Category: Scientists

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

October 24, 1967 – editor of Science warns about C02 build-up

On this day, October 24  in 1967, folks at a Public Health conference in Miami Beach… got to hear a warning about climate change, from Philip Abelson Abelson was a big fish, the editor of Science. His list of man-made environmental threats was mostly “local” stuff- DDT, smog etc. But then there is this.

“Each year, tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere and the amount is increasing. As a result, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is growing. By the year 2000, an increase of 25 per cent is probable.(7) Such a change would not have much direct effect on human beings, but it might have substantial indirect effects. Many geophysicists believe that such an increase would affect the world’s temperature by what is called a greenhouse effect. The extra carbon dioxide would slow heat loss from the earth, resulting in warmer climates and possibly the melting of polar ice. “

Abelson paper was presented before a Special Session of the American Public Health Association at the Ninety-Fifth Annual Meeting in Miami Beach, Fla., October 24, 1967.  https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.58.11.2043

(7)  Restoring the Quality of Our Environment. Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel. President’s Advisory Committee. Washington, D. C.: The White House (Nov.), 1965, p. 120. 

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 319.39ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

People were beginning to clock to all the different ways we were screwing ourselves. Abelson’s speech was a summary of the state of the art, and included the Revelle warning in the PSAC publication of two years previously.

Why this matters. 

It is via events like this that news percolated out…

What happened next?

By late 1968, various scientific work was more seriously underway, and led to the crucial July 1970 Study of Man’s Influence on Climate workshop in Williamstown, Massachusetts.

Categories
Science Scientists United Nations

October 23, 1963 – JKF warns of actions “which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical environment on a global scale.” 

On this day, October 23 in 1963, President John F Kennedy gave a speech about what we now might call production science and impact science https://era.org.au/capitalism-and-production-science-vs-impact-science/ – 

At an event commemorating the 100th anniversary of the country’s most esteemed scientific body, the National Academy of Sciences, [Kennedy] also conveyed a warning about America’s responsibility to control the effects of scientific study: “For, as science investigates the natural environment, it also modifies it – and that modification may have incalculable consequences, for evil as well as for good. [S]cience today has the power for the first time in history to undertake experiments with premeditation which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical  environment on a global scale.” Kennedy chided the scientists, saying that every time they came up with a  major invention, politicians had to invent new institutions to cope with them.

(Hamblin, 2013: 147)

 

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 315.99ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The previous year, Kennedy had read Silent Spring, and been through the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both spoke to armageddon (slow and fast). The partial test ban treaty, banning atmospheric explosions of nuclear weapons had, two weeks earlier, become A Thing. – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty

Why this matters. 

Had Kennedy not gone to Dallas, maybe things would have been different? Or maybe not! Lunchtime counter-factuals, eh…

What happened next?

Kennedy went to Dallas.

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?”

On this day, October 18 in 1973, a prominent US climate scientist, Reid Bryson, testified before a subcommittee of US congress.

Reid Bryson – There is no way right now that we can control the climate to make it more benign. Even if we were to say “let us stop using fossil fuels so that we do not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because that impacts the world climate,” how on earth could you stop using fossil fuels? Even those countries that are most heavily impacted by the climatic change are the ones who say it is our turn to be affluent and it is in the use of fossil fuels that one gains affluence. U.S. Congress (October 18, 1973). U.S. and world food situation. Hearings, before the Subcommittee on Agricultural Production, Marketing, and Stabilization of Prices and Subcommittee on Foreign Agricultural Policy of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, first session. U.S. G.P.O. p. 120.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 327.18ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this –  politicians, sensitised by Earth Day and various reports, were beginning to look into the security/geopolitical impacts of a change in the climate (hot or cold).  Food security was a Big Issue.

Why this matters. 

Well, ultimately it doesn’t, but it’s kinda interesting!

What happened next?

Bryson bet all his chips on “not fossil fuels,” and lost. There’s an interesting article about that and him, here,

Categories
Science Scientists

October 15, 1985 – Villach meeting supercharges greenhouse concerns…

On this day, October 15 in 1985, scientists from around the world began a meeting that would lead to the final arrival of the climate “issue” on the international agenda.  Here is the beginning of an article by prominent science writer Fred Pearce, writing in 2005…

“The week the climate changed; Villach, a sleepy spa town in southern Austria, is not an obvious place from which to change the world. But 20 years ago this week, a conference there became the spark that lit today’s burning concern about global warming. Before Villach, the greenhouse effect was a subject for specialised physicists – a possible problem for future generations and nothing more. After Villach, global warming swiftly became the world’s top environmental story. The conference, say the people who were there, was the catalyst for the formation of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the gatekeeper for the science of climate change – and led to the Kyoto protocol. So what happened? Was it atmospheric chemistry or personal chemistry?

Pearce – “The Week the Climate Changed” New Scientist

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 343.35ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – since the early 1970s there had been international meetings of scientists to look at Man’s Impact on the Climate/Environment, in various places (Williamstown, Wijk, Norwich, Villach). From 1972 some of these meetings had been co-sponsored by the UN Environment Program, alongside the World Meteorological Organisation. The models got better, the scientists got surer of what was happening, what might happen…

The Villach 1985 meeting is the one at which the non-carbon-dioxide greenhouse gases got properly added up, and they realised trouble was afoot, less hypothetically and sooner than they’d been thinking…

Why this matters. 

History is good, isn’t it? If you didn’t think that, you’d not be reading this site.

What happened next?

American senators got the message – in December we’ll talk about Carl Sagan’s testimony in December 1985.  The US Department of State, nervous about being bounced into binding international action on carbon dioxide the way they had been about ozone, decided to slow the whole thing down and make sure governments got to vet scientific statements…

Categories
Australia Science Scientists

October 13, 2005 – “Climate Change: Turning up the Heat” published

On this day, 13 October 2005, a comprehensive book explaining climate change, by the Australian scientist Barrie Pittock was released. It was called, aptly, “Climate Change: Turning up the Heat.” 

[On this day the PPM was 377.19

Now it is 420ish- but see here for the latest.]

Why this matters

People like Barrie Pittock, working on climate change from the 70s onwards, deserve all the accolades for their patient, long work on trying to get Australians to take climate change seriously. It is not their fault they were overwhelmed by the forces of greed and wilful ignorance.

What happened next?

The following year, in late 2006, climate change re-emerged as an ‘urgent’ public policy issue.  Nowt got done, of course…

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

October 12, 1976 – Jule Charney throws (private) shade on fellow climatologists…

On this day, October 12 in 1976, an eminent US scientist was dismissive (in a personal letter) of Stephen Schneider et al.

12 Oct 1976 None of the “speculative ideas of people like … Schneider on future climate change are worth the paper (usually newspaper) they are written on. They mislead the public and they do the field harm,” Charney concluded in a separate letter.

Jule  Charney to Warren Kornberg, 12 October 1976, Box 13 – NSF, 1955-81, Papers of Jule Charney,  MIT Institute Archives, Cambridge, MA. 

(Henderson, 2014 Dilemmas of Reticence)

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 328.72ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

In the mid 1970s there was a flurry of books about climate change and its impacts. Only a very few of them focussed on the importance of carbon dioxide build-up – others saw the problem in dust, or ‘waste heat’. The grand old men of the field – Charney, Landsberg et al, feared that popularisation/tabloid style claims would damage the credibility of the field. 

Why this matters. 

Scientists – justifiably – worry about large claims and whether they are sound, since if the claims and predictions turn out to be wrong, all scientists suffer.

What happened next?

Charney changed his tune in 1979, agreeing that unless something very odd indeed happened, then a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would lead to serious warming…

Schneider went on to do much more great work.

Categories
Ignored Warnings Ireland Science Scientists

October 9, 1979 – Hermann Flohn warns Irish of “possible consequences of a man-made warming”

On this day, October 9 in 1979, Hermann Flohn (major German scientist) gave a talk about “possible climatic consequences of a man-made global warming” at a conference in Dublin, Ireland.

Flohn H. 1980: Possible climatic consequences of a man-made global warming. In: R. Kavanagh (Ed.): Energy System Analysis. Proc. Intern. Conf. Dublin, 9-11 Oct. 1979, D. Reidel Publ. Comp., Dordrecht, 558-568. (1981: Life on a warmer Earth, Possible climatic consequences of man-made global warming. Executive Report 3, based on research by H. Flohn, Intern. Inst. for Applied System Analysis IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 59.)

https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/1097/1/WP-79-086.pdf

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 334.24ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – by the late 1970s, scientists who studied climate, energy systems etc had come to some conclusions

  1. Carbon dioxide really was building up in the atmosphere
  2. This would have real consequences 

They tried to get politicians to pay attention.  Oops

Why this matters. 

By the late 1970s we knew enough (earlier than that, I think there was room for doubt)

What happened next?

Flohn kept trying. Others kept trying. Eventually, in 1988, the issue “broke through”.

Categories
Australia Ignored Warnings Science Scientists

September 15, 1980 – Australian scientists hold “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” symposium in Canberra

On this day, 15 September 1980, Australian scientists met in Canberra to discuss carbon dioxide and its build-up…

1980, 15 to 17 September, Carbon Dioxide and Climate – Australian Academy of Science symposium in Canberra

“In 1980, the Australian Academy of Science held a conference to review 20 years of measurements showing increasing carbon-dioxide levels, and by then there was an understanding that the greenhouse effect would result in climate change.”

Staples, J. 2009 page 2

And it got reported in the Canberra Times….

Categories
Scientists

September 13, 1992/1994- Scientists traduced, ignored

On this day, September 13 1992, Roger Revelle’s daughter wrote an op-ed  about the way her father, ailing, had been exploited by climate denialists. (see also Oreskes and Conway 2010, page 195)

Contrary to George Will’s “Al Gore’s Green Guilt” {op-ed, Sept. 3} Roger Revelle – our father and the “father” of the greenhouse effect – remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.” Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore’s professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

http://uscentrist.org/platform/positions/environment/context-environment/john_coleman/carolyn-revelle-what-my-father-really-said

On this day the PPM was 353.01 Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Exactly two years after this was published, Australian climate scientist Graeme Pearman was trying to educate ALP politicians about the facts of life (on earth)

It’s quite possible that the turning point in the debate over one of the key environmental issues facing the Keating Government came on an early spring afternoon in the Cabinet room when the Minister for the Environment, Senator John Faulkner, wasn’t even there.

Over 90 minutes on September 13, a world renowned atmospheric scientist [Dr Graeme Pearman] gave a rare briefing to Cabinet ministers on the extent of the great environmental dilemma of our age – the greenhouse gas phenomenon.

McLean, L. 1994. D Day in Gas debate. The Australian, December 5, p. 20.

On this day the PPM was 355.86 Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

“Every disaster movie starts with a scientist being ignored.”

And when scientists tell the truth, they must either be traduced or ignored.

What happened next?

Pearman finally retired in 2004. He has tried to educate folks. Australian political (and economic) leaders largely just did not want to know. And here we are.

Categories
Science Scientists

August 8, 1975 – first academic paper to use term “global warming” published

On this day, August 8 1975 the first academic paper to use the term “global warming” was published

“Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”, Wallace S. Broecker, Science, 8 August 1975

Apparently Wally Broecker didn’t like having been the first and offered 200 bucks to anyone who could find an earlier instance.

Broecker, who has appeared on this site here in connection to an April 1980 letter he wrote to Democratic Senator Paul Tsongas, was a mensch.

On this day the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was 329.95 ppm. It is now 421ish,  but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

Articles like this helped people understand what was going on. By the late 1970s, we knew enough.

What happened next?

Broecker, and others, kept at it. It’s not the scientists who are to blame, imo. Oh well.