Forty five years ago, on this day, July 12, 1978, US scientists gathered to review
1978 Woods Hole workshop to review “Report of the Workshop to Review the U.S. Climate Program Plans”, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, July 12-19, 1978, to the Climate Research Board
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the National Academy of Science had released its big fat report in the middle of 1977. And there was now a US Climate programme as well, thanks to George Brown’s efforts to get a climate act through. This workshop is about “well how are we doing? What do we do next?”
What I think we can learn from this is that you can get a research agenda with policy implications embedded within the state but then you need to husband it, make sure it’s on track. And that’s unglamorous but it’s needed, obviously, and will take up a lot of time and energy. But there isn’t really an alternative because if you don’t nurture it, you’re screwed (spoiler, you are anyway!)
What happened next
The climate issue continued to build and build and by 1980 81, it had some serious legs on it. And then came Reagan and the Heritage Foundation, grinding into gear and making sure that things like the Global 2000 report don’t have as much afterlife as they otherwise might. See. May 13 1983 blog post
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, July 12, 1953, the New York Times carried an article about the changes in the world’s weather (warmer). It mentioned our friend carbon dioxide… (Engel, Leonard, 1953. “The Weather Is Really Changing,” New York Times Magazine, July 12)
It mentions CEP Brooks, and gets info from Harry Wexler of the US Weather Bureau. And near the end, this –
“Another theory, advanced by some meteorologists, attributes at least part of the rise in temperatures to a small but definite increase in the past century in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The air’s content of this product of combustion is important because carbon dioxide has heat-conserving properties, similar to greenhouse glass.
In 1850 the air contained somewhat less than thirty parts of carbon dioxide per 1000 parts off air. In the hundred years since, industrialized, urbanized man has poured unprecedented quantities of carbon dioxide out of home and factory chimneys… As a result, there are now thirty-three parts of the gas per 1,000 in the atmosphere instead of thirty. Calculations by physicists show that this is enough of an increase to make a detectable difference in the temperature at the surface of the earth…”.
By now there are already “alarmists” out there –
“The warming-up process, however, also poses problems…. If the warm-up continues for another several decades, shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap could cause a troublesome rise in ocean levels. The rise would not, as alarmists predict, wipe out all our port cities. But it could be troublesome enough to demonstrate anew that, for all his central heating and air conditioners, climate still makes man more than man makes climate.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 312.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there were clear indications the world was warming up till about, well, 1950. And lots of articles in various places, including Saturday Evening Post. And, of course, two months before this. Gilbert Plass had hit the headlines with his statement about carbon dioxide. So I don’t think he was reported in the New York Times. He was, however, reported in Time, Newsweek, lots of regional publications. So this kind of “think piece” article could be cobbled together and be of interest because everyone was interested in the weather. It’s also in the context of nuclear bombs being set off left, right and centre, and everyone basically worrying about what that might mean.
What I think we can learn from this is that awareness of these issues goes back even in the mainstream press in very early days.
What happened next
More journalistic articles, including a corker from Maclean’s by Norman J Berrilll in 1955, and Plass’s work in 1956, also garnering a lot of press attention and interest.
Engel wrote another piece of special interest in 1958
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, July 11, 2013, a protest was held outside Google HQ because it hosted a fundraiser for denialist Senator James Inhofe.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Google, which still had a residual aura of “don’t be evil” about it, had been hosting fundraisers for climate denialists like James Inhofe. The context was that Obama wasn’t going to legislate on climate. Really, the international negotiations weren’t going anywhere in particular.
What I think we can learn from this is that any company that says “don’t be evil”, probably has some skeletons in its closet, or wants to have. Show me the money, I’ll show you the crime…
What happened next Google released the usual flimflam about “freedom of speech,” blah, blah, blah. Protesters could pat themselves on the head, go home, and the whole soap opera continues and the climate continues to be fucked.
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 US launched a thermonuclear warhead into space from the Pacific Ocean. The resulting explosion turned the skies into a technicolor light show of nuclear fallout. In Hawaii, where the effects were most visible, hotels arranged “rainbow bomb parties” so their guests could have a rooftop view of the radioactive particles drifting across the sky.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the atmospheric test ban was about to come into force. And the nut job Dr. Strangeloves just wanted to see what would happen if they burst an H-bomb in the Pacific atmosphere. Could have wiped out the Van Allen belt for all they knew, but hell, why not have a laugh?
What I think we can learn from this is that boys and their toys, get drunk on power. And could easily have been the quick death of us, and definitely are going to be the slow death of us.
What happened next
The bombs moved underground.
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 one years ago, on this day, July 8, 1962, mentions the “Glasshouse Effect” in an article by George Kimgle, about the weather and climate – “But Somebody Does Something About It” New York Times Magazine,
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
This article includes a useful summation of the carbon dioxide issue, which by this time was popping up in newspapers everywhere (though not at the same level as it had appeared in the 1950s).
What I think we can learn from this is that people, educated people in 1962 would have been aware of a problem.
What happened next
The following year, the Conservation Foundation held a meeting in New York about carbon dioxide buildup. And within a couple of years, the first book that wasn’t about the weather to mention climate was published – Murray Bookchin’s Crisis in Our Cities.
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 seven years ago, on this day, June 29, 1956, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 is signed, officially creating the United States Interstate Highway System.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the US economy after WW2 was based on the growth in car ownership, as per the quote in Noam Chomsky’s “World Orders, Old and New” with Eisenhower saying it “put a nice stable floor under the economy.” The Great Acceleration in every sense…
What I think we can learn from this
The Federal Government instituted the highway systems to improve transport pretending that it was in some way a defence gesture because you’re not allowed to do industrial policy ETC in the US nakedly – you have to dress it up usually as defence.
What happened next
The great car economy took off. There will be no survivors
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.
Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 26, 1988, one of the major US networks goes all in on our doom…
“The Inside Sunday edition of the CBS Evening News for June 26, 1988 featured a very unusual eight-minute environmental story that led with the greenhouse effect, linking it to the high temperatures of the 1980s. The Goddard Institute’s David Rind and climatologist Thomas Karl warned of future warming and discussed the need to decrease the production of carbon dioxide.”
sorry – can’t lay hands on source right now!
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the United States was suffering a prolonged drought with the Mississippi at its lowest level ever. Farmers’ crops destroyed and heat waves. On the 23rd James Hanson had given testimony and then made statements to journalists immediately after which had caused uproar.
It’s crucial to understand as per the Grant Swinger spoof that everybody knew about the greenhouse effect more or less because it had been spoken of intermittently for 20-years and especially in 1983, less than 5 years previously.
What I think we can learn from this
Eight minutes of news broadcast is enormous. Everybody knew. The problem is not one of knowledge; the problem is one of Power.
What happened next
The fossil fuel fans fought back. They started to flood the media with b******* knowing that balance was bias. They also successfully lobbied government to go slow on international negotiations. Thirty five years later here we are.
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.
Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen gave his pivotal testimony to senators.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that since the 1985 Villach meeting advocates of climate action had been pressing every button and pulling every lever that they knew. Hansen had testified before and this testimony timed to sensitise journalists before the Toronto “Changing the Global Atmosphere” conference was held on a very hot day in Washington DC with the windows closed and the air conditioning turned off.
What I think we can learn from this
You have to say the same thing over and over and over again to get anywhere. You have to be lucky with your timing. And crucially James Hanson was a small c-conservative person at that point, so coming from him it was a big deal to say that the greenhouse effect was here. Those words would not have had the same effect from some other people…
What happened next
The issue exploded. Presidential candidates were forced to address it. Hansen got smeared and ignored and uninvited to important meetings. This continued until he retired. He’s been getting arrested a lot.
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 three years ago, on this day, June 22, 1970, Rep John Culver of Iowa shares his eco-concerns, reads “the Imperiled Environment” into the Congressional Record.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Earth Day had happened in April and there were many articles about the desperate state of the planet. And many of these articles – including this one – included a couple of paragraphs about the long-term problem of carbon dioxide build up.
What I think we can learn from this is that many US politicians knew what was at stake they could read the tactic of reading something into the record is helpful for historians 50 years later it’s not clear it was particularly helpful for anyone at the time.
What happened next
The carbon dioxide build up continued to get intermittent press but it was only in 1988 that the issue exploded.
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 five years ago, on this day, June 21, 1958, the Washington Post (not then the paper it is now) reported on carbon dioxide build-up.
21 June 1958 – IGY findings – Price, B. (1958) World Seen Turning Into a ‘Greenhouse’. Washington Post and Times Herald ; Jun 21, pg. A1
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 317.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
That, even without Charles David Keeling measurements, it was clear that atmospheric CO2 was building up and would eventually cause the planet to overheat. This was thanks to the International Geophysical Year which was by this stage almost 12 months old. The previous December the Washington Post and run a front page story based on Edward Teller’s warning of a long-term climate apocalypse.
What I think we can learn from this
We can learn that there really wasn’t any secret about this in Washington or presumably London, it was just in the too hard and too far away basket
What happened next
The measurements started. The scientists continued to point out that there would be trouble ahead, especially people like Herman Flohn and David Keeling. But it would be 1988 before politicians were forced to take note.
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.
