Categories
Science Scientists

November 2, 1966 – a pivotal paper is submitted

Fifty-nine years ago, on this day, November 2nd, 1966, Manabe and Weatherald’s pivotal paper was submitted

“According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C. Our model does not have the extreme sensitivity of atmospheric temperature to changes of CO2 content which was adduced by Möller.”

Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity in: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 24 Issue 3 (1967)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 321ppm. 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 questions of what would happen if carbon dioxide levels went up dramatically (the Keeling Curve was relatively flat back then, but simple extrapolation suggested trouble) was mostly of scientific interest at the time.

The specific context was the carbon dioxide issue had received a boost in 1965 with Lyndon Johnson’s message to Congress about pollution, and a report at the end of the year by the President’s Science Advisory Committee (see November 7th).

What I think we can learn from this – the scientists were looking into it…

What happened next – it got published, obvs. And their 1975 paper was an even bigger deal…

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 2, 1957 – “Our Coal Fires are melting the poles” Birmingham Post 

November 2, 1972 – “Eco-pornography … Advertising owns Ecology”…

November 2, 1994 – Greenpeace vs climate risk for corporates… 

November 2, 2006 – “RIP C02” says New Scientist

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock

Categories
United Kingdom

November 2, 1965  – The Met Office starts twice daily weather forecasts

Sixty years ago, on this day, November 2nd, 1965,

Soon after I arrived on 1st October, I became impressed that the experimental forecasts for aircraft crossing  the Atlantic were systematically more accurate than traditional forecasts based on extrapolation of time  sequences of hand-drawn charts.  Accordingly I decided, against the advice of some senior colleagues,  who favoured a longer trial period that the numerical forecasts would be issued routinely twice a day from  Monday, 2nd November 1965.  The Press and TV were invited to witness this landmark in the history of  the Met Office and gave it wide coverage.  Fortunately the first forecast was excellent and ushered in a  new era in which weather forecasts were to become objective exercises in mathematical physics replacing  the empirical methods that, for more than a century, had depended on the skill and experience of the  individual human forecaster. 

Mason memoir  

and

By carefully stage-managing the public performance of a new,  computer-driven meteorology, new claims of objectivity could be made, with public credibility  and social authority at stake.37 Thus, on the same day as the inauguration of numerical forecasts,  Mason presided over the Office’s first-ever press conference, where he proclaimed a new dawn  in weather forecasting – a move which his deputy, A.C. Best, thought to be a “great risk” for the  office’s reputation.38 While much of the credibility economy which Shapin describes concerns  scientific claims where virtual witnesses have no direct access themselves to the phenomena in  question, the success and credibility of weather forecasting is easily adjudicated on by anybody  who cares to look out of the window. Standing before more than 100 journalists and cameramen  from the BBC, national newspapers and the technical press, Mason marked the introduction of  numerical weather forecasting in the UK with great confidence: “Today is a landmark in the  history of forecasting in the Office”, he declared, “because this afternoon you will see the  production of our first routine numerical weather forecast by the computer”.39 Britain, he continued in his first push to build social authority in the Meteorological Office, could now look  forward to increasingly accurate weather forecasts underpinned by modern, objective  technologies. As the press gallery watched the Meteorological Office’s line printer slowly  produce the UK’s first routine numerical forecasting chart, Mason patiently answered questions  for nearly an hour and then distributed souvenir copies of the chart to all attendees. The  formalities over, the press gallery toured the Central Forecasting Office at Bracknell and chatted  over coffee with senior members of Mason’s staff. 

2017 Maartin-Nielsen – 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 320ppm. 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 the Met Office had not delivered warnings about a particular cold winter in 1962, and had copped some flak for that, because US meteorologists had warned about it.

The specific context was that new boss, John Mason wanted to move things along, and take advantage of new computers etc.

What I think we can learn from this – the forecasts we now accept as normal required a hell of a lot of work, and some institutional risk-taking.

What happened next

Mason was keen to move things along (the man was dynamic but backed the wrong horse on carbon dioxide and never changed course). He was a major block on “early” action (e.g. at the First World Climate Conference).

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 2, 1957 – “Our Coal Fires are melting the poles” Birmingham Post 

November 2, 1972 – “Eco-pornography … Advertising owns Ecology”…

November 2, 1994 – Greenpeace vs climate risk for corporates… 

November 2, 2006 – “RIP C02” says New Scientist

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock

Categories
United States of America

November 1, 1970 – Ayn Rand fulminates incorrectly, for the first time ever

Fifty five years ago, on this day, November 1st, 1970, noted fruitcake Ayn Rand gives a speech in Boston about Anti-Industrial Revolution. Name checks C02 build-up, to dismiss it as a possible threat. Typically Objective of her….

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. 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 Ayn Rand was a swivel-eyed loon, who wrote interminable repetitive “novels”. And was, oh, whatever.

The specific context was Ayn Rand was a swivel-eyed loon with no grasp of history or ecology. It was 1970 and people were beginning to worry about pollution’s long-term impacts.

What I think we can learn from this – Rand’s views, such as they are, collided with reality. In her mind, she won.

What happened next

Rand lived on.  And took the Social Security she despised.

Rand’s swivel-eyed loon views have made her popular with the Silicon Valley tech-bros. Obvs. She matters, sadly.

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

Mason, B. 1972  Ayn Rand vs Ecology. Reason Magazine, August

https://reason.com/1972/08/01/ayn-rand-vs-the-ecology-moveme

Also on this day: 

November 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published 

Categories
Uncategorized

 November 1, 1969 – “Carbon dioxide affects global ecology”

Fifty six years ago, on this day, November 1st, 1969, an academic article is published – 

“Carbon dioxide affects global ecology”  

https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document32

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 from the early 1960s the concern about carbon dioxide had grown from a few knowledgeable people, and slowly spread. By 1967 it was appearing in Time Magazine, and Newsweek.

The specific context was in 1969 questions of global ecology and pollution had bloomed. The firing gun had been the Santa Barbara Oil Spill in January.

What I think we can learn from this is that  – we knew plenty.

What happened next – there was an international conference in June 1972 in Stockholm. Emissions kept climbing. And 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 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published 

Categories
United States of America

November 1, 1968 – Ida Hoos on carbon dioxide build-up

Fifty-seven years ago, on this day, November 1st, 1968, Ida Hoos laid it out.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 323ppm. 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 scientists and technologists had, since The Bomb, engaged in all sorts of hand-wringing about the broader questions of morality and the responsibility of scientists/technology types.

The specific context was – questions about technology and morals were kinda hot, given the atrocities the American war machine was perpetrating in South East Asia, with lots of science and technology types contributing to that.

What I think we can learn from this is that knowledge of the  build-up of carbon dioxide was, by 1968, very wide-spread in scientific circles.  The build-up itself was not controversial, and the possible consequences were understood as well.  But the evidence in people’s “lived experience” was not there (but then again, that’s what we have science for, isn’t it?).

What happened next

Hoos lived to 2007, time enough to see which of the possible futures she had skilfully outlined came to pass.

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 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published 

Categories
United States of America

November 1, 1965 – “Fortune” magazine covers carbon dioxide build-up

Sixty years ago, on this day, November 1st, 1965,  Fortune magazine flags climate change in an article called “We can afford clean air” by Edmund K. Faltemeyer.

“The tremendous rise in worldwide use of fossil fuels, some authorities say, is putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than plants and ocean can absorb it.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 320ppm. 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 “isn’t the weather odd?” which has been a favourite newspaper and magazine article since, well, newspapers and magazines became a thing.  But from the early 1950s, there was a subset that tried to take a longer perspective than just the weather. Thanks to Gilbert Plass (and others – see for example John G. Hutton of General Electric) – carbon dioxide build-up was identified as a possible problem.

The specific context was that 1965 had seen various carbon dioxide stories already:  President Lyndon Johnson in February, the publication of Donald E Carr’s “The Breathe of Life” in May, alongside Lewis Herber (aka Murray Bookchin) Cities in Crisis.  Then – and Faltemeyer almost certainly did not know about this – in August Carl Borgmann had given a commencement address at University of Tennessee.

What I think we can learn from this – business types were made aware of carbon dioxide build-up earlier than they might have wanted everyone to know.

What happened next – Faltermeyer returned to the carbon dioxide theme in his 1968 book “Redoing America.”

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 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published 

Categories
Australia

November 1, 1953 – Australia strikes oil

Seventy two years ago, on this day, November 1st, 1953,

“The year was 1953. Humanity was venting 6.65bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, of which Australia contributed 59.43m tonnes, and the very first hole drilled struck oil at a depth of 1100m. Temperatures had risen to 38C in the open air that day and it was 1pm in the afternoon on 1 November 1953 when it happened. The roughnecks working on the rig had stripped back to stay cool in the hot afternoon sun. Earlier in the morning they had run a test and it had taken them about an hour to raise, disconnect and stack each 30m section of pipe. It was heavy, time-consuming work, so no one noticed it at first. When they were done, someone found the floor of the rig was awash with a hot, waxy, kerosene-smelling, green-brown oil. Their find made geological history and William Walkley would go down a legend.”

From Slick by Royce Kurmelovs

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 312ppm. 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 second world war led to astonishing advances in transportation, ways of seeing (sonar, radar etc)  in all sorts of “production sciences”. Meanwhile, Australia’s elites were desperately looking for supplies of oil, in case of another (non-atomic) war…

The specific context was that Australia was in a hot war (Korea) and keen to find its own sources of energy.

What I think we can learn from this – is that Royce writes well!

What happened next – you’ll need to read Royce’s book! Hint – those atmospheric concentrations kept going up and up.

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: 

November 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published 

Categories
United Kingdom

October 31, 2004 – QE2 lobbied Blair on climate, reports Observer

Twenty one years ago, on this day, October 31st, 2004,

So it was extraordinary when London’s Observer reported, on October 31, 2004, that the Queen had “made a rare intervention in world politics” by telling Blair of “her grave concerns over the White House’s stance on global warming.” The Observer did not name its sources, but one of them subsequently spoke to Vanity Fair…. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/05/warming200605

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 the monarchy, it likes us to believe, usually steers clear. But Brenda’s husband Philip had been talking about conservation for yonks, and had been aware of carbon dioxide buildup as a potential issue since 1970 at the latest. (LINK TO BP FILM ETC 

The specific context was the Cheney-Bush administration were being total assholes, and not even trying to hide it.

What I think we can learn from this – everybody knew. Even the “powerful” were basically powerless.

What happened next – business as usual. More emissions. More bullshit, in lockstep.

On Brenda? Well see this

Last year [2021], the queen was captured on video complaining about the UN COP climate conferences where, she said, “it’s really irritating when they talk, but they don’t do.”

Climate gets personal for the queen

At COP26 in Glasgow, the queen gave what many royal watchers say was the most personal and emotional speech of her reign when she opened the UN climate conference by reminding the gathering that her beloved Duke of Edinburgh had sounded the alarm on climate change well before it was even called that.

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 31, 1994 – Four Corners reports on Greenhouse Mafia activity – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

October 30, 2007 – Albanese grievance debate on Stern Review – “We simply cannot afford to wait any longer”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, October 30th, 2007, 

Albanese grievance debate on climate on launch of Stern Review

Grievance Debate Climate Change

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (4.18 p.m.)—My grievance is against the Howard government for its failure to address the greatest challenge facing the global community: climate change.

Today Sir Nicholas Stern launches his report on the economics of climate change. It is a very clear warning that climate change will ruin our environment and our economy if we do not take action. Early action will be far cheaper—perhaps five, 10 or 20 times cheaper. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 the Australian Labor Party, having lost four federal elections on the trot (1996 1998, 2001, 2004) was looking for a bruise to punch. They’d found it in climate change, which had exploded onto the public’s consciousness in September or so of the previous year.

The specific context was– there was a federal election coming up, and Labor wanted to keep punching.

What I think we can learn from this – talk is cheap when you are in opposition.

What happened next. Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister in 2022 and Australia has become a beacon to the world with its clever, bold and aggressive action to tac…. Oh, look, I can’t, I can’t even…. There is a case to be made for Albo being a bigger climate criminal that John Howard, and that is saying something…

Albo or John Howard? Who is the bigger climate criminal? – All Our Yesterdays

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 30, 2006 – Stern Review publlshed.

Categories
Australia Business Responses Carbon Capture and Storage

October 30, 2009 – QRC bullshit about CCS – “first commercial scale CCS electricity generator by about 2015”

Sixteen years ago, on this day, October 30th, 2009 QRC hype report on Carbon Capture and Storage

“Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche told brisbanetimes.com.au he believed government and industry support would ensure the technology was put in place much sooner.

“I’m confident we will have our first commercial-scale carbon capture and storage electricity generator by about 2014 or 2015,” he said in a report that was published yesterday.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 401ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 the coal industry had decided that CCS was a card to play while increasing exports. As long as the taxpayer picked up the tab for research and development, of course. 

The specific context was that 2009 was peak CCS hype around the world. 

What I think we can learn from this – gangs of rich people (“Resource Coucils”) are going to say whatever is convenient for other people to believe. There are plenty of tame stenographers willing to report it dutifully and accurately. 

What happened next – CCS collapsed in a heap, of course.

Meanwhile, getting renewables projects going in Queensland just got much harder…

Queensland’s latest wind farm kill sends shockwaves through renewables industry | RenewEconomy

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 30, 2006 – Stern Review publlshed.