Category: Science

Categories
Academia Science United States of America

January 19, 1968 – Engineers are not ecologists…

Fifty five years ago, on January 19, 1968,  the American publication“Science” reported on the (typical) capture of an advisory group by engineers and technocrats..

Many ecologists doubt the ability of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) to advise the government properly on problems of environmental pollution and disturbance. Moreover some environmental scientists within NAS itself find it deplorable that, in setting up an Environmental Studies Board last year to co-ordinate studies of environmental problems the leaders of NAS and NAE saw fit to include five people with backgrounds in industrial research but no one with a background in environmental biology. In the view of these critics, the environment’s “despoilers” may be better represented on the new board than its “preservers.”

Carter (1968)

Carter managed to get a great quote out of Lamont Cole, president of the Ecological Society of America – “The National Academy doesn’t know enough about ecology to know how ignorant it is.”  This pithy summary is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect before that was named…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 418ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

https://www.esa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2022/02/Cole_LC.pdf

The context was that everyone was beginning to get seriously perturbed by water/air pollution in the US (and some were beginning to grok the global implications). So what do you do? You ask the experts to set up an investigatory/advisory panel. And then they do – made up of people exactly like them….

[According to a new journal Environmental Science and Technology, the aforementioned Environmental Studies Board had been set up in early 1967. Ah, no, wait, further down in the Carter article there is this –

“This board was appointed in January 1967 by Frederick Seitz, president of NAS, and Eric Walker, president of NAE. THE board, establishment of which was recommended in a 1965 report (Restoring the Quality of Our Environment) by PSAC’s Envrionmental Pollution Panel, was assigned the responsibility of over-seeing and coordinating environmental studies carried on within the two academies. With this sweeping mission the board’s role is potentially one of great influence.” ]

Frederick bloody Seitz…

What I think we can learn from this

Any panel or programme – or research and innovation centre – will get captured by one tribe of academics, who will then funnel funding and prestige to their own tribe, at the expense of another tribe.  That’s just how humans play the game. Every-so -often a Leviathan may knock heads together and insist the tribes play nice with each other, in order to get actual inter or multi-disciplinary working, but the silos – cognitive and financial – are always lurking, like the plague in that cheerful little book by the Sisyphus guy…

What happened next

Oh, a couple of token ecologists were probably appointed, if only to shut up Lamont Cole. 

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

Luther J. Carter (1968) National Academy of Sciences: Unrest among the Ecologists. Science, Jan. 19 Vol. 159, No. 3812 , pp. 287- 289

Categories
Science

January 19, 1976 – The carbon consequences of cement get an early discussion.

Forty seven years ago, on this day, January 19,1976, people were talking about the carbon footprint of cement. 

R.M. Rotty, ‘Global Carbon Dioxide Production from Fossil Fuels and Cement, A.D. 1950-A.D. 2000’, presented at Office of Naval Research Conference on the Fate of the Fossil Fuel Carbonates, Honolulu, Hawaii, January 19-23, 1976

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

The context was that US scientists (and to a lesser extent perhaps European ones) were beginning to think about what reducing emissions – or just slowing the increase – might look like at a sectoral level.

Rotty did good work (there’s no wikipedia page for him, which someone should rectify, imo.)

What I think we can learn from this

People have been thinking about cement as a carbon problem for longer than you’d think…

What happened next

Nothing much on the cement front for a very long time…My impression it was still pretty niche even in 2003…

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080442761501574

Lots more experiments and attempts at innovation of late, with the whole “net zero” thing after the 2015 Paris agreement…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Science

 January 13, 2021 – New Scientist reports on types of intelligence required to deal with #climate change    

Two years ago, on this day, January 13, 2021, Robert J Sternberg, an American academic who has been studying intelligence for decades, argues in a New Scientist article that, well

“We’ve got intelligence all wrong – and that’s endangering our future”

IMAGINE a world in which admission to the top universities – to Oxford or Cambridge, or to Harvard or Yale – were limited to people who were very tall. Very soon, tall people would conclude that it is the natural order of things for the taller to succeed and the shorter to fail.

This is the world we live in. Not with taller and smaller people (although taller people often are at an advantage). But there is one measure by which, in many places, we tend to decide who has access to the best opportunities and a seat at the top decision-making tables: what we call intelligence. After all, someone blessed with intelligence has, by definition, what it takes – don’t they?

We have things exactly the wrong way round. The lesson of research by myself and many others over decades is that, through historical accident, we have developed a conception of intelligence that is narrow, questionably scientific, self-serving and ultimately self-defeating.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24933174-700-weve-got-intelligence-all-wrong-and-thats-endangering-our-future/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 415.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 418. .

What I think we can learn from this

Robert Sternberg has produced so much useful work (on love, on creativity/intelligence).

The game is rigged, and those rigging it want to keep the game as it is. Basically, a bunch of extractivist violent arrogant planet-killers think they are God’s gift, because they made God in their image.  And here we are.

What happened next

We keep relying on our “intelligence” to get us out of this.

Meanwhile, are our brains gonna fry? https://undark.org/2022/12/22/why-climate-science-shouldnt-forget-to-factor-in-brain-health/

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Sternberg. R. (2018)  “Why Real-World Problems Go Unresolved and What We Can Do about It: Inferences from a Limited-Resource Model of Successful Intelligence”

https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/6/3/44
Categories
Science United States of America

January 10, 1991 – “Separate studies rank 1990 as world’s warmest year”  #ShiftingBaseline

Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 10, 1991, the New York Times ran a story that has become very very familiar.

The earth was warmer in 1990 than in any other year since people began measuring the planet’s surface temperature, separate groups of climatologists in the United States and Britain said yesterday.

A third group, in the United States, reported record temperatures from one to six miles above the earth’s surface. These were recorded from balloons from December 1989 through November 1990.

Stevens, W. (1991)  Separate Studies Rank ’90 As World’s Warmest Year  New York Times,  Jan. 10.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .

The context was that the US had finally been forced to agree to take part in negotiations for a world climate treaty (what became, in June 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).  The denial and delay campaigns were kicking into gear (the so-called ‘Global Climate Coalition’ doing its predatory delay thing).  Part of the context for the whole climate awakening was how warm the 1980s had been (mild by today’s standards, of course).

What I think we can learn from this

The “warmest year ever” meme does not, on its own, ‘wake up the sheeple’.  If you want to have effective long-term action, you need effective long-term social movement organisations.

Also – shifting baselines are a thing.

By @cameron_jms

See – https://twitter.com/cameron_jms/status/1120259348788338689

And

https://xkcd.com/1321/

And the warming stripes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warming_stripes

What happened next

It kept getting warmer, as you may have noticed.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

December 30, 2007 – Bert Bolin dies.

December 30, 2007 – Bert Bolin dies. He was a Swedish scientist, did more than anyone else (I would argue) from the 1950s to the 1980s to get carbon dioxide build-up on the political agenda (he was most certainly not alone in doing this – proper group effort). Find posts about him on this site here.

Bolin’s death was exquisitely well-timed. He had been the first chair of the IPCC, and that organisation had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize a couple of weeks earlier. The COP meeting of the UNFCCC in Bali had agreed – over US objections – a two year plan of negotiations for a big important/solve the post-Kyoto problem meeting to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Bolin, I hope, died believing that, finally, at last, possibly too late, the rich nations were being successfully corralled into doing something serious on the issue he had been so responsible for.

Bolin’s book – A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –  is fairly dry, but great if you’re a geek like me

Btw, at that time atmospheric CO2 was 384ppm. It’s roughly 418 now

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.

August 3, 1970 – Nixon warned about climate change and icecaps melting

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.