On this day, May 1953, Time Magazine reported on Gilbert Plass’ presentation at the American Geophysical Union
.Careful readers of this site will know that a Western Australian newspaper had already covered this –
Why this matters
The idea of a greenhouse world was well understood by the mid-1950s (albeit a smaller concern than – say – thermonuclear war)
See May 28th for another (early) timely Time piece.
On this day, May 24 2007 James Hansen’s paper “Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise” was published.
Hansen made the basic point that – ah, hell, here’s the abstract –
I suggest that a ‘scientific reticence’ is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.
Why this matters.
Despite what the lunatic climate deniers will tell you, scientists are generally very very cautious, unwilling to extrapolate beyond their datasets. They are human, make mistakes, come to false conclusions, sure. But on the whole “science” is pretty damned hot. And it if there is a bias, it is towards reticence – that’s before we even talk about the chilling effect of smear campaigns etc etc.
What happened next?
Hansen has kept on trucking. A mensch [on second thought, does someone have a better word that isn’t so gendered?]
On this day, 85 years ago, a paper with the catchy title “THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON TEMPERATURE” landed on the desk of the editor of the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Journal. It was by one Guy Callendar, who was not even a “proper” scientist, “merely” a careful and diligent collector of data…
Historian James Fleming has written about Callendar – see here.
What happened next?
The paper was accepted. Callendar presented his findings, to general indifference (people who, 40 years later were serious players in the emerging climate consensus were present in the room, e.g. Kenneth Hare).
Callendar’s work caught the attention of scientists such as Hermann Flohn and Gilbert Plass, and was well known to the Roger Revelles and Hans Seuss’s of the world.
Why this matters
At this point, I should make clear what I am NOT saying.
I do not think anyone in 1938, hearing Callendar, should have dropped everything and raised immediate alarm. In 1938 the species – or at least the British Establishment – had other things on its mind.
I don’t even particularly “blame” people much later. I think it is really only in the late 1970s that the precautionary principle properly kicks in, and that the evidence and scientific consensus is strong enough to warrant serious action. This action did not come. Thanks Ronald. Thanks Margaret. Thanks Malcolm.
[The question of whether that consensus could have been accelerated if proper action was taken at the end of the 60s? I am agnostic. It is also not the most useful question to ask, I guess.]
So, we should know the history, but not use it to blame people for things that they could not by any reasonable measure have done that much about.
“On May 18, 1976, the House Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere (of the Committee on Science and Technology) met under the chairmanship of Congressman George Brown (D., Calif.) for the first of 6 days of hearings on the subject of climate and related research”(Hecht, 1981).
The early-mid 70s had seen a series of droughts, crop failures, cold winters and generally weird weather. Public and policymaker interest/concern were all high. This quote below, from an excellent 2014 paper called “The Dilemma of Reticence” (Henderson, 2014) gives useful info.
“Given Schneider’s rise as one of the most visible climatologists in the United States, Rep. George Brown, Jr. (D-CA) asked him to testify soon after the publication of The Genesis Strategy in front of the House Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere.
Given an increased reliance of Americans on a stable climate, Schneider argued that increased climatic variability was taxing existing technological and agricultural systems to a breaking point. Aware of the deficiencies of current climate models to account for the complicated feedback mechanisms of the global climatic system, he testified that it was crucial to change the “political consciousness” of the United States and overcome the short-term perspective and whimsical interests of policy makers.
“The worst mismatch in the future I see is the political system, whether it socialist or capitalist or totalitarian or democratic … is to short-term issues,” he cautioned.
While he could not specifically address whether the climate would change for the worse in the near future, he did believe that climate change issues provided a “sort of last-ditch symbol” for governments to realize the importance of thinking on generational time-scales.”
Why this matters
We really knew enough by the late 1970s to be seriously worried, and to act. That “we” didn’t become aware until the late 80s, and have NEVER acted, is only partly down to human willingness to ignore problems/procrastinate. There have been wildly successful campaigns to confuse, to delay. Oh well.
What happened next
Schneider and Brown kept on trucking. Schneider, a mensch, died in 2010, just when we needed him the most.
On May 7 1966, Roger Revelle the noted American scientist had a story in the popular news magazine Saturday Review on carbon dioxide and the oceans.
In it Revelle wrote
“Human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment which, if adequately documented, may yield a far-reaching insight into the processes determining weather and climate. We must not forget, however, that even a relatively small rise in the average annual temperature of the atmosphere might be accompanied by other more serious changes, for example, shifts in the position or the width of belts of low rainfall.”
To be clear – he was not yet saying “watch out”, as others soon would be. Just before this quote he wrote
“In general, our attitude toward the changing content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is being brought about by our own actions should probably contain more curiosity than apprehension.”
Why this matters
We need to remember that people have been warning about the build-up of carbon dioxide for an extremely long time as a potential problem.
Revelle, we should say was one of the founders of the climate issue having written with Hans Seuss about the way in which the oceans might not be soaking up as much co2 as the dogma suggested, and having hired Charles David Keelng whom he found very irritating. (see, Joshua Weiner’s book)
What happened next
Revelle kept researching and writing. Other people kept researching and writing. The climate issues slowly, painfully, worked its way up the policy agenda, but didn’t really get down until 1988.
On May 5 1953, yes, 1953, The West Australian newspaper had a short piece with Gilbert Plass, warning the American Geophysical Union about the build-up of. carbon dioxide…
Plass was a geochemist who had read Guy Callendar and understood what he was talking about.
Why this matters
Let’s not pretend that 1988 was the first time anyone heard about climate change. That said, this sort of “we were warned” thing can be a little bit unfair. Because there are all sorts of potential threats, potential problems in the world. And if we responded to all of them, instantly with alarm, we’d never get anything done.
But certainly, I think by the late 60s, early 70s, we did know enough to be concerned. And we didn’t act in accordance with that concern. And here we are.
What happened next?
Plass kept on for a little while, and even attended the 1963 Conservation Foundation meeting in New York. But he didn’t do further climate work. There’s a good account of him in Alice Bell’s “Our Greatest Experiment,” btw.
On this day, the 30th of April 1985, The New York Times reported that “Rare Gases May Speed The Warming of the Earth: Rare Gases May Be Speeding Earth’s Warming”
The reporter, James Gleick, opened his story thus
“Tiny quantities of more than 30 rare gases threaten to warm the earth’s atmosphere even more rapidly over the next 50 years than carbon dioxide will, according to a study by a team of atmospheric scientists.
“Their findings reinforce a growing conviction among scientists that the trace gases, many of them industrial byproducts, are playing a leading role in the “greenhouse effect,” the warming of the earth as less and less heat is able to escape the atmosphere.”
This research was then presented at Villach in October of 1985, and helped convince people that climate change wasn’t anthropogenic global warming was not a threat for the relatively distant future, but something that would need a policy response right now. So even before Villach1985 there was a sense that shit was getting real.
Why this matters.
We need to understand that our problem is not that senior politicians don’t understand the problem. Our problem is that we are unable to keep the problem at the front of their attention and to turn it into a set of policy proposals that are then implemented.
What happened next?
Well Villach meeting happened WMO. UNDP ICSU. They tried to get the ball rolling that were successful. You got an international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. And since 1990, we have burned more carbon dioxide, released into the atmosphere, then all of human history to that date, which tells you how successful these international agreements have been.
On this day, the 29th of April in 1970 a symposium was held in Washington DC on “Aids and Threats from Technology.” One of the topics of conversation was, well “Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change”
PDF here.
The newly minted Council on Environmental Quality would use this (and other research) to include a chapter about climate change in its first report, published a few months later.
Why this matters?
We knew enough to be worried, and to make a SERIOUS effort at research, throwing money and scientists at the problem.
What happened next
The scientists did the best they could. By the end of the decade, we definitely knew enough. Then Reagan and his cronies came and cost us the thick end of a decade. And then, well, the rest is history.
On this day, April 28 1975, Newsweek ran a story ”The Cooling World” (pdf here) based on the idea that an ice age was imminent because of the amount of particulates thrown up into the atmosphere.
It wasn’t alone in this – The previous year (June 24, 1974) Time had an article titled “Another Ice Age?” which said “the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades” but noted that “Some scientists… think that the cooling trend may be only temporary.”
These articles have been used ever since, as the part of the myth that, in the 1970s, “all scientists were convinced that an ice age was coming. And therefore, carbon dioxide build-up is just the latest iteration of a scare that we need to pay no attention to.” This idea has faded somewhat in mainstream culture, but it still persists in the nuttier corners of the internet.
What we learn is that journalism around climate is very difficult because the issues are very complex, and that people choose not to accept the journalists and scientists can get it wrong and change their mind because they are looking to have a gotcha moment.
Why this matters.
Denialists have kept using it.
What happened next?
Denialists kept using it
See also:
The original author, Peter Gwynne, writing in 2014
Scientific American in 2015 – For Its 40th Birthday, Let’s Retire Newsweek’s Global Cooling Story
Wikipedia on Global Cooling.
On the 19th of April 2002, the chair of the IPCC, Bob Watson failed to get a second term as chair, even though he wanted one, and (almost) everyone else wanted him to have it.
As per the Guardian’s coverage
“At a plenary session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Robert Watson, a British-born US atmospheric scientist who has been its chairman since 1996, was replaced by an Indian railway engineer and environmentalist, R K Pachauri.
Dr Pachauri received 76 votes to Dr Watson’s 49 after a behind-the-scenes diplomatic campaign by the US to persuade developing countries to vote against Dr Watson, according to diplomats. The British delegation argued for Dr Watson and Dr Pachauri to share the chairmanship.
The US campaign came to light after the disclosure of a confidential memorandum from the world’s biggest oil company, Exxon-Mobil, to the White House, proposing a strategy for his removal.”
[see also the Ecologist in 2018]
tt’s an example of how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change works – the word to look for is governmental.
Why this matters.
We’re not getting the politics- free science, which the denialists say they want. We’re getting the science that has been deemed acceptable to the politicians who are often little more than Meat Puppets for vested interests.
And this is a very, very familiar story.
What happened next?
The IPCC has kept going. The message hasn’t changed. Except the time horizons keep shrinking (have shrunk to nowt).