Category: Science

Categories
Science

July 4, 1996 – article in Nature saying ‘it’s partly us’

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, July 4, 1996, in an issue of Nature, 

“Benjamin Santer, K.E. Taylor, Tom M. Wigley, and ten other researchers published an article that concluded: “The observed spatial patterns of temperature change in the free atmosphere from 1963 to 1987…are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models… It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities,…”

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 220

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC second assessment report was coming out. And the authors of this article, especially Santer, had been attacked on spurious grounds repeatedly, publicly and viciously by demented [see addendum at foot of post] old men who were being funded by cynical fossil fuel interests. These assholes were at base, very well aware of the climate science, which was not really in dispute. 

What we learn again, there are no depths to which these mongrels, these monsters, will not stoop.

What happened next

Santer’s career continued. The science kept getting stronger. The Global Climate Coalition was able to fold in 2002 to having achieved its aims of stopping the US taking any serious climate action. 

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.

Addendum

A commenter has raised an eyebrow over the adjective demented, and they are 100% correct. It was simply wrong to throw a medical term around as an insult. It also medicalises and explains away a political decision. I will try to do better in future. If you, reader(s?) see other examples of dodgy thinking/language, feel free to drop me a line.

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

June 23, 1988 – it’s time to stop waffling and say the greenhouse effect is here

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen gave his pivotal testimony to senators.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that since the 1985 Villach meeting advocates of climate action had been pressing every button and pulling every lever that they knew. Hansen had testified before and this testimony timed to sensitise journalists before the Toronto “Changing the Global Atmosphere” conference was held on a very hot day in Washington DC with the windows closed and the air conditioning turned off.

What I think we can learn from this

You have to say the same thing over and over and over again to get anywhere. You have to be lucky with your timing. And crucially James Hanson was a small c-conservative person at that point, so coming from him it was a big deal to say that the greenhouse effect was here. Those words would not have had the same effect from some other people…

What happened next

 The issue exploded. Presidential candidates were forced to address it. Hansen got smeared and ignored and uninvited to important meetings. This continued until he retired. He’s been getting arrested a lot.

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.

Categories
Ignored Warnings Science

May 8, 2013 – we pass 400 parts per million.  Trouble ahead.

Ten years ago, on this day, May 8, 2013, we went over 400ppm…

We are a society that has inadvertently chosen the double-black diamond run without having learned to ski first. It will be a bumpy ride. (Gavin Schmidt)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was, well, exactly, 400ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had been theorised since the 19th century. However accurate measures of atmospheric carbon dioxide were hard to come by. The problem was finally solved with money from the US Navy that allowed Charles David Keeling to set up an observatory at the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii far away from industrial sources of carbon (factories and so on). Measurements have been taken there and elsewhere for decades. When measures started, in 1958, atmospheric concentrations were 315 parts per million. This went up at basically one part per million per year and then started to increase.

What I think we can learn from this

One big danger of this site is fetishizing giving more power and life and meaning than is warranted to atmospheric concentrations. I don’t know quite how to get around this and I am sure I have not succeeded that far. We cannot ignore that the rapid buildup of carbon dioxide is not a “natural” process. It is tied to a series of decisions humans collectively make about what kind of societies they want, that how many people doing what what and and allowing and facilitating what kind of actions vs other actions.

What happened next

Since then the atmospheric concentrations have predictably continued to climb and are now at roughly 420 million. Btw, that’s just of carbon dioxide; if you add the massive increase in in methane which is measured in parts per billion we have a real problem.

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.

Categories
Science Scientists

May 5, 1953 – Gilbert Plass launches the carbon dioxide theory globally

Seventy years ago, on this day, May 5, 1953, the modern “carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas” era began.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Plass had become interested in the question of carbon dioxide buildup while being paid by Ford Motor Company. He had corresponded with British steam engineer and scientist Guy Callendar. Plass only looked at how carbon dioxide actually functions in the real world, and whether the bands become saturated or not (they don’t).

What I think we can learn from this

This is the pivotal moment, when someone takes the carbon dioxide theory and starts hammering it out…

This  classic warning went around the world. It was eye-catching, and it was syndicated, certainly in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. And it probably helped. George Wendt in his writing in the UNESCO magazine Courier, which also got syndicated. So you can see these couple of people speaking up about it.  

Plass’s warning also popped up in Time, Newsweek, and elsewhere, this was really consequential. 

What happened next

Plass kept writing and thinking about climate build up carbon buildup. In 1956, he had an academic article published in Tellus, the Swedish scientific journal.- “the  carbon dioxide theory of climate change”, and also a popular article in the American Scientist.  

He was there in 1961 at the New York Academy of Sciences/American Meteorological Society meeting and at the 1963 Conservation Foundation meeting. But that was his last gasp on the topic… 

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.

Categories
Australia Science

May 1, 1980 – ABC talks about atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement

Forty-three years ago, on this day, May 1, 1980, the ABC  Nationwide TV programme covered climate change

Item details for: C475, 1942227  “Baseline’ station set up on Cape Grim in north-west Tasmania to monitor levels of carbon dioxide in atmosphere. Wooley refers to the ‘glasshouse effect’, prior to the now established term ‘greenhouse effect’. Permaculture, founded by Bill Mollison, could be counter to greenhouse effect.”

Source National Archives

The atmospheric ppm was 341.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American scientists were making really accurate measures of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and had been for a long time. By 1980, there was more and more international awareness of the climate issue. And so for example, two weeks before the Nationwide programme, the Age newspaper, had run a story about “World ecology is endangered.” [Link to AOY]  So it may simply be that when the CSIRO sent out a press release about Cape Grim that the Nationwide producer said, “Hell yeah, there’s a hook for this.” Who knows? Lost in the mysteries, the histories of time.

What I think we can learn from this

Anyone wanting to pay attention knew what might be/was on the horizon. It’s also the case that it is much harder for researchers to figure out what was shown on television than was written in newspapers and magazines, which leave a more searchable digital trace.

What happened next

By August of that year, the Australian Academy of Science held a conference in Canberra about climate change. In 1981, the Office of National Assessments wrote a secret report about the carbon dioxide problem. But Australia continued to be largely asleep. Despite many, many attempts to wake her up. 

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

Categories
Academia Science Scientists United States of America

April 25, 1969 –  Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?”

Fifty four years ago, on this day, April 25, 1969, Dave Keeling gave a speech at the “Symposium on Atmospheric Pollution: Its long-term implications” just over 10 years after he started measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa.

He was asked to change the title to “Is carbon dioxide from fossil fuel changing man’s environment? from  If carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is changing man’s environment, what will we do about it?”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by now Charles Keeling had been collecting atmospheric co2 data at Mauna Loa for 10 years and there was a distinct upward trend. So his first title was proposed as this and then for whatever reason, he had to tone it down. Which is interesting. 

What I think we can learn from this

There are pressures within communities be they scientific activist, academic, political, designed to minimise disruption. One to hammer down any tall nails. And you can argue that human society is not possible, really without those mechanisms. You  could also argue that by hammering down nails by cutting down the “tall timber” in the words of the Skyhooks, you’re less likely to get important shit done in the time that you need to. 

See also that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, “Half a Life,”  with David Ogden Stiers Willis, where he’s a 60 year old guy who’s going to have to be Logan’s Run, even though he possibly has the way out for his endangered society.

What happened next

Keeling kept taking his measures. He gave an even more interesting speech in May 1969. Keeling was proved right. And we are toast 

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.

Categories
Denial IPCC Science Scientists United States of America

April 23, 1998 – Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick paper published.

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, April 1, 1998, American climate scientist Michael Mann’s paper about temperatures during the last thousand years was released.

http://www.desmog.uk/2015/04/04/how-creation-mann-s-hockey-stick-led-counter-attack-climate-deniers

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, released in 1995/6 said that there had already been a discernible impact of human activity on the climate. This enraged the denialists, who were looking for new scientists and science to attack.  Michael Mann’s work, which was clearly going to end up in the Third Assessment Report (published in 2001) was one such target. 

What I think we can learn from this

Denialists are always looking for targets, and what they perceive to be easy ones – what Mann has since dubbed ‘The Serengeti Strategy’.

What happened next

It properly kicked off, with endless attacks on Mann, lawsuits back and forth. You can read the Wikipedia page here.  The science was robust.

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

Mann, Michael E.; Bradley, Raymond S.; Hughes, Malcolm K. (1999), “Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations” (PDF), Geophysical Research Letters, 26 (6): 759–762, Bibcode:1999GeoRL..26..759M, doi:10.1029/1999GL900070

see also

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2167127-why-the-hockey-stick-graph-will-always-be-climate-sciences-icon/

Categories
Science Sea level rise United States of America

March 30, 1983-  EPA sea level rise conference

On this day, 40 years ago, a conference on sea level rise took place in Washington, D.C

“In March 1983, many of this book’s findings were presented to a conference of over 150 scientists, engineers, and federal, state, and local policy makers. Although those attending agreed that sea level rise, if substantiated, would justify the attention of policy makers at all levels, some doubted whether anything less than a catastrophe could motivate people to undertake the necessary actions.”

Titus and Barth, 1983

http://papers.risingsea.net/downloads/Challenge_for_this_generation_Barth_and_Titus_chapter1.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343.ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context

Scientists, by the late 1970s, were pretty sure what was coming. Questions about how much, how soon, but pretty sure.

What we can learn from this

That we are smart enough to create the machines that cause – as a by-product of their functioning- these problems. We are smart enough to detect them. We are not smart enough to do anything about our smartness.

What happened next

The seas rose

References: 

http://papers.risingsea.net/downloads/Challenge_for_this_generation_Barth_and_Titus_chapter1.pdf

Categories
Academia Science Scientists United States of America

March 12, 1963 – first ever carbon dioxide build-up conference

Sixty years ago, on this day, March 12, 1963, in New York

 “Dr. Keeling was concerned enough about rising carbon dioxide levels to participate in a panel by the Conservation Foundation on March 12, 1963 “Implications of Rising Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere”, the report issued being among the first to speculate that anthropogenic global warming could be dangerous to the Earth’s biological and environmental systems. It includes on page 6: “many life forms would be annihilated” [in the tropics] if emissions continued unchecked in the upcoming centuries. They also projected that carbon dioxide emissions could raise the average surface temperature of the earth by as much as 4°C during the next century (1963-2063)”

Source

Probably the first gathering of scientists and policymakers devoted specifically and explicitly to carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Conservation Foundation had been set up in New York in 1948

The International Geophysical Year was now 5 years in the past, a lot of data had been collected. In January of 1961, there had been a five day scientific conference organised by the American Meteorological Society and the New York Academy of Sciences with plenty of people talking about carbon dioxide buildup, and alongside that there had been other scientific efforts. So the Conservation Foundation, which had been aware of CO2 buildup as a potential problem for a while, held a gathering, the first ever carbon dioxide build up conference

What I think we can learn from this

Well, these sorts of events are fascinating for the legacy they leave. And for several years –  really till the end of the 1960s – the publication about this meeting was cited whenever in writing about carbon dioxide buildup for years, and it only really fell away entirely after the 1971 study on the man’s impact on climate. 

It also seems to have been the “last gasp” in climate science for Gilbert Plass whose statements and work from 1953 had been so important for the growth of acceptance of the carbon dioxide theory.

And in all probability, it was where Lewis Herbert aka Murray Bookchin got his facts for the section in his book written in 1964 and published in early 1965, called Crisis in our Cities, which will be discussed soon.

And the reason I say this is that the event was in New York, Bookchin was in New York and it’s impossible to imagine that he wasn’t aware of the Conservation Foundation’s activities. Bookchin’s politics were not of the technocrats. But just because he didn’t agree with the funders does not mean he’d have ignored what was happening under their auspices.

What happened next

Plass dropped out. 

Roger Revelle and Charles Keeling kept doing what they were doing. 

And the closing statement – well, it came to pass…

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

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

Thirty five  years ago, on this day, March 7 (or thereabouts) 1988 at a conference on Gaia running from 7 to 11 March…

Richard Gammon of the US government’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory at Seattle in Washington state, seems to have been the first off the starting blocks. After seeing the complete data for 1987 and the first results for 1988, he told a conference in March 1988: “Since the mid-1970s we have been in a period of very, very rapid warming. We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate.”

(Pearce, 1989:3)

[“The Gaia Controversy: AGU’S Chapman Conference” in San Diego was from March 7 to 11.]

Rarely has a hypothesis immediately sparked such a passionate response. There is something in it for everybody, from hard core scientists to philosophers, ultraconservationists, students of world religions, mystics, politicians, and space enthusiasts; they were all there in San Diego, March 7–11, 1988, for the AGU Chapman Conference on Gaia Hypotheses. For 4 days an impressive list of specialists presented and debated the pros and cons of Gaia Hypotheses from diverse perspectives: modern and ancient biology, ecology, biochemistry, the physicochemical systems of the Earth, oceans, and atmosphere, and the evolution of the solar system.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 352.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that “earth systems” scientists were very interested in the Lovelock and Margulis Gaia theory, enough to have a conference about it. And from the October 1985 Villach meeting onwards, the scientists and politicians were all getting more interested in just how soon the signal would emerge from the noise on climate change…

What I think we can learn from this

James Hansen was not an outlier in his June 1988 testimony.  Sure, there wasn’t necessarily a majority, but what Hansen said was not all that unusual or surprising (see Schneider’s Greenhouse Century for accounts of how journalists kept looking for quotes from him to try to set up a “Hansen/Schneider split” story.)

What happened next

Within months climate change would become unavoidable for politicians. No more long grass…

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

Kaufman E., 1988. The Gaia Controversy: AGU’S Chapman Conference  Eos, Transactions American Geophysical UnionVolume 69, Issue 31 p. 763-764 https://doi.org/10.1029/88EO01043

Pearce, F. (1988) New Scientist

Pearce, F. (1989) Turning up the heat