Category: Scientists

Categories
Arctic Science Scientists United States of America

March 19, 1956 – Washington Post reports Revelle’s statements

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, March 19th, 1956, the question of possible climate change due to carbon dioxide build-up gets an airing (sorry) in the Washington Post.

19 March 1956 Washington Post story on Revelle’s predictions 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Roger Revelle as well as being a really good scientist was a really good political operator. He knew how to tell Senators interesting stories so that they would give big science, big money. And one of the stories Revelle was telling in ‘56, ahead of the impending International Geophysical Year was that carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere might cause some interesting physical effects. 

What we learn from this is that the idea of the independent scientists mucking around with his test tubes is a comforting myth, but only a myth. And already, by the end of the 40s, this was entirely obvious, given how the war had been one, Manhattan Project, Vannevar Bush, all of that stuff. 

What happened next? With some of the money, a tiny portion of the money that Revellel got, he hired Charles David Keeling to make fantastically accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2, giving us the Keeling Curve and evidence that yes, carbon dioxide was definitely building up in the atmosphere. Until that point this was not entirely certain, though it was strongly suspected. It’s always good to have proper evidence to back up your suspicions, isn’t it? 

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

Norman, L. 1956. Fumes Seen Warming Arctic Seas. The Washington Post and Times Herald; March 19,  pg. 3

Also on this day: 

March 19, 1990 – Bob Hawke gives #climate speech

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

Categories
Activism Australia Science Scientists

March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Ten years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2014, the wheels on the bus went round and round…

‘CARBON BUS’ NORTHERN TOUR 17-20 MARCH 2014

Eleven lucky applicants participated in the tour, which left from Townsville QLD and visited the Lansdown Research Station, ‘Trafalgar’ Station, ‘Wambiana’ Station and the Wambiana Research Site. Participants heard from leading specialists in climate science and agriculture and practising agriculturalists, including:

Professor Snow Barlow, University of Melbourne

Dr Ed Charmley, CSIRO

Dr Chris Stokes, CSIRO

Dr Steven Bray, QLD DAFF

Peter O’Reagain, QLD DAFF

Andrew Ash, QLD DAFF

Geoff Dickinson, QLD DPI

Roger Landsberg, ‘Trafalgar’ Station, Charters Towers

John Lyons and Michelle Lyons, ‘Wambiana’ Station, Charters Towers

The tour was enlightening and beneficial for all participants, but you don’t need to take our word for it, click here to hear from them direct…or watch the Virtual Tour video to see the tour highlights.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399.9ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Prime Minister Tony Abbott had recently abolished – or was in the process of abolishing – the emissions trading scheme that Julia Gillard had shepherded through parliament in 2011. And climate activists were at a low ebb, and understood that they really had to go out and engage people who didn’t “get” to the climate issue. The trouble is that these sorts of tours from the south, to educate the benighted, ignorant, rural savages don’t work. Now, for the avoidance of any doubt. I’m sure that that’s not what the organisers of this carbon bus tour thought or felt on any level: but it’s easy for their good intentions to be painted.as such. I don’t have a solution. I suppose the climate education has to come from within these communities, from people who are trusted?  Who those people are and how they might be supported, is beyond me. I guess. There’s always the internet….

What happened next? Well, the most infamous example of all this is the 2018 tour of Queensland by a whole bunch of greenies who thought that they were helping Bill Shorten get elected, and most definitely were not. This was something that was curiously absent from the Bob Brown hagiography about the tall giants or whatever it’s called. (see film review here). 

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 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

Categories
Scientists United Kingdom United States of America

January 9, 2004 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor lays into President over climate inaction

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 9th 2004, the UK Chief Scientific Advisor, David King lays into Bush Administration on climate inaction

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3381425.stm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422 ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bush had been doing sweet FA. And he had had the British scientist Robert Watson removed as chair of the IPCC – it’s hard to play Athens to their Sparta when they won’t even give you a bow….

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had been making the right noises about climate change but doing sweet FA, it was obvious that there was failure baked into the Kyoto process, which many at this point time were thinking was just dead. And that UNFCCC might be dead. And therefore emissions reductions were dead. China was galloping forward with its emissions, the US was not cutting it. And therefore, of course, you’re gonna speak out of school and hope for technofixes. 

What we learn is that chief scientific advisors can, on occasion, be troublesome priests. They tend to denounce someone over the water or across the border, rather than their own bosses. And when they are fed up with their own bosses, well, it’s more likely that they’ll quit and keep tight lips. For example, the Australian CSA Penny Sackett in February 2011. 

What happened next, King kept being Chief Scientific Adviser until 2007. Most notably, in 2023. Sir David King signed the letter in the aftermath of the acquittal of the Barclays nine, and is also being cited by Just Stop Oil in their standard powerpoint deck.

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: 

January 9, 1974 – The UK sets up a “Department of Energy”

Jan 9 1995 – “Efficiency” promises vs hated and feared regulation/taxation #Predatory Delay #auspol

Categories
Science Scientists

January 8, 1968 – LaMont Cole to AAAS about running outta oxygen, build-up of C02 etc

Fifty six years ago, on this day, January 8th, 1968,

According to a Newsweek report (8 January 1968), Professor L. C. Cole of Cornell University (in a paper delivered at the 134th annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) asks whether man is not destroying the earth’s natural supply of oxygen. He points out (1) that the increasing combustion of fossil fuels has greatly accelerated the formation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and (2) that, in the United States alone, some one million acres of suburbanised forest and grassland each year lose their ability to regenerate the oxygen supply through photosynthesis.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was concern among a few scientists that levels of oxygen would drop and that we would all ultimately suffocate. That was rendered null a year or two after this, but there was generalised concern about oxygen levels, carbon dioxide levels, you name it. As the consequences of modernity, as we laughingly call it, were becoming apparent. Cynically, you could also say that people were so fed up with the Vietnam War, but there were costs attached to speaking out against that, that they found something else to be worried about….

What we can learn is that there have been scientists warning of trouble ahead. But those scientists may have sometimes understandably picked something to be concerned about that wasn’t actually there. That doesn’t mean that all warnings are bad warnings. 

What happened next, as above, the oxygen depletion thing was put to bed in 1970 or so. Lamont Cole died in I think, 1979. 

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

Cole, L. 1968. Can the World Be Saved? BioScience, Vol. 18, No. 7 pp. 679-684 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1294188 .https://doi.org/10.2307/1294188

Also on this day: 

Jan 8, 1958 – “The masters of infinity… could control the world’s weather”, says LBJ

January 8, 2003 – Energy firms plan to “bury carbon emissions”…

January 8, 2013 – Australian Prime Minister connects bush fires and #climate change

Categories
Scientists technosalvationism United Kingdom

January 7, 2004 – geoengineering our way outa trouble?

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 7th, 2004,

Big ideas for reducing the impacts of climate change are being evaluated by an international line-up of leading scientists from the US, mainland Europe and the UK at a symposium in Cambridge this week. The meeting is being jointly hosted by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Cambridge-MIT Institute. The scientists are coming together to evaluate which large-scale bio-engineering, geo-engineering and chemical engineering ideas to combat global warming are worthy of further investigation, and which are best left on the drawing board. The symposium, called “Macro-engineering options for climate change management and mitigation” is at the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge from 7-9 January.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/planet-sized-solutions-for-global-warming

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC Third Assessment Report had come out and the UK energy white paper had come out in February 2003 positing a 60% cut in emissions by 2050, and it was obvious that some big technological efforts were going to be required. The international negotiations were adrift with the Americans having pulled out of Kyoto, followed by the Australians. The IPCC was in the midst of writing its special report on CCS. So of course, a bunch of well-respected, high-powered, academics would get together and … spit ball about technological fantasies to save the world. 

What we can learn from this is that to really understand what’s going on, you do have to understand the context of what had gone before. And place yourself in the heads of organisers or speakers, without giving yourself information that they couldn’t have had, because the events hadn’t happened yet. 

What else can we can learn is that rather than criticise existing political and social arrangements, high-powered academics who are ultimately benefiting from existing social and political arrangements will dream up techno-fantasies, because to question the entire system would be to question their place in it, and no one gets career points for that. 

What happened next? The techno-fantasies started coming thicker and faster, and they’re with us now, 20 years later in full flight. Because we did nowt, boys and girls, about dealing with the social and political issues. 

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: 

January 7, 2013 – Australian climate activist pretends to be ANZ bank, with spectacular results 

Jan 7, 2013

Categories
Scientists United States of America

January 5,1989 – National Academy of Science tries to chivvy Bush.

Thirty five years ago, on this day, January 5th, 1989 the US National Academy of Sciences ? urged President-elect George HW Bush to actually DO something on climate because “‘the future welfare of human society’ was at risk” (Layzer 2012 page 157).

Here’s the beginning of a New York Times article, published January 6 1989 by the redoubtable Philip Shabecoff.

The National Academy of Sciences urged President-elect George Bush today to place the threat of a significant increase in global temperatures high on his agenda because ”the future welfare of human society” is at risk.

The academy urged Mr. Bush to seek alternatives to coal, oil and other fuels whose air pollutants are a main cause of the predicted global warming.

”We believe that global environmental change may well be the most pressing international issue of the next century,” the academy said. ”The United States is well-positioned to play a leadership role in coping with and gaining an international consensus on this difficult issue.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change had finally broken through the previous summer. And as candidate, George Herbert Walker, Bush had made the right noises about the greenhouse effect and the so-called “White House effect.” And now with his inauguration about to take place, folks at the National Academy of Sciences wanted to hold him to that. 

What we can learn is that everybody knows that politicians have to be “reminded” of their promises repeatedly. Because if you stop pressuring them, they assume everyone else has forgotten about the promise. And they keep taking the fat, brown envelopes of cash from the usual suspects. 

What happened next, Bush did everything he could to dampen the issue. And his goons were busy smearing James Hansen, et cetera. But in May of 1989, they overdid it. And Bush was forced to concede that yes, there would need to be a global treaty, and that negotiations should start for that. That led on to the text battles over the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the US ultimately won. And here we are 30 years later, having achieved nothing. And actually, that’s wrong: emissions are now 65% higher than they were. And we’ve run out of time and budget.

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

Layzer, J. 2012. Open for Business: Conservatives’ Opposition to Environmental Regulation. MIT Press

Shabecoff, P. 1989. Bush Is Urged to Fight Threat of Global Warming. New York Times, January 6

Also on this day: 

January 5, 1973 – An academic article about the Arctic emerges from the Met Office

Jan 5, 2006 – strategic hand-wringing about “Our Drowning Neighbours”

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

January 1, 1981- “Climate Change And Society” published

Forty three years ago, on this day, January 1st 1981,

 Climate Change and the Society: Consequences of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

was published.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American and European climate scientists had been pretty sure from the mid-1970s onwards serious warming of the planet was coming thanks to the additional carbon dioxide that was being put into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. I think they were also pretty sure that we wouldn’t, as a species, do anything serious to reduce our emissions. How right they were. And so the puzzle began, well, what impacts will come not just physical impacts, but sea level rise, heat, but how will that play out? How will society be affected? And how will society respond? One of the authors, William Kellogg had been in and around climate issues, carbon dioxide issues specifically, for a good 10 years. The other, Schware, had written this in 1980. And the International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis (IIASA) had been holding workshops about this sort of thing. So the book, although it seems very, very prescient, emerged as all books do, from strands of academic – or intellectual, for the two are not the same – work. 

What we can learn is that smart people could see this coming and couldn’t see a way of stopping it. I think for what it’s worth, there probably were ways of stopping it, but it would have required a fundamental rethink of what resistance to capital looks like. And also how those on the progressive left – or whatever it wants to call itself – organised themselves and each other, how they measured success, etc. None of that happened then. None of it is happening now. None of it is likely to happen.

What happened next – The Republican and conservative administrations of Reagan and Thatcher kept doing everything they could to keep environmental issues down the agenda. With Reagan who kind of overdid it, leading to a backlash (see Dunlap and McCright 2010). And with Thatcher, there was the persistent issues of acid rain and then ozone until finally, in 1988, even she had to concede that the greenhouse effect was a thing. Kellogg lived a long time, long enough to see most of its predictions come true.

In June of 1982 Kellogg and Schware had an article in Foreign Affairs, the major US foreign policy journal.

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

Schware, R. 1980. Toward A Political Analysis Of The Consequences Of A World Climate Change Produced By Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5415330

Also on this day: 

January 1 1958 – control the weather before the commies do!

January 1, 1988 – President Reagan reluctantly signs “Global Climate Protection Act” #CreditClaiming

January 1 2007 James Hansen – “If we fail to act, we end up with a different planet”

Categories
Science Scientists

December 30, 1957 – a letter from Gilbert Plass to Guy Callendar

Seventy six years ago, on this day, December 30, 1957, the English steam engineer Guy Callendar wrote to the Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass

“Plass wrote to Callendar that Revelle and Suess and Arnold and Anderson had “attacked the carbon dioxide climatic theory ‘quite vigorously’ at a meeting earlier this year.”

They claimed that it was absolutely impossible to have had a sufficient increase in the CO2 amount in this century for the reasons that were given in their articles. I think you have pointed out several ways that their conclusion could be in error and I feel that there are still several possible explanations. 64 (Fleming 2007, p.81)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American scientists who were studying carbon dioxide build-up and had been writing about it were still not quite sure what was going on. Understandably – if all the answers were obvious you wouldn’t need to explore anything, and that’s not how science works 

Guy Callendar had written the first serious “carbon dioxide is causing climate change” scientific article in 1938 presented it, to muted response, at the Royal Meteorological Society. 

Gilbert Plass was, more than anyone, responsible for putting carbon dioxide squarely on the agenda with his 1953 statements at the American Geophysical Union and then onwards in 1956 with his articles

What I think we can learn from this is that it’s always a messy murky picture in the early days of any issue. Later on it looks like a procession, but a good historian will try to remember the messiness and make it understandable, without removing the messiness.

Obviously that’s an ongoing process that we need to remember how little we knew and how confused the picture was.

What happened next

Callendar kept writing articles and letters. He died in 1964.

Gilbert Plass continued to be engaged for another few years on the climate issue and then wasn’t.

Roger Revelle died in 1991, having spent a long time trying to get the US state and others scientists politicians to take climate change 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.

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

December 29, 1969 – AAAS symposium on “Climate and Man”

Fifty four years ago, on this day, December 29, 1969, there was

Symposium on Climate and Man, 136th Meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science, Boston

This from a pre-symposium teaser, published in Science, tells you enough to be going on with –

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by 1969 environmental issues, air quality issues, long-term effects of carbon dioxide issues, were pretty well-known in the scientific community, the “environmental” community, and were becoming quite well known with anyone who could read any quality newspaper. A one-day symposium on the topic when everyone’s gathering together anyway for a meeting of the American Association for the advancement of science was quite fun.

What I think we can learn from this

There was early knowledge early discussion, if you want to call 1960s early.

What happened next

The next seriously consequential meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science with regards to climate change was the 148th in 1982 which was held in New York, with James Hansen and Herman Flohn both sounding off. Though I’m sure people who were involved in the big AAS processors in between will tell you otherwise

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

Battan, L. J. (1969). Climate and Man. Science, 166(3904), 536-537.

Categories
Science Scientists

December 26, 1968 – “Global Effects of Environmental Pollution” symposium

Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 26, 1968, Fred Singer, who had been present for the foundation meeting of the International Geophysical Year, and would go on to be a weapons-grade asshole denialist, organised a symposium (it was part of his day job). That symposium was about the global effects of environmental pollution for the American Association for the Advancement of Science

https://doi.org/10.1029/EO051i005p00476

Smart cookie called J. Murray Mitchell was there and laid it out.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US Federal Government was making some of the right noises about climate change. It had just found out that there would indeed be a United Nations meeting in 1972. But this meeting will have been organised months and months in advance of that final decision.

What’s amusing about it is that Fred Singer became one of the leading the nihilists denialists.

What I think we can learn from this

We knew way back when. We knew.

What happened next

Caroll Wilson organised the 1970 Workshop in Williamstown about Man’s Impact on the environment. The following year there was Man’s Impact on Climate, organised by William Kellogg, in Stockholm.

This 5 years was the period where are the new institutions and collaborations got hashed out – GARP, then SCOPE and so on…

J. Murray Mitchell was exceptionally blunt (and accurate) in his warning in 1976 – “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century then we’ve had it.”

We were and we have.

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.