Category: Scientists

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.

Categories
Scientists United States of America

 December 15, 2005 – James Hansen versus Bush again…

Eighteen years ago, on this day, December 15, 2005, it was – Hansen versus Whitehouse again… 

“NOW BACK TO the Keeling talk and its repercussions. There was no press release or press conference about the talk, but the American Geophysical Union meeting attracts a substantial number of reporters. BBC radio did an impromptu interview with me as I left the speaker’s platform. Bill Blakemore used a quote from my talk in an ABC News story the next day. The New York Times and the Washington Post, in articles about international climate negotiations, made note of my comment that 2005 was likely to be at least as warm as 1998, the previous warmest year in the period of instrumental data. The International Herald Tribune extracted several paragraphs from my talk, verbatim, making a short article under my byline.

Unbeknownst to me, this modest level of publicity was causing growing concern in the Office of Public Affairs at NASA headquarters. And the next week, on December 15, this festering consternation of NASA officials exploded into what the agency’s public affairs employees described as a “shitstorm.” The immediate cause of the explosion was the statement on ABC’s Good Morning America program that “NASA is announcing that this year, 2005, is tied for the hottest year ever.” ABC did not mention my name, but indeed I had provided our analysis of global temperature for the meteorological year (December through November) to Bill Blakemore the previous day….

Also, J. T. Jezierski, Griffin’s deputy chief of staff and White House liaison, told Bowen that on December 15 he had received an angry call from the White House and added that “the ‘sustained media presence … of Dr. Hansen’ was the dominant issue all that day and the next for every top official in public affairs and communications at the agency—himself, chief of staff Paul Morrell, strategic communications director Joe Davis, and David Mould—and that these officials also held discussions with Michael Griffin during those two days.” – 

James Hansen, Storms of my Grandchildren

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Bush administration was trying to gag the troublesome priest James Hansen. Of course this was a rerun of what had happened in 1989 when Al Gore found out about the previous attempt, it had led to the Bush administration having to concede that yes it would enter into climate negotiations.

What I think we can learn from this is that rather than deal with physical reality, powerful actors will try to shoot the messenger or silence him.

What happened next is that Hansen retired and continued to be a troublesome priest.

Meanwhile the carbon dioxide kept accumulating.

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
Scientists

December 12, 2007 – RIP William Kellogg

Sixteen years ago, on this day, December 12, 2007, the important US climate scientist William Kellogg dies; as with Bert Bolin, very good timing both

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that William Kellogg had been thinking about the build up of C02 for a long time. His first major involvement was organising a 1971 “man’s impact on climate” symposium near Wick in Stockholm in 1971. He asked Stephen Schneider to be a kind of rapporteur. Kellogg also wrote one of the first good historical overview articles, Kellogg, William W. (1987). “Mankind’s Impact on Climate: The Evolution of an Awareness.” Climatic Change 10: 113–36.

He was smeared by Richard Lindzen, which gives you an idea that Kellogg is probably a decent guy.

What I think we can learn from this

The work of stitching together scientific coalitions and creating “epistemic communities” is hard work.

What happened next

Three weeks later Bert Bolin died – their timing was excellent, coming as it did at a time where – if you wanted to – you could believe that finally international progress would be made.

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 Scientists

 December 8, 2003 – Chief Scientific Advisor under microscope for Rio Tinto role

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 8, 2003, the Australian chief scientific adviser was being asked to explain about how he squared offering impartial advice with his other day-job of … working for Rio Tinto.

Questions raised over chief scientist’s Rio Tinto role 8 December 2003 – Reporter: Andrew Fowler (no longer on ABC website). See also Scorcher by Clive Hamilton

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard clearly did not give a shit about climate change, and wasn’t bothered who knew it.

Formal scientific advice channels to Australian Prime Ministers had started in 1989 with the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Council, under Ralph Slayter. And one of the first things they talked about – well, climate change (link).

What I think we can learn from this

Australia is essentially a quarry with a state attached to it; not so much a banana republic, as a coal republic. But we will persist with our pretences…

Fun fact – Labor are not that much better. In 2011 Penny Sackett resigned because Gillard et al. were not listening. This is not about personalities or dispositions – political parties are there to manage the state for “better” capital accumulation.

What happened next

Batterham eventually stepped aside.

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
Carbon Capture and Storage Scientists United Kingdom

December 6, 2005 – CCS is our only hope, says Chief Scientist….

On this day 18 years ago (December 5, 2005), UK Chief Scientific Advisor David King said CCS or bust…

“Mankind’s only hope of staving off catastrophic climate change is burying CO2 emissions underground, says the UK’s chief scientist. Sir David King told the BBC carbon capture and storage technology was the only way forward as China and India would inevitably burn their cheap coal. This would be disastrous unless they were persuaded to put CO2 from power stations into porous rocks, he said. It is thought carbon capture and storage would add 10-15% to fuel bills. The process is currently being developed by an international consortium of energy firms. It involves removing carbon dioxide from emissions by one of three scientific methods. The carbon dioxide is then pumped at pressure into porous rocks, where it is expected to stay for 1,000 years or more. By then it is anticipated that carbon-free energy sources will have been developed. Professor King has often spoken of his deep concerns about climate change and has warned of a catastrophe if we keep emitting carbon at current levels. By 2030, China’s CO2 emissions from coal use alone are expected to have doubled. found it via –

Anon. (2005) Scientist hopes for CO2 storage. BBC, December 6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4501964.stm

References

PS Found this via Bowman J. & Juliette Addison (2008) Carbon capture and storage – “the only hope for mankind?”: an update, Law and Financial Markets Review, 2:6, 516-52

Categories
Science Scientists

November 19, 1960 – Guy Callendar gives advice on unpopularity of C02 theory

Sixty three years ago, on this day, November 19, 1960, English steam engineer Guy Callendar noted that the carbon dioxide theory was not universally accepted.

In 1961 he published the results of his study in the Quarterly Journal, concluding that the pattern of recent climatic warming was not incompatible with his hypothesis of increased carbon dioxide radiation.”67 …. As this paper was going to press, Callendar wrote a note listing “[Four] reasons for the unpopularity of CO2 theory in some meteorological quarters.” Although there was no organized opposition to anthropogenic climate change at the time, Callendar’s note reads much like a contemporary response to global warming skeptics:

a. The idea of a single (easily explained) factor causing world wide climatic change seems impossible to those familiar with the complexity of the forces on which any and every climate depends.

b. The idea that man’s actions could influence so vast a complex [system] is very repugnant to some. 

c. The meteorological authorities of the past have pronounced against it, mainly on the basis of faulty observations of water vapour absorption, but also because they had not studied the problem to anything like the extent required to pronounce on it.

d. Last but not the least. They did not think of it themselves!

68. CP 1, Levinson, 19 November 1960

Source: James Roger Fleming 2007 The Life and Times of Guy Stewart Callendar (1898–1964)  p.82

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 317ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Callendar had continued writing after the war on climate and had corresponded extensively with Gilbert Plass, the man most responsible for bringing the carbon dioxide theory to prominence in the United States. 

This article with these notes to himself was written after he’d submitted something for publication. And they bear thinking about in terms of why good ideas or sound ideas don’t go further. It’s classic, “not invented here” syndrome. People are unwilling to accept good ideas from people they don’t like.

What I think we can learn from this

is that awareness of intellectual resistance to facts is hardly novel. Even around climate, it goes back further than perhaps you think

What happened next

Callendar’s paper got published. It was his last one. Callendar died in early 1964, on the same day of the year as Svante Arrhenius who died in 1927 (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.

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom

 August 18, 1975 – it’s gonna get hotter, not cooler, say scientists

Forty eight years ago, on this day, August 18, 1975, a bunch of people who had been thinking about man’s impact on the climate for quite a while get together in Norwich, England, for a meeting about what’s coming. They decide that there’s no ice age on its way but there IS a decent chance of a large amount of warming…

1975  18-23 August 1975 Norwich meeting which ended speculation about possible cooling.

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/10/the_great_global_cooling_myth.html

Paterson 1996 is good on this…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was interested in the weather – was it getting colder? was it getting warmer? There had been public pronouncement in both directions including, infamously, the 1971 Rasool and Schneider paper. The popular version of this was The Weather Machine by Nigel Calder which became a BBC documentary. And there were questions asked in the House of Commons. 

But the people who actually studied the climate issue were looking closely at carbon dioxide and by now beginning to think this is the issue – we’re going to get warming not a cooling. Wally Broeker’s paper in Science had just been published a month earlier and the National Academy of Science had started its 2-year study on understanding climate.

What I think we can learn from this is that although doubt continued in public because bad ideas and stories have a long half-life this workshop was the moment at which any lingering doubts about the cooling were put to one side, at least in the minds of people who knew what they were talking about.

What happened next was that by 1976 the World Meteorological Organisation was making statements about the likelihood of warming. It was also a very very hot summer in Europe and especially the United Kingdom the 1976 drought which was until 1995 rather the hottest for years. And 2022 was much hotter globally.

But we get used to anything – until we can’t…

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 Kingdom

July 7, 1988 – foolish “Jumping the greenhouse gun” editorial in Nature.

On this day in 1988, the editor of Nature, John Maddox kept going with his general harrumphing and ignorance of what the science was actually saying, with his “jumping the greenhouse gun” editorial. It drew responses from scientists Kenneth Hare and Kenneth Mellanby

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Maddox had been being aggressively wrong about climate change for a long time (1971 – on ABC television, for instance. And earlier.).

What I think we can learn from this

Old white men who have been in jobs a long time paint themselves into a corner and can’t find ways to back down gracefully, by saying the simple words “I was wrong.”

What happened next

Hare and Mellanby replied in Nature a couple of weeks later.

Also – for fans of obscure Meatloaf…

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

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.