Sixty nine years ago today, March 25, 1957, Gilbert Plass was at a Scripps conference in La Jolla, California.
Proceedings of a Conference held at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, 25-26 March 1957:
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that scientists had been doing science for, well, the word science comes from the 1820s before that, they were “natural philosophers.” Concern/awareness that carbon dioxide build up in the atmosphere might eventually warm up the Earth, I suppose can be dated to Svante Arrhenius in 1895-96. His work was contested and then largely, but not totally ignored. Guy Callender had given a presentation in 1938 to the British Royal Meteorological Society.
The specific context was that in 1953 Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass, building on Arrhenius and Callendar, had started the ball rolling on “carbon dioxide build-up as a problem.” In the next couple of years other people had said similar. And then by this time, the International Geophysical Year was about to kick off.
And we know now, thanks to the work of Rebecca John that Charles David Keeling had been doing Carbon Dioxide measurement for various oil companies.
Revelle and Seuss had been working on papers.
What I think we can learn from this is that by 1957 a whole bunch of American (mostly – though here I am doing a real injustice to the Swedes) scientists, including Joseph Kaplan etc, were looking at carbon dioxide and going, “you know, this might well be a serious problem.”
What happened next Plass published another article in Scientific American in 1959 which was advertised in the Observer. Plass was there in January 1961 in New York, and again, 63 in New York at the Conservation Foundation’s meeting, and that was his last that I can find around any engagement with the CO2 issue. He had said everything he planned to say. He’d worked on it now for over 10 years, and he understandably moved on to other things. It was a basic physics problem that he had solved.
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 one years ago, on this day, March 24th, 1995,
AUSTRALIA’S top science bodies say much uncertainty remains over greenhouse warming predictions despite claims by Argentinian researchers that Antarctica’s ice shelf has begun cracking up.
Current increases in global temperature cannot be linked with certainty to human action, the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering caution in a joint report released yesterday.
Cribb, Julian, 1995. Greenhouse theory ‘still uncertain’. The Australian 25/03/95 Page 10
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that climate change from carbon dioxide build up began to be talked of seriously by Australian scientists in 1977, after Graeme Pearman came back from a trip to the US and Europe. There had been conferences in 1980 and 1987, and monographs, articles etc etc.
The specific context was that the IPCC had already released its first report, and its second assessment report was nearing completion. Presumably, this report was designed to be released to inform the COP to take place in Berlin. It’s hard to know what the lead times were, but I can’t imagine. It’s much of a coincidence. Maybe it is.
Meanwhile, the Australian was and is still SUCH a reliable source of information about what scientists are saying. Oh yes.
What I think we can learn from this is that is that any scientific report can be massaged in any direction you like, pretty much, and if it can’t be massaged in the direction you like, well, you can simply fucking ignore it or suppress it.
What happened next. More reports, more suppression, more reports, more emissions, higher concentrations, more impacts, more despair and the window closes.
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 and thirty four years ago, on this day, March 23rd, 1991/2,
“Climate change and policy change : the nexus” World Meteorological Day address 1991 / by Sir Ninian Stephen
And one by Barry Jones too, dropping truth bombs.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355/6ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was this was World Meteorological Day – I don’t know if this is still commemorated or celebrated. The climate issue had exploded in 1988 and by now people were probably getting a bit of fatigue, attention fatigue. Ninian Stephen had been appointed ambassador on the environment after a scandal of him as Governor General,
Barry Jones had been Minister of Science from 1983 to 1990 and had done a brilliant job, even though he was not necessarily well-liked, but that’s not important. And they both gave speeches.
What I think we can learn from this is that the attempt to “embed” climate issues, via things like World Meteorological Day, has, largely, failed. We don’t like to look at confronting facts. We turn away…
What happened next I don’t think World Meteorological day is really still much of a thing. The caravan has moved on.
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 341ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that journalists had been writing these sorts of stories for a long time; since the 60s, really, (since the 50s, but it was speculation). But from the late 60s, speculation was beginning to harden up.
The specific context was that scientifically, there had been the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in January of 1982 in Washington, DC. Hanson and Flohn, nd other people had made the statements they did, so maybe that helped nudge the Chicago Trib writer, Richard Kotulak (who is still alive).
What I think we can learn from this is that there were switched-on journalists in 1982 which is 44 years ago, and switched-on readers. We knew plenty.
What happened next The carbon dioxide problem had another moment in late 1983, but it didn’t really become front page news again until 1988 thanks to hard “problem entrepreneur” work by dedicated scientists.
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 six years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1990,
Some Labour spokesmen have forecast that the government could lose at least six seats from its last parliamentary majority of 22, and scrape back in several doubtful seats only with green preferences. Mr Hawke showed his worry about the impact of protest votes when he made his final campaign appearance yesterday [ 21 March] at the National Press Club in Canberra. He called on young and disaffected voters not to vote green but, if they did so, to direct their second preferences to Labour. “When you wake up on 25 March,” he said, “there won’t be a Democrat government or a green independent government.”
Milliken, R. 1990. Green vote emerges as crucial factor in election. The Independent – London, 22 March, p.14.
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 ALP had come to power in 1983, helped massively by a promise to protect the Franklin river from yet another damned dam. They’d done a bit on environment – their record was not actively terrible the way it has become.
The specific context was that the Liberals had proposed a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labour. The Liberals had also convinced themselves that they could have lunch with the head of the Australian Conservation Foundation and he and the ACF would then “tell” all the greenies how to vote. They didn’t really get it, did they?
What I think we can learn from this is that politicians lie and prevaricate (this will come as a shock, I know).
What happened next – Labor squeaked back in. Because of the green vote, they had to institute an “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process. This went on through 1990-1 and then got totally kneecapped by the Labor government of Paul Keating.
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.
Forty nine years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1977,
Workshop on the carbon cycle (1997:Ratzeburg Ger.) The global carbon cycle/workshop on the carbon cycle held at Ratzeburg, Federal Republic of Germany, 21-26 March 1977
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that from the late 60s, scientists had begun to take interest in what impact buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might have. This was also the case in Germany, where people like Wilfred Bach and perhaps Herman Flohn were looking at it. And what do scientists do? They hold workshops. And so in the late 70s, you see these sorts of efforts. You also see the Department of Energy, or ERDA, as it then was, in the States, CSIRO in Australia, and Iasa, based in Austria, all looking at aspects of fossil fuel induced carbon dioxide build up.
The specific context was that the Miami Beach conference had happened a couple of weeks before and there were, I think, some overlapping attendees (probably Graeme Pearman, the Australian). And 5 months earlier there’d been a Dahlem conference…
What I think we can learn from this is that it is now basically 50 years since the scientists were pretty sure that there was serious trouble ahead.
What happened next More workshops, more conferences, the first world climate conference in 1979, the inability to get politicians to take it seriously, until 1988 when they were forced to take it publicly, but not necessarily seriously.
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 one years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1995, the Fin reports,
FEDERAL Cabinet is today expected to endorse Australia taking a tough stand – at a ministerial meeting on climate change in Berlin next week – against new measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Australia’s stance against the creation of a new protocol on greenhouse gas reduction was given a strong boost by the failure of a last-minute meeting of 26 countries held in Bonn 10 days ago to reach consensus on the issue.
Dwyer, M. 1995. Australia takes strong line against greenhouse rules. The Australian Financial Review, 21 March.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that six years previously, Australia had made all the right noises at an international conference in The Hague, but six years and a couple of 100 extra miles make all the difference.
What actually happened?
The specific context was that by 1995 the resources lobby had won all the battles on climate policy, and Australia was the Labour Party was going to fight tooth and nail against any reduction commitments.
What I think we can learn from this is that a week is a long time in politics and six years is an eternity.
What happened next. Well, it’s interesting because John Faulkner must have been sent to the Berlin COP with a set of instructions, but ultimately, for whatever reason, he agreed to the Berlin mandate. It would be fascinating to see the cables back and forth between the Australian embassy and Keating’s government and to see what Keating et al said to Faulkner when he returned.
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.
On this day 25 years ago, March 20, 2000 a gift to the denialists was given,
Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the relationship between media and scientists has been one of “frenemies” for decades, far beyond climate science.
The specific context was that climate change was now steady “background noise”, and there was a flare up in coverage thanks to the Bush administration preparing to pull out of Kyoto.
What we learn? Well, here’s a journo from the same paper.
Headlines are meant to draw people into a story and have to conform to quite rigid restrictions on space in the printed medium – where this headline first appeared. They are meant to be accurate, but they can never do full justice to the nuances of reporting. This is even more true when it comes to the more complex nuances of science. The headline in this case is not what the story itself said, as Dr Viner made clear. The story was about the frequency of snowfalls, and how “snow is starting to disappear from our lives”, which the it stated clearly.
A more accurate headline would be something like: “Snowfalls are becoming less frequent in our little corner of the world but that doesn’t necessarily mean that snow will disappear from our lives completely and forever.” Unfortunately, any sub-editor who would suggest such a tediously long headline is unlikely to last very long.
On this day, thirty seven years ago “Ministers delay plans to curb climate danger”
GEOFFREY LEAN Environment Correspondent
The Observer March 19, 1989.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that scientists had been warning since the mid-late 1970s that there was serious trouble ahead.
The specific context was that the climate issue had exploded in September 1988 thanks in part to Margaret Thatcher’s speech at the Royal Society. In response, green groups had thrown down what they called the “Green Gauntlet,” 20 policy proposals; Thatcher had basically blanked it. And now we see this report that ministers delay plans to curb climate danger
What I think we can learn from this is that it’s easy to say something is an issue and get plaudits, but then when people say, what are you going to do about it, it begins to get awkward, doesn’t it? The management of the climate issue as a political problem, rather than a civilizational one, kicked in because it is the perfect super-wicked problem in terms of distributed responsibility, uncertainty, long term effects, etc, and the problem of free riders, all the rest of it.
What happened next Well, in the UK, there was Thatcher’s 1989 Cabinet meeting in April. Then the UNFCCC process kicked in. And so on.
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.
