Ninety six years ago, on this day, December 30th, 1931,
On Wednesday December 30 1931, Dr Robert Innes an astronomer and meteorologist gave a speech at a meeting of the British Astronomical Association, pointing to carbon dioxide released when coal and petrol were burned as a cause of current and future warming.
Anon, 1931. No More Cold Winters. News Chronicle, December 31, p.1
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 308ppm. 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’s theory of carbon dioxide build-up had been dismissed by some. Others still thought it had merit (reader, it did).
The specific context was that Innes was a fascinating, self-taught figure. He also seemed to have thought that carbon dioxide from comets was a cause of the warming.
What I think we can learn from this – carbon dioxide was being mentioned a reasonable amount. It’s not clear Guy Callendar knew about/paid attention to Innes…
What happened next – Innes died a couple of years after this, before Callendar’s pivotal (in retrospect only) presentation to the Royal Meteorological Society in early 1938.
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.
Fifty-six years ago today, the heavy-weight magazine The Economist editorialises on environment, and CO2 build-up
“You might even say that something encouragingly like a constructive panic is on.”
But one is left with the fear that the massed ranks now setting out to do battle against the pale horsemen of this new apocalypse may end up trampling one another to death. Now that it is legitimate to be against motherhood “environment looks like becoming a battle-cry that will be both unchallengeable and universally fashionable.”
Mr Moynihan… has been leaning rather heavily on such suggestions as that, by the year 2000, the level of the oceans could rise by ten feet as a result of the increased carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. This content has, indeed, already been increased by 10 per cent by the use of coal and oil fuels (each transatlantic airliner puts a hundred tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere); and the restoration of the balance by photosynthesis in plant life on land and in the sea may be increasingly jeopardised by human spoliation of the environment. But scientists have been unable to agree in predicting the long-term effects of a fouler atmosphere on the earth’s surface temperature, and hence on the sea level.
What is agreed is that we are destabilising the balance of nature in this and other ways, and that where remedies are available they will mostly require action on an international scale.
The mess we are making now could have catastrophic effects not upon a distant posterity – assuming that there is going to be any such thing – but within a few decades.
But even the foggiest words are a less alarming additive to the atmosphere than an excess of carbon dioxide. For one forceful exposition of what it is all about, those who did not hear Dr Fraser Darling’s lectures might well read them in the Listener or in book form; for another, they may be referred to a remarkable book which was originally published in Sweden three years ago and which is credited with having inspired the subsequent Swedish drive to bring the whole problem to the forefront of international discussion. Some day we may all have cause for gratitude to these prophets of avoidable doom.
Anon, 1969. Of Muck and Men. The Economist, December 20, p.15
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. 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 Guy Callendar, who had bravely done the work in the 1930s was sadly not around to see this – he had died five years earlier. But by then others had taken up the fight, and tv programmes (including a couple by the late great Roy Battersby) had introduced it to UK audiences.
The specific context was that by 1969, “everyone” was talkin’ pollution, and editors must have known that the Wilson government was about to set up a (standing) Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
What I think we can learn from this – the British elites (political, economic) knew what might be coming by 1969.
What happened next – the carbon dioxide fear got kicked by Frank Ireland, the Alkali Inspector, the following August.
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.
Forty three years ago, on this day, December 19th, 1982,
Horizon BBC Two Sun 19th Dec 1982, 15:20 on BBC Two England
The State of the Planet
This year 100 world authorities on the environment met in London; their task, to assess progress in the ten years since the first major UN Environment Conference in Stockholm.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 341ppm. 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 yes, the big Stockholm “save the earth” conference was ten years ago. There were some signs of progress on some issues (lead in petrol, etc) but clearly other problems were growing.
The specific context was – the international bureaucracy loves an anniversary – another chance for more reports, more meetings, more pledges.
What I think we can learn from this – we knew plenty a very long time ago. The best time to slam your foot on the brakes is before the bus goes off the cliff.
What happened next – the facts kept getting told. And ignored. By the late 1980s, for a variety of reasons, they became unignorable. BBC Horizon kept making programs about this.
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.
Sixty eight years ago, on this day, December 16th, 1957, there was a Meteorological Office discussion of Atmospheric Chemistry at the Royal Society of Arts.
And
“If carbon dioxide continued to be generated by human activities at the present rate, and if it all remained in the air, there would be a change in the world’s climate which within a few centuries might be disastrous.”
(see 1958 Meteorological Magazine)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 315ppm. 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 the Met Office has been around for yonks! The Royal Society of the Arts is somewhat older.
The specific context was that the International Geophysical Year was underway, with a lot of data analysis to come…
Even before the data was collected, however, there was knowledge that there might be trouble ahead.
NB John Sawyer was present (more on this later).
What I think we can learn from this – The IGY generated a lot of things to talk about!
What happened next
The Met Office didn’t start getting seriously interested in carbon dioxide until 1976…
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.
Seventeen years ago today, December 15 2008, the late John Vidal writes up the facts in an article titled “Those Kingsnorth police injuries in full: six insect bites and a toothache”
When climate camp protesters descended on the site of the Kingsnorth power station for a week-long summer demonstration, the scale of the police operation to cope with them was enormous.
Police were accused of using aggressive tactics, confiscating everything from toilet rolls and board games to generators and hammers. But ministers justified what they called the “proportionate” £5.9m cost of the operation, pointing out that 70 officers had been injured in the course of their duties.
But data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act puts a rather different slant on the nature of those injuries, disclosing that not one was sustained in clashes with demonstrators.
Papers acquired by the Liberal Democrats via Freedom of Information requests show that the 1,500 officers policing the Kingsnorth climate camp near the Medway estuary in Kent, suffered only 12 reportable injuries during the protest during August.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. 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 those agitating for crazy ideas, like (checks notes) an end to slavery, votes, votes for women etc etc are always ignored, and once they can’t be ignored are repressed and smeared. That’s just the way it is.
The specific context was that Climate Camp had been allowed to run for two years already (the police were well aware of the plans to take the Drax site, since those discussions were held in the flat of one of the Spycops). Probably by now they were getting bored, and the SDS was being closed down. So, time to up the harassment (confiscating board games, blasting music at 3am etc etc) and also try to smear the activists with the help of a credulous/compliant media.
What I think we can learn from this – you shouldn’t straight up believe everything you read in a newspaper, even (especially if?!) it comes from an “official source.”
In the words of the journalist Nicholas Tomalin – “they lie, they lie, they lie.”
What happened next
Same same same. Some things just don’t change.
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.
On this day 41 years ago, the Chief Scientific Advisor, B.N. Nicholson wrote a report which included this –
The predicted changes in climate accompanying increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other gases will have widespread and possibly catastrophic impacts on agriculture, energy supply and demand, sea-defences etc.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 352ppm. 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 by the early 1980s climate scientists were pretty sure that there was a quick (in geological terms basically instantaneous) warming on the way. Not that anyone in “power” seemed to give a damn.
The specific context was that Thatcher had already been warned about carbon dioxide build-up by her previous Chief Scientific Advisor, John Ashworth. Meanwhile, by 1984 it was becoming obvious to scientists who could add up that there was serious trouble ahead.
What we learn. There were plenty of warnings – our “leaders” did not lead.
What happened next. Thatcher was finally convinced in 1988, and the next phase started – one of empty promises.
Forty five years ago, on this day, December 10th, 1980, the National Coal Board’s top science bod says what he thinks…
10 December 1980 lecture THE FUTURE FOR COAL AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 339ppm. 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 carbon dioxide build-up as a problem was by now almost 30 years old. There had been waves of concern, each had receded leaving, well, not very much.
The specific context was that Gibson had been up to his neck for the last few years in various investigations of what to do about C02 build-up, if anything could in fact be done.
In 1979 Margaret Thatcher, as the new Prime Minister had met her chief scientific advisor. He tried to get her interested/concerned and her retort was “you want me to worry about the weather?”
What I think we can learn from this – the warnings were there. They were largely ignored.
What happened next – the problem would not become an issue until 1988…
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.
Seventy years ago, on this day, December 9th, 1955,
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 from the late 1940s the possibilities of what we would not call geo-engineering – melting the Arctic on purpose etc – were popping up in the popular press and the left-wing press.
The specific context was that the International Geophysical Year was coming up, and questions of changes in the weather/climate and the possibilities of man-made weather were becoming a commonplace.
What I think we can learn from this – the knowledge was there, for a very long time, but mostly “lost in the noise.”
What happened next – these sorts of articles kept getting published. The emissions kept climbing.
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.
“The collapse of civilisation and the natural world is on the horizon, Sir David Attenborough has told the UN climate change summit in Poland.
“The naturalist was chosen to represent the world’s people in addressing delegates of almost 200 nations who are in Katowice to negotiate how to turn pledges made in the 2015 Paris climate deal into reality.
“As part of the UN’s people’s seat initiative, messages were gathered from all over the world to inform Attenborough’s address on Monday. “Right now we are facing a manmade disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change,” he said. “If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 409ppm. 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 Attenborough had been slow to acknowledge the carbon dioxide problem (see 2006 piece by George Monbiot).
The specific context was that with the IPCC’s 1.5 degree report, and the Thunberg school strikes, and XR’s “declaration of rebellion”, it was all systems go for climate doom.
What I think we can learn from this – “words words words” as Hamlet would have it.
What happened next – Attenborough kept making documentaries. The emissions, at a global level, kept climbing. So did atmospheric concentrations and temperature. We are fubarred.
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.
Fifty one years ago, on this day, December 3rd, 1974,
The CO2 question (that is, long-term temperature and precipitation changes caused by rising carbon dioxide levels) was absent from the Dynamical Climatology Branch and rarely touched on by Mason. This changed with the airing of Nigel Calder’s BBC television programme, The Weather Machine, in 1974. Calder, a well-known British science writer and former New Scientist journalist, painted the imminent coming of a new Ice Age in such dramatic terms that the House of Commons ordered the Meteorological Office to report on Calder’s pronouncements
‘Meteorological Office: Ice Age Predictions, House of Commons Debate,’’ 3 Dec 1974, Hansard, Vol. 882, cc. 440-2W
via Martin-Nielsen,
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 330ppm. 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 predictions – about getting hotter and getting colder, for various reasons, were being thrown about in the 1960s and 1970s. Carbon dioxide build-up was acknowledged by all, but some (including Nigel Calder) were not interested.
One does wonder what Nigel’s dad, Lord Ritchie-Calder, thought…
The specific context was – 1974 was busy year, politically, and there was still ambiguity about what the future would hold for the climate (it wasn’t really for another 10 years that all doubt could be removed, though certainly by the second half of the 1970s more and more people were saying “it’s gonna get hotter, and carbon dioxide is the reason why”).
What I think we can learn from this – the BBC used to have the power to upset the applecart.
What happened next – a fierce prolonged two year spat between the BBC and John Mason, who was, by all accounts, an, ah “forceful personality.”
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.
