://doi.org/10.1029/JC084iC02p00787

A radiative-convective equilibrium model of the atmosphere has been coupled with a mixed layer model of the ocean to investigate the response of this one-dimensional system to increasing carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere. For global mean conditions a surface temperature rise of about 2°K was obtained for a doubling of the carbon dioxide amount, in reasonable agreement with the commonly accepted results of Manabe and Wetherald. This temperature rise was essentially invariant with season and indicates that including a shallow (300 m) ocean slab in this problem does not basically alter previous assessments. While the mixed layer depth of the ocean was only very slightly changed by the temperature increase, which extended throughout the depth of the mixed layer, the impact of this increase on the overall behavior of the ocean warrants further study. A calculation was also made of the temporal variation of the sea surface temperature for three possible carbon dioxide growth rates starting from an initial carbon dioxide content of 300 ppm. This indicated that the thermal inertia of the slab ocean provides a time lag of 8 years in the sea surface temperature response compared to a land situation. This is not considered to be of great significance as regards the likely future climatic impact of carbon dioxide increase.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the idea that carbon dioxide build-up could warm the planet goes back to Arrhenius in 1895. The idea got nudged forward by Guy Callendar in 1938 onwards, and then pushed to the next level by Gilbert Plass in 1953.

The specific context was that by the late 1970s, it was broadly agreed among the relevant scientific community that there was serious trouble ahead, and this is laid out in painstaking and painful detail in William Barbat’s CO2 Newsletter, which I am releasing through the course of 2026.

What I think we can learn from this is that information on its own, the truth on its own, will not set you free.

What happened next: More studies, more emissions, more concentrations, spasms of protest, but no action worthy of the name to actually bend the emissions curve down, and certainly reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 via various so called draw down projects is a complete fucking fantasy.

And I didn’t have kids because the second half of the 21st Century is going to make the first half of the 20th look like a golden age of peace, love and understanding. But I’m standing here narrating this, looking at sparrows and finches and things and I guess it’s my job just to enjoy it for as long as I can. I suppose.

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: 

February 20, 1966 – US Senators told about carbon build-up by physicist

February 20, 1970 – South Australian premier sets up an Environment Committee

February 20, 2017 “Clean Coal” money being spent on PR

Categories
Activism Coal Science United Kingdom

February 15, 2009 – James Hansen writes “Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them”

Seventeen years ago, on this day, February 15, 2009, American climate scientist James Hansen is telling it like it is.

A year ago, I wrote to Gordon Brown asking him to place a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in Britain. I have asked the same of Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and other leaders. The reason is this – coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet.

The climate is nearing tipping points. Changes are beginning to appear and there is a potential for explosive changes, effects that would be irreversible, if we do not rapidly slow fossil-fuel emissions over the next few decades. As Arctic sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more sunlight and speeds melting. As the tundra melts, methane, a strong greenhouse gas, is released, causing more warming. As species are exterminated by shifting climate zones, ecosystems can collapse, destroying more species.

Hansen, J. 2009. Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them. Guardian, 15 February.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that we have known since the fifties that putting enormous quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere was going to have consequences. We didn’t know how big, how soon, but by the late 1970s, that was becoming clear…

The specific context was that the UK government was busy bullshitting about allowing the building of new “carbon-capture-ready” coal-fired power stations. For fuck’s sake.

What I think we can learn from this is that scientists can tell the truth all they like. The truth, on its own, will not – in fact – set you free, no matter what St John wants you to believe.

What happened next: Hansen kept writing and sciencing. The politicians kept ignoring him and thousands of other scientists. So did, for the most part, the publics of the Western democracies.

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: 

February 15, 1995 – Australian Financial Review editorial, gloating in the aftermath of the defeat of a small carbon tax proposal, groks Jevons Paradox

February 15, 2011 – Lenore Taylor’s truth bombs

February 15, 2013 – the carbon bubble, will it burst?