Category: Scientists

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.

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