Category: Sweden

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

December 24, 1894 – Arrhenius starts work…

One hundred and thirty one years ago, on this day, December 24th, 1894,

Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, in the midst of a gruesome divorce, started work on his  climate model, Dec 24 1894 ( source for the date is Elizabeth Kolbert “H is for Hope” p12)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 295ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Arrhenius was aware of Tyndall’s work on “carbonic acid” in the atmosphere (but not Eunice Foote’s).

The specific context was – he was going through a messy and painful divorce and needed a Project to Distract Himself.

What I think we can learn from this – scientists make sacrifices etc.

What happened next was that Arrhenius published the work. He later got a Nobel Prize for chemistry (for other discoveries).

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: 

December 24, 1895 – Arrhenius explains the work that went in… 

December 24, 1968 – “Earthrise” photo

December 24, 1990 – Australia as renewable energy superpower

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

December 9, 1955 – “On a Mathematical Model of the Carbon Cycle in Nature” submitted.

On this day seventy years ago, an important academic paper on the carbon cycle was received. Published the following year.

On a Mathematical Model of the Carbon Cycle in Nature

A discussion is given of a simple mathematical model of the carbon dioxide cycle in atmosphere-biosphere-sea, with special attention to the possibility of self-sustained oscillations and to the behaviour of the cycle when additional carbon dioxide is injected from an outer source. The discussion is confined to phenomena with characteristic times of the order of 10–103 years leaving out the long geologic periods as well as the purely annual periods. Some numerical computations are also carried out on the electronic computer BESK. The discussion and the computations show that self-sustained oscillations possibly appear due to the presence of the sea, and that they generally are favoured when there exist time-lags in the biosphere of the order of a few decades. The computations also indicate that additional carbon dioxide injected at a rate corresponding to the present combustion of fossil carbon does not change significantly the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, since most part of it will be stored in the biosphere. Thus, the present theory suggests that the increase of carbon dioxide indicated by recent measurements may represent part of a natural self-sustained oscillation and not necessarily be a response to an increased combustion of fossils.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 313ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that all sorts of new possibilities for understanding the universe were being opened up in the 1940s and 1950s – the technical advances of the second war offered new ways of gathering and analysing data, finding patterns.

The specific context was that those meetings in 1954-1955 were a neglected (especially by this site!) push for understanding of the carbon dioxide influence…

What I think we can learn from this – the knowledge of potential problems ahead was solid by the mid-1950s, and it wasn’t all down to Gilbert Plass…

What happened next – then-young Swedish scientist Bert Bolin went to the US in 1959 and tried to get everyone alarmed about carbon dioxide build-up. Oh well…

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: 

December 9, 1974 – UK Department of Energy launches “energy efficiency” programme

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment

December 9, 2004 – “Real Climate” hits the web, bless it.

Categories
Sweden

October 24, 1967 – Acid Rain

Fifty eight years ago, on this day, October 24th, 1967,

“The early theory of acid rain came from a Swedish scientist, Svante Oden, who published it first not in a scientific journal, but in a newspaper, the October 24, 1967, issue of Dagens Nyheter”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 322ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere would screw with buildings and lungs was a long established fact, dating back centuries – by the time of the Industrial Revolution it got so bad in some English cities that – gasp- the British State created an Alkali Inspectorate.

The specific context was Sweden was noticing changes to the acidity of their lakes, and biological impacts on trees, fish etc. And they wondered if the problem might be coming from perfidious Albion…

What I think we can learn from this is that there were plenty of cognate issues to do with atmospheric pollution alongside climate – ozone, nuclear war etc.

What happened next the British politicians ignored, denied etc. etc. that it was their fault. Of course they did. Read more about it 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: 

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

Categories
Sweden

August 16, 1971 – “The changing chemistry of the oceans.”

Fifty four years ago, on this day, August 16th, 1971,

The changing chemistry of the oceans : proceedings of the twentieth Nobel symposium held 16-20th August, 1971 at Aspendäsgården, Lerum and Chalmers University of Technology, Götenborg, Sweden Nobel Symposium, (20th: Sweden: 1971); Dyrssen, David, editor; Jagner, D. joint editor 1972

See also

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that from about 1968 (earlier in Sweden, by a couple of months), there had been an “environmental turn” – meaning people were beginning to realise that all this “Vorsprung durch Teknik” (progress through technology) came with a price tag – that air pollution, water pollution, the loss of habitats etc were not local events only, but symptoms of a wider set of problems. Heck, there was even going to be a conference in Stockholm the following year.

The specific context was that oceanographers had been very well aware of the pollution of the oceans – and that included the impact that raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might have. After all, some of the very earliest papers about carbon dioxide were by oceanographers (Revelle and Seuss etc).

What I think we can learn from this – well, as with so many of these 60s and 70s posts, smart people knew. People reading newspapers knew. But getting action, beyond the creation of a few ministries and bureaucracies

What happened next Some Nobellers kept warning (e.g. 1974). The emissions? Kept going up, didn’t they?

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: 

August 16 1984 – “Why are they lying to our children?” – what a 40 year old propaganda campaign can tell us about today (and tomorrow’s) cultural battles. #Climate #CorporatePropaganda – All Our Yesterdays

August 16, 2002 – “Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit”

August 16, 2010 – Polar Bears going through the motions 

August 16, 2012  – Tony Windsor calls Tony Abbott an “absolute disgrace” on carbon tax/climate 

Categories
Science Sweden Uncategorized

May 24, 1954 – Swedes study the climate…

Seventy one years ago, on this day, May 24th, 1954,

24 to 26 May 1954 – Eriksson, “Report on an informal conference in atmospheric chemistry held at the Meteorological Institute, University of Stockholm, May 24-26, 1954,” Tellus, 6 (1954)  

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the question of carbon dioxide build-up had returned to prominence with the 1953 presentation by Gilbert Plass at the American Geophysical Union’s meeting.  The Swedes had a lot of expertise in this field, and prestige (Carl Rossby etc). 

What I think we can learn from this is that from the early 1950s good scientists were looking at this and going “hmm.”

What happened next.  According to Weart (1997) they set up carbon dioxide monitoring stations and just got noise because there were too many forests nearby.

Rossby died too young. The baton was picked up by Bert Bolin and others.  For all the good it did us, at a species-level.

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: 

May 24, 1953 – NYT on “How industry may change climate” – All Our Yesterdays

May 24, 2000- Australian denialist nutjobs have nutjob jamboree

May 24, 2004 – “The Day After Tomorrow” released – All Our Yesterdays

May 24, 2007 – James Hansen ponders whether scientists can be too cautious and quiet (or, indeed “reticent”)

Categories
Sweden

December 24, 1895 – Arrhenius explains the work that went in…

One hundred and twenty nine years ago, on this day, December 24th, 1895, Svante Arrhenius explains the work that went in…

“His preliminary calculations showed that the required changes in CO2 were in the order of 50%. Hogbom, who was present, confirmed that those changes could have occurred in geological times. It remained, however, to demonstrate this quantitatively. The construction of the model which enabled him to do so occupied him for most of 1895. Writing to a friend at the end of the year, he found it “unbelievable that so trifling a matter has cost me a full year” (5) ”

Svante Arrhenius to Gustaf Tammann, December 24, 1895, Arrhenius Collection, Center for History of Science, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm in Crawford, E. 1997 Arrhenius’ 1896 Model of the Greenhouse Effect in Context Ambio, Vol. 26, No. 1, Arrhenius and the Greenhouse Gases (Feb., 1997), pp. 6-11

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 295ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Svante Arrhenius had gone through a divorce and partly to distract himself he’d spent a year doing insane calculations about the effects that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would have. He had produced this work. He had presented this work and it was about to be published. 

What we learn is that in the days before ENIAC computers, if you were a mathematician it was like that joke “Did you hear about the constipated mathematician? He had to work it out with a pencil.” 

What happened next is his work was kind of disregarded thanks to a misunderstanding of how carbon dioxide works in the stratosphere, but it wasn’t lost altogether because some people took it seriously. Then Guy Callendar did the sums also without a computer and presented that work to the Royal Meteorological Society in front of Kenneth Hare and others. 

Fun fact. Arrhenius died in 1927. And Guy Callendar died in 1964, on the same day of the year, October 2nd https://allouryesterdays.info/2022/10/01/october-2-1927-64-svante-arrhenius-and-guy-callendar-die/

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: 

December 24, 1968 – “Earthrise” photo

December 24, 1990 – Australia as renewable energy superpower

Categories
Sweden

December 3, 1970 – Olof Palme looks to the future…

Fifty-four years ago, on this day, December 3rd, 1970, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme tries to get some future-thinking going,

When, on 3 December 1970, he expressed the government’s intention to appoint a working group for futures studies, Olof Palme reiterated this outlook on futures studies, seeing them as a tool for national policy choices and based on Swedish values of neutrality, independence, and solidarity. If Sweden did not engage in the study of the future, Palme said, it would be dependent on future visions foreign to Swedish values. The study of the future was to seek a Swedish path between two seemingly existing alternatives of the future. Heidenblad 2021

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that all sorts of futurology, horizon-scanning stuff was getting done. And Olof Palme had just been talking about the threat of climate change. And his point about if you’re not doing it yourself, you’re gonna have to accept someone else’s vision is a really solid one. 

What we learn. Palme was a cut above.

What happened next. More futurology work got done. You can read about it here. All of Palmer kept doing stuff until 1986. 

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: 

December 3, 1968 – UN General Assembly says yes to a conference about environment. C02 mentioned.

December 3, 1972 – #climate scientists write “gizza grant” letter to President Nixon

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

August 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends

Fifty years ago, on this day, August 10th, 1974, the pivotal Stockholm conference on climate modelling, (29 July to 10 August) ended.

For more about this conference, see here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after the 1972 Stockholm Environmental Conference the United Nations Environment Program had been set up, and there was money and interest sloshing around for computer modelling of climate. It was fairly crude by today’s standards, but, you know, baby steps. There was Bolin, Flohn and the others. And presumably, Olof Palme was being kept informed. Flohn certainly briefed Palme at some point. I think that year 

What we learn is that the scientific understanding of the build up of the consequences of the buildup of CO2 came along in leaps and bounds in the 70s. They’re only a couple of years away from “yellow danger light” as per Thomas Malone in July of 1977. Of course, the old beasts – Landsberg Charney and John Mason, were pooh poohing it all together. And Reid Bryson was angry that his dust theory was going tits up. But it was real, the emerging carbon consensus. That’s what we learned. 

What happened next. A meeting in Norwich the following year put the death to the cooling idea. The Energy and Climate report of the National Academy of Sciences came out in 1977. And then, of course, the First World Climate conference in 1979. And that’s the end really, of there being serious debate about the CO2 problem.

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: 

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles…

Categories
Australia International processes Sweden UNFCCC

: July 18, 1996 – Australian Prime Minister snubs #climate talks

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, July 18th, 1996, John Howard showed his priorities…

Its Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S. position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which:

1. Accepted the scientific findings on climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its second assessment (1995);

2. Rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;

3. Called for “legally binding mid-term targets”.

AND

“PRIME Minister John Howard yesterday [18th] snubbed the international community, claiming Australia would continue to oppose reductions in greenhouse gases.

“Australia has drawn international condemnation for its refusal to accept legally binding reductions in greenhouse gases now accepted as causing global warming.”

Benson, S. 1996. Howard snubs world / Greenhouse gas call `hurts Australia’. Daily Telegraph, July 19, p.14.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard had come to power in March of that year and took the Keating government’s antipathy to all things climate, and dialled it up from a solid eight or nine to an 11. “This one goes up to 11”. 

What we learn is that the Australian political elite was extremely hostile to anything that would get between them and profits. For coal companies, they could see no other way of being in the world. And they didn’t see the need for that other way, because they didn’t accept 19th century physics {LINK}

What we learn is that we’ve already learned that John Howard is a contemptible climate criminal.

What happened next, Howard dialled up the ante – the international agreement campaign against Australia having to cut emissions was not an 11 but a 12. The following year, he sent diplomats all around the world to try to carve out a special deal for Australia and was spectacularly successful in doing so. 

And here we are almost 30 years later; acts of cosmic vandalism. And you need a heart of stone not to despair. 

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: 

July 18, 1979 – US Senators ask for synthetic fuel implications for greenhouse warming. Told.

July 18, 2005 – inconvenient energy targets scrapped

July 18, 2012: Climate Justice poem – “Tell Them” by Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner – hits the internet

Categories
Sweden United Kingdom

June 17, 1957 – Guy Callendar writes more truth bombs – “On the Amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere”

Sixty seven years ago, on this day, June 17th, 1957, Guy Callendar submitted an article – “On the Amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere” to Tellus, the Swedish scientific journal.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Guy Callendar had now been writing about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the warming planet for 20 years. He had presented this work in 1938 at the British Meteorological Society and received a polite but relatively dismissive hearing. Callendar must have been looking at the work around the IGY and hopefully, he was feeling at least a small sense of vindication. I don’t know, even though he’s been largely ignored by or tolerated by the British scientific establishment. 

 What we learn is that the old Hollywood trope of the lone genius, who’s right when the establishment is wrong or looking the other way, is not entirely without foundation. 

 What happened next Callendar had one more significant paper in him in 61/62. I think he must have been too sick to be invited to the Conservation Foundation meeting in 63. And he died in 1964 on the same day of the year, Svante Arrhenius had died, in 1927.

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: 

Carbon Capture? Far from ready… June 17, 2008

June 17, 2009 – Blistering speech about how “The Climate Nightmare is Upon Us” by Christine Milne