Every issue of the CO2 Newsletter had an editorial. They are William Barbat’s attempt to share (and shape) situational awareness.
Here, in March 1980, he is breathing a sigh of relief because it seems the various elements of the state (the Department of Energy, the Council on Environmental Quality) is finally beginning to get its act together. Sadly, all that would be wrecked from November 1980, with the coming of the Reagan gang. (And yet, Barbat persisted. The man had brains and guts).
The new decade begins on an optimistic note as the CO2-greenhouse problem is beginning to receive deserved attention in scientific, political, and economic institutions. Also this particular environmental issue may unite former adversaries in a common effort. David Burns, head of the AAAS Climate Program, has noted a great increase in the number of major papers which are being prepared for publication on the CO2 problem. Also our growing readership indicates to us that the Newsletter is fulfilling its role of enlightenment. Soon a European distributorship for the Newsletter may be established. Most heartening though is the apparent absence of polarization toward the CO2 problem.
Still much skepticism remains concerning the seriousness and urgency of the CO2 problem. Although a rapidly growing number of scientists feel that we now have sufficient knowledge of impending CO2– induced impacts on which to base energy policies, others feel that much more concrete evidence must first be gained throughout the world to substantiate theories and models. Some non-technical people grossly misinterpret this skepticism as representing negative proof.
From the very beginning, much work on the CO2 problem has been performed under adverse conditions or severe financial restraints. Tyndall had to trouble-shoot his galvanometers and have them reconstructed in order to measure the absorption and radiation of heat by CO2. He found that the green dye used in the silk covering of the copper coils of the most delicate instruments of his day contained some iron compound which caused the needle to deviate. Arrhenius lacked laboratory determinations of the absorption coefficients for CO2 and water vapor at plus 15 degrees C, and he also lacked the laboratory equipment needed to make the determinations. “Such experiments . . . would require very expensive apparatus beyond that at my disposal.” Ingeniously, Arrhenius used the earth’s atmosphere instead as his laboratory. Ernest Rutherford described the challenges of those days clearly’ “We haven’t the money, so we’ve got to think.”
Modern workers on the CO2 problem seem to be little better off. The federal funding of Keeling‘s invaluable monitoring of atmospheric CO2 concentrations fell victim to the race to put a man on the moon for several months in 1963. The General Circulation Model of Manabe and Wetherald reportedly contained a programming error, which apparently could only be eliminated by a computer rerun which exceeded their resources. Glaciologists are asked to make predictions of future ice sheet behavior from very sparse data. As far as we can tell, the only available forecast of the warming threshold for West Antarctica Ice Sheet destruction relies solely on a temperature datum provided by a map made from Russian observations taken during the International Geophysical Year. Polar research has been funded meagerly by the U.S. in recent years.
Meetings which bring together atmospheric scientists, climate modelers, terrestrial and marine biologists, ocean geochemists, and other workers to analyze the CO2 problem collectively are greatly limited as to frequency and numbers of invited participants. Publications concerning such meetings are usually incomplete and much delayed. Some important results of the scientific analyses are not even available for purchase through normal channels because some agencies seem to act more as a sink than a source of information. Thus, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the relatively small number of scientists who have brought us so much understanding with so little.
FRED Prata was flicking through some satellite pictures one day when he saw a “funny looking cloud”. It got him thinking. A few years later, that train of thought produced a piece of technology worth tens of millions of dollars — possibly hundreds of millions — every year to the international airline industry.
Chandler, J. 2006. Discarded scientists fail to grasp CSIRO logic. The Age, 11 February.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that since the permanent invasion in 1788 Australia has always been a set of settler colonies keen to exploit natural resources for short term gain. Great god development and all that… this required knowledge, science (production and, inevitably, impact science). The CSIRO was born.
The specific context was that CSIRO scientists had been at the forefront of investigating climate change impacts, from the early 1970s onwards. By the 2000s, they were under the cosh.
What I think we can learn from this is that the distinction between production science and impact science is crucial, and under-understood. And that our lords and masters are basically morons who kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
What happened next: The attacks on scientists producing inconvenient truths have continued, regardless of the party in charge. Because the parties are there to keep the “show” (or relentless extraction and accumulation) on the road.
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.
Michiel van den Broeke, Professor of Polar Meteorology at Utrecht University (longer bio at end of post) very kindly agreed to read William Barbat’s article “Glacier melt: How soon? How fast?” and explain what Barbat got right (and wrong) and where the science has gone in the almost 50 years since then. It’s a brilliant (imo) piece, and I hope you learn as much as I did. Please do share it, comment on it.
Professor van den Broeke
In the March 1980 edition of the CO2 NEWSLETTER, William Barbat reported about the threat of melting ice sheets and the rapid, multi-metre sea level rise that could ensue. Undoubtedly, Barbat had been triggered by the 1978 scientific publication of British glaciologist John Mercer (1922-1987), then employed at (what would later become) the Byrd Polar Research Centre of Ohio State University (Mercer, 1978). In his Nature article: “West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster“, Mercer pointed out that the increase in CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels would result in strong Antarctic warming, potentially leading to the disintegration of the large Ross and Filchner-Ronne ice shelves. In the absence of their buttressing effect, the West Antarctic ice sheet would collapse, raising global sea levels by several metres.
Today’s cryospheric research relies heavily on three complementary techniques: in situ observations, satellite observations and numerical models. In situ observations are often scattered in space, but to their credit have relatively long time series (typically decades in the Polar Regions), indispensable for trend detection. They moreover provide ground truth for satellites and serve to evaluate/calibrate climate and ice sheet models. Satellites, on the other hand, with their limited mission lifetime of typically 5-10 years, produce short time series, but they have the advantage of near-complete spatial coverage, filling in the spatial gaps left by the in situ observations. Numerical models, once evaluated and/or calibrated with the in situ and remotely sensed observations, can help us isolating the physical processes at work and, when they perform satisfactorily, make credible future projections.
When Mercer published his study almost 50 years ago, he had to make do with very limited observations and crude models. Although the density of in situ observations in the polar regions increased sharply after the 1957/58 International Geophysical Year (IGY, also referred to as the Third International Polar Year), observations remained very scarce notably in the ice sheet interiors. While some satellites for earth observation, notably Landsat, were available at that time, time series were less than a decade long. For Earth’s cryosphere, the satellite era started in earnest more than a decade later, with the launch of European Space Agency‘s radar-equipped ERS-1 in 1991. Finally, in the late 1970’s, climate and ice sheet models were still in their infancy; the model projections of future Antarctic warming used in Mercer’s study were from Syukuro Manabe, who in 2021 was co-awarded the Nobel prize in Physics for his pioneering contributions to climate modelling.
In spite of this, both Mercer’s 1978 Nature paper and William Barbat’s 1980 report in the CO2NEWSLETTER highlight the remarkable body of knowledge on the world’s ice sheets that had been gathered. Their reported total volume expressed in sea level rise equivalent of 66 m only deviates by 1% from today’s numbers1. Estimates of sea level stands of 6 m above present during the last interglacial (~125.000 years ago) fall well within the range of current estimates (6 to 9 m) (Dutton et al., 2015). Other remarkably accurate statements concern the approximately 50/50 partitioning of meltwater runoff and iceberg calving as sink terms in the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet and the importance of ice shelf buttressing for grounded ice flow in Antarctica, which decades later was observationally confirmed after the sudden disintegration of Larsen B ice shelf in 2002 (Scambos et al., 2004). Mercer also correctly identified the apparent temperature threshold for the viability of Antarctic ice shelves, later corroborated by the demise of Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves after several decades of strong warming (Morris & Vaughan, 2013; Scambos et al., 2004). Also recently been confirmed is Mercer’s statement that a 5 K atmospheric warming could destabilize parts of the large Ross and Filchner-Ronne ice shelves (Van Wessem et al., 2023).
Inevitably, these early reports also have flaws and large uncertainties, which the authors frankly admit. Lacking direct observations, and realising that around 1980 mass changes of both ice sheets were significantly smaller than they are today (IMBIE, 2018, 2020), not much could be said about the magnitude of mass loss of the ice sheets, let alone the processes that caused them. It would take the launch in 2002 of the satellite pair of the Gravity Anomaly and Climate Experiment (GRACE) before mass loss from both ice sheets was convincingly demonstrated (Velicogna & Wahr, 2005; Velicogna, 2006). GRACE also showed that the recent mass loss in Antarctica is concentrated in the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas sectors, and is associated with ice shelf thinning owing to increased ocean melting at their base, rather than weakened buttressing of the Ross and Filchner-Ronne ice shelves. Making projections based on scanty information proved even harder. Mercer’s assumption that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would double in 50 years was too pessimistic: atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 26%, from 337 to 426 parts per million, between 1979 and 2025. As a result, Antarctic warming remains far from the values reported in his paper.
This begs the question: if we were in Mercer’s shoes today, would we do much better in projecting the future of the Earth’s big ice sheets? Based on the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2021), my take is that the uncertainties are still surprisingly large and not so dissimilar to what they were in 1978. Since then, our knowledge and technical (observational, modelling) capabilities have of course expanded tremendously, but we have also identified numerous new unknowns. The net result is that future ice sheet mass change and associated sea level rise remain highly uncertain, and that we still may be in for unpleasant surprises from nonlinear processes leading to tipping points that are currently not or poorly understood. Given the complex interactions between atmosphere, ocean and ice sheets that straddle several orders of magnitude in temporal and spatial scales, it is clear that this deep uncertainty will not be resolved anytime soon. It thus seems fitting to conclude with the statement made by Mercer in his 1978 paper, which still firmly stands: “…despite the crudities and inadequacies of present techniques for modelling the climatic effects of increasing atmospheric CO2content and the resultant doubts […], we cannot afford to let the atmosphere carry out the experiment before taking action because if the results confirm the prognosis, and we should know one way or the other by the end of the century, it will be too late to remedy the situation…”.
Bibliography
Dutton, A., Carlson, A. E., Long, A. J., Milne, G. A., Clark, P. U., DeConto, R., Horton, B. P., Rahmstorf, S., & Raymo, M. E. (2015). SEA-LEVEL RISE. Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods. Science, 349(6244), aaa4019. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4019
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.
Morris, E. M., & Vaughan, D. G. (2013). Spatial and Temporal Variation of Surface Temperature on the Antarctic Peninsula And The Limit of Viability of Ice Shelves. In Antarctic Peninsula Climate Variability: Historical and Paleoenvironmental Perspectives (pp. 61-68). https://doi.org/10.1029/AR079p0061
Scambos, T. A., Bohlander, J. A., Shuman, C. A., & Skvarca, P. (2004). Glacier acceleration and thinning after ice shelf collapse in the Larsen B embayment, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(18). https://doi.org/10.1029/2004gl020670
Van Wessem, J. M., Van den Broeke, M. R., Wouters, B., & Lhermitte, S. (2023). Variable temperature thresholds of melt pond formation on Antarctic ice shelves. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01577-1
Velicogna, I. a. J. W. (2006). Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica. Science, 311(5768), 1754-1756. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1126/science.1123785
Footnotes
1 Combining radar flight lines of ice thickness with mass conservation provide us with accurate estimates of the sea level equivalent volumes of the ice sheets of Greenland (7.4 m) and Antarctica (57.8 m), (Morlighem et al., 2017; Morlighem et al., 2019).
Michiel van den Broeke (Rotterdam, 1968) has been Professor of Polar Meteorology at Utrecht University since 2008, where he studies the interaction between the climate and the large ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. Between 2016 and 2022, Michiel served as Scientific Director of the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht (IMAU), where around 90 people work on developing a fundamental understanding of all components of the climate system.
“On February 10, 2006, the Friday of the week that George Deutsch resigned, Jim spoke at a conference on politics and science, sponsored by the New School for Social Research in Manhattan. (He was added at the last minute on account of his recent notoriety.) IN a talk derived from the Keeling talk, which was now about two months old, he decided to add a brief discussion of tropical storms, because the topic was “especially relevant to this conference.”
See these two pages from Mark Bowen’s Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming.
2006 Hansen at conference on science and politics at New School for Social Research (Bowen Censoring Science page 143)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Hansen had been abused, ignored, sidelined in 1989 by the George HW Bush administration, and had basically gone back to the lab (that’s no criticism of the man, btw).
The specific context was that by 2006 the climate issue was heating up again – the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified (thanks, Russia) – so the international negotiations were “back on”, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme was underway, and Al Gore’s film was about to come out. Last summer (2005) Hurricane Katrina had hit New Orleans, with thousands dead.
What I think we can learn from this is that the Bush regime was full of assholes.
What happened next: Hansen started getting arrested at protests about coal plants and pipelines, and has kept on with the science.
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.
Over three decades of cartooning he won many plaudits, and millions of fans of his work.
One of his most famous cartoons is of a scientist trying to warn of climate change.
In April last year he very kindly did an email interview for All Our Yesterdays, which you can read here. Of that cartoon he said ““If I did a sequel it would probably involve a scientist swearing a great deal”
If you have favourite Kudelkas (from the 10,000) please do post them here.
The third edition of the CO2 Newsletter, published bi-monthly by American geologist William N. Barbat between 1979 and 1982 is live. You can download a pdf and see the full text here.
The eight page issue has a front page story on the Greenland ice sheet and sea level rise (and a full page analysis on page 3 “Glacial icemelt? How soon? How Fast?”
There’s also an editorial, feedback from readers, excerpts from recent reports and a concluding article “the cost of halting the CO2 buildup.”
It remains heart-breaking, of course. Barbat’s editorial begins
“The new decade begins on an optimistic note as the CO2 greenhouse problem is beginning to receive deserved attention in scientific, political, and economic institutions. Also this particular environmental issue may unite former adversaries in a common effort. “
Barbat had switched on to environmental problems over a decade earlier, including carbon dioxide build-up. In 1979 he started the Newsletter. It was intended to fill a
“communications gap by capsulizing both the published and unpublished reports on the CO2 problem which are deemed important. This newsletter will also publish original material. invited articles. and letters of inquiry, fact and opinion.”
Each 8 page Newsletter had a lead story, an editorial, excerpts of recent documents (reports, newspaper articles, scientific abstracts, testimony by scientists to Congressional hearings) and deeply researched and argued articles by Barbat about a range of issues. Most issues had feedback from readers.
Thirty six years ago, on this day, February 9, 1990
Blue Sky Mining is the seventh studio album by Australian alternative rock band Midnight Oil, released on 9 February 1990 under the Columbia Records label.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the Oils had been around since the mid-1970s, doing extremely exciting (ymmv) music and lyrics. 10 to 1 is a stunner, and they kept it up.
The specific context was that well, they were on a roll. You can read about it (see what I did there?) here.
What I think we can learn from this is that good music is part of the “map” you need. Certainly a big part of my map.
What happened next: The Oils did a gig outside Exxon’s HQ.
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.
Nine years ago, on this day, February 8, 2017, Australian Treasurer (and soon to be Prime Minister) Scott Morrison brings lump of lacquered coal into Parliament as part of his demented culture war.
To quote myself
A couple of years later, in the quarry-with-a-state-attached some people persist in calling “Australia”, the then-Treasurer (who would become Prime Minister), Scotty Morrison brandished a lump of coal in Parliament. Some points to note: It was in the middle of a heatwave. He handed it on to one of the most absurd politicians of all time, Barnaby Joyce, who mimicked (?) wide-eyed joy at the gift. The lump of dead matter (the coal, I mean) was provided by the Minerals Council of Australia, the industry lobby group that has done probably more than any other to stop meaningful climate action in Australia. The lump was lacquered, so it wouldn’t smudge anyone’s hands – that’s the cleanest coal ever gets.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 406ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the Liberal National Party had gone to the 1990 Federal Election target with an emissions reduction target for the year 2000 that was MORE ambitious than that of the Australian Labor Party. But they didn’t win that election, and quickly decided they’d been stabbed in the back by the green movement. Since then, and especially under the leadership of John Howard from 1995, the party has been astonishingly evil on climate change.
The specific context was that the climate issue had become a tangled mess of bullshit, bringing down prime minister after prime minister. And the fact that there was a heatwave gave Morrison no pause for thought, because thought isn’t really what Morrison does.
Also, he very probably believes that if climate change is “real” then it is god sorting out the sheep and goats – he’s a religious nutjob.
What I think we can learn from this is that the “leadership” on climate change is, well, absent.
What happened next: Morrison toppled Turnbull, won the 2019 election (thanks, Queensland, love ya) and continued his shit-fuckery. The emissions kept climbing and the bill came due. As I write this, heatwaves are baking southern Australia.
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 amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that “technology will fix it” is the first cry of technocrats and politicians wary of upsetting their incumbent donors. Sometimes technology does indeed fix things – vaccines are pretty fantastic, and so many other things. But not always…
The specific context was that the climate issue had finally broken through in 1988. By early 1991 the negotiations for an international treaty were beginning, and the US line would be “technology will fix it.” The New York Times, one mouthpiece for this worldview, was doing its job.
What I think we can learn from this is that we are a bright species, but not quite as bright as we think, and not bright enough to see that our brightness is causing problems that our brightness might not be able to fix.
What happened next: The Times kept peddling this credulous nonsense. People wanted to believe it, so they did. Only by the 2020s was that particular lullaby beginning to take on fingers-on-the-blackboard characteristics.
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.
Three years ago, on this day, February 7, 2023 – another departmental recombination…
Feb 7 2023 The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) is a ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom. It was established on 7 February 2023 by a cabinet reshuffle under the Rishi Sunak premiership. The new department took on the energy policy responsibilities of the former Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The department’s first Secretary of State was Grant Shapps; he was previously the final Secretary of State at BEIS. The current secretary is Ed Miliband. The department is scrutinised by the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 421ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that those running the UK Government periodically like to rebrand and reshuffle their departments. There can, of course, be very sound reasons for this. Other times, it’s to allay public concern, or take the wind out of opponents sails etc.
The first “Department of the Environment” was founded in 1970 (A Wilson idea that the Heath Government continued with after the Conservatives staged a surprise win).
The specific context was that by 2023 the wheels were falling off the whole “Green Industrial Revolution” stuff that Boris Johnson had been promising. So, throw the pieces in the air, see what comes down.
What I think we can learn from this is that reshuffles can “work.” Time tells, as she almost always does.
What happened next: “Red Ed” (reader, he’s not that red) Miliband has been beavering away, and drawing endless ire from the tabloids and the Telegraph (though, to be fair, the Telegraph is basically a tabloid now).
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.
