Categories
Science Scientists

May 29, 1969 – “A Chemist Thinks about the Future” #Keeling #KeelingCurve

On this day, May 29, 1969, Dave Keeling gave an inaugural lecture. Its title –

“A Chemist Thinks About the Future”

I could quote for hours.

“Nevertheless, no atmospheric scientist doubts that a sufficiently large change in atmospheric carbon dioxide would change the climate: we need only compare our atmosphere with the very hot carbon dioxide-laden atmosphere of Venus to guess the consequences of unrestricted carbon dioxide increase. The question is: how much before it matters? “

The whole thing is worth a read- the citation is

Charles D. Keeling PhD (1970) A Chemist Thinks About the Future, Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal, 20:6, 764-777, DOI: 10.1080/00039896.1970.10665656
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00039896.1970.10665656

From the end (spoilers!) Keeling writes this

“Today we hold widely divergent views concerning possible peril. Have you noticed that practically all master plans do not project beyond the year 2000 AD? Our college students, however, today expect or hope to live beyond that date, and I predict that they will be the first generation to feel such strong concern for man’s future that they will discover means of effective action. This action may be less pleasant and rational than the corrective measures that we promote today, but 30 years from now, if present trends are a sign, mankind’s world will be in greater immediate danger than it is today. Immediate corrective measures, if such exist, will be closer at hand. If the human race survives into the 21st century with the vast population increase that now seems inevitable, the people living then, in addition to their other troubles, may face the threat of climatic change brought about by an uncontrolled increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuels.”

(Keeling, 1970: 776-7)


Btw, have you noticed that practically all of today’s master plans do not project beyond the year 2050 AD?

This graphic is darkly amusing –

We’re now at 420ppm, not 320. So it goes.

Why this matters. 

It doesn’t, particularly, any more than any blog post on this site does. But it keeps me off the streets, so there’s that.

What happened next?

Keeling kept on counting.

The thing he kept counting kept climbing.

And here we are.

[but of course, beware the fetishization of carbon dioxide!]

Categories
International Geophysical Year Science Scientists

May 28, 1956 – Time Magazine reports on “One Big Greenhouse”

On this day, 28 May 1956, Time magazine ran an article with the following text:

“Since the start of the industrial revolution, mankind has been burning fossil fuel (coal, oil, etc.) and adding its carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. In 50 years or so this process, says Director Roger Revelle of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, may have a violent effect on the earth’s climate… “Dr. Revelle has not reached the stage of warning against this catastrophe, but he and other geophysicists intend to keep watching and recording. During the International Geophysical Year (1957-58), teams of scientists will take inventory of the earth’s CO2 and observe how it shifts between air and sea. They will try to find out whether the CO2 blanket has been growing thicker, and what the effect has been. When all their data have been studied, they may be able to predict whether man’s factory chimneys and auto exhausts will eventually cause salt water to flow in the streets of New York and London.” –

“One Big Greenhouse,” Time magazine, May 28, 1956.

Why this matters

It’s nice context for the “puzzle” Roger Revelle asked Charles Keeling to look at.

What happened next?

Revelle hired Keeling (check out Joshua Wienberg’s “The next 100 years” for more about this.

The Keeling Curve was born.

“We” ignored it.

The end.

Categories
Australia

May 27, 1996 – Not just a river in Egypt – denial in #Australia, organised, ramifying…

On this day, May 1996, a climate denialist professor gave a speech to fellow climate denialists in Australia.

Climate denial outfits like the IPA and Tasman Institute had been inviting various (US) climate denialists to Australia for speaking tours (this was a repertoire that would continue).  They’d started in the early 1990s and, of course, kept going.

“On 27 May 1996, Prof Patrick Michaels delivered a lively and entertaining presentation, outlining empirical difficulties with the Enhanced Greenhouse Global Warming Hypothesis. Through Tasman, Prof. Michaels also published an article on greenhouse issues in the Australian Financial Review of 30 May 1996. The article was subsequently cited by Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fisher”.

Tasman Institute 1996 Annual Review

Why this matters. 

You can see in that quote the sequence – get someone over on a speaking tour. Lean on your mates in the media (with whom you are in a symbiotic relationship anyway) to get an opinion piece in a prestigious newspaper.  THEN get one of your parliamentary goons (in this case Deputy Prime Minister – how cool is that?) to mention it in parliament.

All the way along, you’re creating more “credibility” and heft for your views, which are aimed at creating doubt, delay, uncertainty, so your friends can keep raking in the big bucks.

What happened next?

The denial campaigns continued.  Australia extorted an extremely sweet deal at the Kyoto COP in December 1997, and still didn’t ratify it.

And the carbon dioxide? Oh, it accumulated…

Categories
Australia

May 26, 1994 – Australian #climate stance “will become increasingly devoid of substance” says Liberal politician. Oh yes

On this day, May 26, 1994, the Australian Liberal Party’s spokesperson on foreign affairs offered an (unintentionally prophetic) warning about future climate diplomacy.

“The concern of industry groups that Australia might similarly be forced into a consensus on climate change was echoed yesterday by the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, Mr Andrew Peacock. He said there was a danger Australia’s stance that it would not implement measures that would damage its trade competitiveness unless other greenhouse gas producers did likewise could become increasingly devoid of substance.” Gill, P. 1994 Industry voices greenhouse fears. Australian Financial Review, 27 May,

The context was that Australia had ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 1992 (Prime Minister Paul Keating loathed greenies, but I think just couldn’t be bothered NOT to ratify).  It was by May 1994 clear that there would be a global meeting soon at which rich countries would be expected to announce not just stabilisation of emissions targets, but actual cuts.  Australia did not want this (who would they sell all their coal to, how would they power a currently coal-based energy system?).

Industry was already mobilising by May 1994, and telling their natural allies, the Liberal Party, what they wanted…

[The other context is that the Liberals felt that they’d had the 1990 Federal election stolen from them by nefarious greenies. Their leader at the time? Why, Andrew Peacock.]

Why this matters. 

Let’s think always in terms of ideas, interests and ideology, rather than the goodness or badness of specific individuals (I know, it’s hard, I fail at that most of the time, but let us at least make the effort…)

What happened next?

Labor Environment Minister tried to introduce a carbon tax, and was defeated by a very clever, determined campaign..

A Liberal-National Government took charge in Australia from March 1996, hardened the existing opposition to emissions cuts and generally played as much of a blocking role as it could. The emissions climbe and climbed and the opportunity to do anything meaningful about climate change was squandered. So it goes.

Categories
Australia Denial

May 25, 2011 – Aussie #climate scientist smeared rather than engaged. Plus ca change…

On this day, May 25, 2011 noted climate scientist and deep thinker Alan Jones [that is irony – the man is a particularly shocking “shock jock”] tried to undermine a climate scientist on his radio show.


The context was that the minority Labor government of Julia Gillard was trying to get a carbon price (“a carbon tax” according to its opponents) through Parliament. There was an extremely virulent agitation against this.

Jones had David Karoly, Professor of Meteorology at the University of Melbourne and a contributor to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on his show.

Jones: Are you being paid for being on the Government’s Climate Commission Science Advisory Panel?…

Karoly: No, my salary is not being paid by that.

Jones: Are you in any, and in receipt of any, benefits or funds or anything at all from the…

Karoly: I am receiving a travel allowance to cover the costs of going to meetings of the Science Advisory Panel and I am receiving a small retainer which is substantially less than your daily salary.

Jones: So you’re paid by the Government and then you give an opinion on the science of climate change. Have you ever heard about he who pays the piper calls the tune?’ (Cited in Barry 2011b) (Ward, 2015: 235)

Why this matters. 

This is a classic technique, to say that if someone gets any money at all from Them, then they and their work can be dismissed without any discussion of its merits, shortcomings, implications.

It’s a lazy (but necessary for the thick) shortcut to “winning.”

What happened next?

The Gillard legislation got up, and was then repealed by the next Prime Minister, Tony “Wrecking Ball” Abbott.

Gillard lost a leadership challenge in 2013, was replaced by Kevin Rudd.

Jones finished as a radio presenter in 2020. His Sky News Australia contract was not renewed.

Karoly retired in 2021.

Categories
Science Scientists

May 25, 1953 – “I read about them in Time Magazine” (Gilbert Plass’s greenhouse warning

On this day, May 1953, Time Magazine reported on Gilbert Plass’ presentation at the American Geophysical Union

.Careful readers of this site will know that a Western Australian newspaper had already covered this –

May 5, 1953 – Western Australian newspaper carries “climate and carbon dioxide” article

Why this matters

The idea of a greenhouse world was well understood by the mid-1950s (albeit a smaller concern than – say – thermonuclear war)

See May 28th for another (early) timely Time piece.

Categories
Science Scientists

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

On this day, May 24 2007 James Hansen’s paper  “Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise” was published.

Hansen made the basic point that – ah, hell, here’s the abstract –

I suggest that a ‘scientific reticence’ is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.

Why this matters. 

Despite what the lunatic climate deniers will tell you, scientists are generally very very cautious, unwilling to extrapolate beyond their datasets. They are human, make mistakes, come to false conclusions, sure.  But on the whole “science” is pretty damned hot.  And it if there is a bias, it is towards reticence – that’s before we even talk about the chilling effect of smear campaigns etc etc.

What happened next?

Hansen has kept on trucking. A mensch [on second thought, does someone have a better word that isn’t so gendered?]

Categories
United States of America

May 23, 1977 – President Carter announces Global 2000 report… or “Let’s all meet up in the Global2000”

On this day, March 23, 1977, Jimmy Carter, then President of the United States, announced that he was gonna look into the future.

”I am directing the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State, working in cooperation with … other appropriate agencies, to make a one-year study of the probable changes in the world’s population, natural resources, and environment through the end of the century.”

President Jimmy Carter May 23,1977

This finally came out in mid-1980 as the “Global 2000” report, when he was a dead duck (rather than a lame one, which came later).

The Global 2000 report gave us the phrase “sustainable development” and, of course, had a section on carbon dioxide.

This was, after all, after the Charney Report, after the First World Climate Conference and so on.

Exxon knew, we knew.

Why this matters. 

States had been doing these sorts of forecasting things for a few years. This one could have mattered. Oh well.

What happened next?

Carter was thoroughly blasted out of office in November 1980 (with an independent splitting the “progressive” vote), and Ronald Reagan became the meat puppet representative of a whole lot of ever-so-slightly regressive guys, who did everything they could to slow down the awareness of/consensus around the “carbon dioxide problem” as it was then called.

Categories
Australia Ignored Warnings Uncategorized

May 23, 1980 – Aussie senator alerts colleagues to #climate threat. Shoulder shrugs all round. #auspol

On this day, 23 May 1980, Don Jessop,  a Liberal senator from the great state of South Australia raised the alarm about climate change from carbon dioxide build-up in the Australian senate.

 Senator JESSOP (South Australia) – “I also welcome the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Bill 1980 and will make a few brief remarks about it. “ “The first article, entitled ‘World ecology is endangered’, is from the Melbourne Age of 16 April, and deals with an examination by a panel of internationally recognised scientists. They told the United States Congress: . . that the world could face an ecological disaster unless the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere is controlled. The second article is older, having been written on 28 February 1977. It is entitled ‘Heating Up: Global Race for Antarctic’s Riches’, [From U.S. News & World Report] and I wish to have only highlights of that article incorporated in Hansard.

Leave was granted.

Here’s the wikipedia picture of Jessop

DonJessop1968.jpg

Why this matters. 

We knew. The people who get elected to look after the future, who are paid to look after the future – they knew.

What happened next?

Jessop, who had raised the climate issue as early as 1973, was dropped by his own side-

Grattan, M. 1987 SA Libs demote Hill, drop Jessop. The Age, 9 June. p 3 Senator Jessop “is known for his independence and willingness to be outspoken”

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage Coal

May 22, 2007 – “Clean coal” power station by 2014, honest…

On this day, May 22nd 2007, the Canberra Times reported on an announcement by two big coal miners that they were going to build a “carbon capture and storage” plant by 2014. Oh yes.

Dobbin, M. 2007. BP, Rio in clean coal power bid; Project based on Canberra research. Canberra Times, 22 May.

BP and Rio Tinto announced joint plans yesterday for a $2billion coal- fired power station at Kwinana in Western Australia that would be the first in Australia to capture and store its greenhouse gas emissions deep underground. The so-called clean coal station which could be completed within seven years would produce enough power to supply 500,000 houses.

Why this matters

When we hear the latest promises, we should

a) remember the old ones

b) think about hype cycles

What happened next

It. didn’t. happen. Because the taxpayer wasn’t willing to stump up….

Anon. 2007. CO2 trading no solution. Canberra Times, 27 May. L AST week’s announcement that BP and Rio Tinto have teamed up to look at building a ”clean” coal power station in Western Australia is great news. There’s only one catch. The project won’t go ahead if it depends on the key proposal to encourage clean energy contained in a report due to be handed to the Prime Minister on Thursday. This need not pose an insuperable barrier. But it suggests the Government will have to do more than simply rely on setting up a market for trading greenhouse gas emissions, which the report, from a joint business/public service task group, is expected to recommend. The idea is to issue a limited number of permits to release greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which the Government says contributes to global warming. These permits will then be traded in a government-run market designed to create a price which is supposed to increase the cost of emitting high levels of greenhouse gases when products such as electricity are made. According to a spokesman for Rio Tinto, Ian Head, ”An emissions-trading scheme alone will not be enough to encourage the clean coal project in Western Australia to go ahead”