Category: United States of America

Categories
United States of America Weather modification

November 13, 1946 – first human-made snowstorm

Seventy-eight years ago, on this day, November 13th, 1946,

On November 13, 1946 pilot Curtis Talbot, working for the General Electric Research Laboratory, climbed to an altitude of 14,000 feet about 30 miles east of Schenectady, New York. Talbot, along with scientist Dr. Vincent J. Schaefer, released three pounds of dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) into the clouds. As they turned south, Dr. Schaefer noted, “I looked toward the rear and was thrilled to see long streamers of snow falling from the base of the cloud through which we had just passed. I shouted to Curt to swing around, and as we did so we passed through a mass of glistening snow crystals! Needless to say, we were quite excited.” They had created the world’s first human-made snowstorm.

Novak, 2011.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was in the aftermath of World War Two it looked like we, as a species, would be able to do absolutely anything after all. We had just killed 200,000 of our own with two bombs. How powerful is that? 

What we learn is that weather modification was an integral part of post war Climate Science. You can’t separate it easily.

What happened next the dream of weather modification continued, until it bumped up against complexity and scale in the 60s and 70s.

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: 

November 13, 1963 – Ritchie Calder warns of trouble ahead because of carbon dioxide…

November 13, 1975 – climate testimony to House of Reps committee

November 13, 2008 – Coal industry tries to get some ‘love’

Categories
Denial United States of America

November 11, 1988 – Gore blames Reagan and Reaganites for loss of US leadership

Thirty-four years ago, on this day, November 11th, 1988,

At that [Nov 11, 1988] conference [organised by Time] French environmental official Brice Lalonde remarked, “Through the late 1970s, lots of things we learned about the environment came from the United States. And [in the] late seventies, it stops, and the lead [switched to] Scandinavia, Germany, and the Netherlands.” To this, Tennessee Democrat Senator Albert Gore quickly responded “January of 1981, to be precise.”

(Schneider, 1989: 225)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Time magazine was holding a conference about the environment and climate change and so forth. Because that sold newspapers and they wanted to get another story out of it. 

So convene a big bunch of big names. You can put it on your cover, get reflected/halo glory, future connections. It’s then easier for journalists to phone up and get quotes. Bish bosh.

And what Gore was doing was telling the truth about how the Reagan administration had been, at best indifferent, at worst, actively hostile to all environmental concerns.There had been in effect, a lost decade, longer by the time you took the incoming President Bush into account.

What we learn is that there was a lost decade,

What happened next, Gore went toe-to-toe with Bush Snr over the subject of global warming. revealing that NASA scientist James Hansen had been gagged, etc, etc. Gore was then Clinton’s running mate in 1992, at the same time “Earth in the Balance” came out. 

And here we are, with the emissions still 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.

Also on this day: 

November 11, 1963 – “Is man upsetting the weather?”

November 11, 1988 – IPCC finishes its first meeting

Categories
United States of America

November 3, 1916 -measurement of ice flow shows climate change

One hundred and eight years ago, on this day, November 3rd, 1916,

But let’s go way back to Nov. 3, 1916, courtesy of Google News’s archive search, where we’ll see a story in the Hartford (Conn.) Courant headlined, “Fossil Rocks in Canada Studied.” The subhead under the headline reads, in part, “Measurement of Ice Flow Shows Climate Change.” https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0908/why-are-they-calling-it-climate-change-now

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 302ppm. As of 2024 it is 423.7ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the earth seemed to be warming up. And this was quite possibly just some sort of natural fluctuation. Carbon dioxide is only in the normal order of things, one among many, many factors. Before the denialists leap on this, I would say that since the 1800s, it has not been a normal run of things, because we have been putting so much fossil fuel residue into the atmosphere. It wasn’t the Industrial Revolution so much as the Fossil Fuel Revolution.

What we learn is that from very early in the 20th century, people were saying there was a slight warming (possibly cyclical). Then by the late 1930s, the Arctic was visibly warming. There’s reports on that in various newspapers. And then by 1951. Rachel Carson was talking about it in her book, “The world beneath us”.

What happened next? We kept burning fossil fuels. And the emissions kept climbing. Be interesting to know if Svante Arrhenius saw this, or said anything more after his 1896 piece of work? Did he keep a folder saying the earth is warming? Was it the sort of thing that Guy Callendar was looking at?

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: 

November 3, 1990 – money for independent climate scientists? Yeah, nah

November 3, 1990 – more smears about the IPCC, in the Financial Times 

November 3, 2000 – Australian denialists get American scientist to testify about Kyoto Protocol, smear IPCC

Categories
Canada Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom United States of America

October 27, 2002 – International CCS study tour begins

Twenty two years ago, on this day, October 27th, 2002, some people fly off to the US and Canada.

Report of DTI International Technology Service Mission to the USA and Canada from 27th October to 7th November 2002

Carbon dioxide capture and storage : report of DTI International technology Service Mission to the USA and Canada from 27th October to 7th November 2002 / Advanced Power Generation Technology Forum ; Mission leader Nick Otter.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that CCS had been climbing the agenda for a few years, especially since it looked like the political negotiations around the Kyoto process were going nowhere. So you know, maybe throw your eggs in the technology basket and there were always these opportunities for nice conferences and PowerPoint slides and fun dinners and schmoozing. So it goes.

What we learn is that there’s always a new technology that’s going to save us. And that those technologies need “selling.”

What happened next, CCS started climbing in the popularity stakes. The Americans were throwing money at it with FutureGen. And then, years later, the Europeans and the Brits said that they were going to throw money at it. And here we are 23 years later. And how much C02 was actually being saved? Or stored? 

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 27, 1967 – “the Swedish environmental turn” picks up speed

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions

Categories
United States of America

October 23, 1989 – Republican Governor of New Jersey issues climate executive order

Thirty five years ago, on this day, October 23rd 1989 Republican Governor of New Jersey Thomas Kean issues an executive order. Yep. it was a broadly bi-partisan issue, until 1990-1991, and the beginning of the organised fight back by the fossil fuel interests…

https://nj.gov/infobank/circular/eok219.htm

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 at this stage you could be a Republican and still give a shit about climate change and be seen to be doing something or wanting to do something about it. The culture wars hadn’t really hardened the arteries of the body politic. That’s not to say that what the Republicans were proposing as solutions were going to work. But at least they acknowledged that there was a problem. The fact that that seems like a small mercy or something noteworthy tells you how decayed we are.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew and that it wasn’t always a culture war.

What happened next remained governor of New Jersey until 1990 and the culture war hardened 

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 23, 1955 – LA Times article says “our weather is changing”

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

Categories
Science United States of America

October 22, 1969 – American Meteorological Society symposium on the Future of the Atmosphere, Madison, Wisconsin

Fifty years ago, on this day, October 22nd, 1969,

AMS Symposium on the Future of the Atmosphere, Madison, Wis., 22 October 1969.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that President Lyndon Johnson had made his special address to Congress in early 1965. It had included a short section (from Roger Revelle) about CO2 buildup. And were things going to get hotter or colder and no one knew for sure. So it’s logical that the American Meteorological Society would want to hold a seminar on the future of climate. One of the people present was Canadian scientist Kenneth Hare, who had been at a Guy Callendar’s talk in 1938 at the Royal Meteorological Society. And in his talk at this seminar, Hare talked about CO2 as one potential issue. 

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 1960s, people in the know were beginning to take note…

What happened next The issue was ‘there’ in the lead up to Stockholm, but there was not the hard evidence yet. By the late 1970s, it was obvious to anyone with intellectual integrity that there was a serious problem ahead (but ‘ahead’ might mean another thirty years).

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

Hare, F.K. 1971. Future climates and future environments
F. Kenneth Hare Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 52, No. 6 (June 1971), pp. 451-456 (6 pages)

Also on this day: 

October 22, 1969 – Edmund Muskie mentions CO2 build up 

October 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat

Categories
United States of America

October 16, 1979 – Exxon memo on the potential impact of fossil fuel combustion

Forty five years ago, on this day, October 16th, 1979, an Exxon Memo on Potential Impact of Fossil Fuel Combustion is sent.

see also https://thenib.com/climate-crisis-comix/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that. Exxon had been looking at CO2 build up. They’d had discussions with oceanographer Wally Broecker. There were bits of equipment on oil tankers and so forth. And they’d done the calculations. And they basically knew what was coming, and made fairly accurate predictions of what was coming. See for example this June 6, 1978 presentation.

What we learn is that in the words of the website, “Exxon knew.”

What happened next. In early 1980 Exxon and Texaco were talking about setting up a climate taskforce. As late as October 25, 1982 – Exxon held “Climate Processes & Climate Sensitivity” symposium. But then in the mid-80s, Exxon pulled the plug, and started funding denial, started making as much money as they could, which is a lot of money. And in 2006, the Royal Society had taken the unusual step of telling them to knock it off with the denial – September 4, 2006 – Royal Society to Exxon: “Knock it off with the funding to #climate deniers”– with limited effects. Dark money is still going towards these groups. Whether it’s Exxon or Exxon’s mates, who can say. 

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 16, 1956 – will H-bombs knock the world off balance!?

October 16, 1990 – Green groups say yes to “Ecologically Sustainable Development”

Categories
United States of America

October 14, 1980 – Barry Commoner’s “bullshit” advert…

Forty-two years ago, on this day, October 14th, 1980, scientist Barry Commoner is running for president, and a ‘shocking ad’ is released.

“It’s all bullshit!”

“What?!”

“Carter- Reagan-Anderson, it’s all bullshit.”

See also https://time.com/4584919/barry-commoner-shocking-ad/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Barry Commoner had been banging on about the threats to the environment for a looong time. His first book, Science and Survival, had come out in 1966 and was a crucial node for awareness of climate change. And he finally decided to run for President to highlight the issues. Of course, that was the election that one of the Koch brothers also stood on a so-called “libertarian” platform. 

Anyway, Commoner’s campaign was not getting a lot of attention, of course. His campaign manager had the bright idea to put out an advert saying that voters should pay attention to Commoner if they were sick of bullshit. And this was back in the days when swearing was newsworthy. And it got Commoner a certain amount of attention though, by all accounts Commoner was not happy since it kind of cut across his preferred reputation as a serious and non joke/ attention-seeking candidate.

What we learn is that if you want to get attention, you have to do something newsworthy. Because the media are bored of it reporting actual issues. Because they know that the voters want a circus instead. The voters want a circus because what they can choose doesn’t really matter anyway, so they may as well be entertained. And also, some of the voters are really fucking thick. But that’s not really their fault. Education System, schooling system and society are all designed to make people thick, because thick people are easy to manipulate. The last thing you want is an intelligent electorate. What a freaking nightmare that would be. 

What happened next Commoner lost, obviously. Reagan got up. Gaia help us all.

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: 

October 14, 1974 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor is warned about carbon dioxide build-up.

October 14, 1977 – a UNESCO education conference mentions climate change…

Categories
Activism United States of America

October 11, 2016 – Five activists do a shutdown on a tar sands pipeline

ctober 11, 2016 – Five activists do a shutdown on a tar sands pipeline

Eight years ago, on this day, October 11th, 2016,

http://www.shutitdown.today/action_video_recap

7 minute video

On October 11, 2016, five brave climate activists, determined to act commensurately with the truth of unfolding climate cataclysm, closed safety valves on the 5 pipelines carrying tar sands crude oil into the United States. This is their story.

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/10/11/avert-climate-catastrophe-activists-shut-down-5-pipelines-bringing-tar-sands-oil

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Canadian and US companies were extracting huge amounts of oil from tar sands; the filthiest kind of oil you can imagine. The getting of it is especially destructive. So what do we do? We try to take nonviolent direct action and throw ourselves on the mercy of the courts. But the beast, the machine, the Juggernaut continues and the emissions climb.

What do we learn that there’s a juggernaut, and it’s hungry.

What happened next? From Wikipedia

All five participants planned to use the necessity defence to draw attention to their cause and justify their actions,[6] though three were not permitted to do so.[7] The judge presiding over the Johnston & Klapstein trial, Robert Tiffany, initially ruled that they could mount the necessity defense.[8] However, he then reversed his decision, prohibiting expert testimony that would establish the argument for necessity,[9] before dismissing the case before the defendants could present its necessity defense.[10] Klapstein said she was happy the charges were dismissed, but “at the same time, we were indeed disappointed not to be able to present this to the jury. We were hoping to educate the jury and the classroom of greater public opinion on the dire issues of climate change”.[9] Foster, Higgins, and Ward were prohibited by the judges overseeing their cases from mounting the necessity defense.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_Turners

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

https://www.streetroots.org/news/2016/12/01/how-5-activists-stopped-flow-alberta-tar-sands-oil-us

Also on this day: 

October 11, 1990 – Australian Federal Government makes climate promise, with fingers crossed

October 11, 2006 – “Climate Institute” begins tour of rural Victoria

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

October 6, 1997 – Australia says nope to uniform emissions 5% cut. Assholes.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 6th, 1997,

Senator Robert Hill, the federal Minister for the Environment, rejected Japan’s proposal of a 5% uniform reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2012 on the basis that it would result in unacceptable job losses in Australia (ABC television 7.00 pm news 6.10.97)

(Duncan, 1997:10)

Same day President Bill Clinton hosts pre-Kyoto climate conference at the White House… (see New York Times coverage here).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard as prime minister had taken hostility of Australian political elites to the climate treaty from a solid eight through to 11. (“This one goes up to 11.”) And he had sent diplomats around the world over the course of 1997 to try and convince everyone that Australia deserved special treatment at the impending Kyoto meeting, without much success, it has to be said. The Americans were mocking him. Anyway, this above one attempt to break the logjam by the hosts. The Japanese posed an across the board 5% cut from everyone. Now this wouldn’t have been in keeping with the science but it was a bid worth making. The fact that Australia just turned round with a flat rejection tells you plenty.

What we learn is that Australian political elites just don’t give a shit about the future. All they care about is filling their own pockets with loot in the here and now. This is not uncommon, of course.

What happened next? Howard was rewarded for his efforts. Australia managed to get not only 108% so called reductions target, i.e. they got to increase their emissions. But also just through sheer trickery and nastiness they managed to get a land clearing clause backdated to 1990. So that in effect, the emissions reduction target was 130% essentially, de facto if not the jure. 

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 6, 1988 – coal lobby says greenhouse effect “greatly exaggerated”

October 6, 1989 – Hawke Government given climate heads up by top scientist

October 6, 2005 – carbon capture is doable…