Sixty years ago, on this day, November 18, 1953 Harold Macmillan, who would go on to be British Prime Minister, told the truth about the function of (most) committees set up by politicians.
"The Macmillan Manoeuvre" – a new short video. Not great, not terrible. Tell me what you think… Tips for improving general technique very welcome. pic.twitter.com/XXs9umj2D2
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The London Smog of 1952 had killed 4000 people. Even though most of these were The Old and The Sick, still the cry went up, “something must be done.” So the Beaver committee (chaired by Sir Hugh Beaver) was set up…
The game is the game. But sometimes, thanks to external factors and pushing, committees’ recommendations do actually get implemented and matter…
What happened next
The Beaver Report made a series of recommendations, and as if by magic, the 1956 Clean Air Act.
Macmillan became Prime Minister in 1957, after Anthony Eden suffered a little local difficulty over the Suez Canal.
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 eight years ago, on this day, October 23, 1955, the Los Angeles Times ran an article on the changing weather that included mention of carbon dioxide build-up as one of the possible causes…
“Many scientists believe that the earth’s rising temperatures may be partly due to the six billion tons of carbon dioxide dumped into the earth’s atmosphere each year from the smokestacks of industrial plants…”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that by 1955, there were more and more of these stories because the weather seemed to be changing. And we were taking better measures (not yet satellites, obviously). And talk of “weather modification” (especially as a weapon of war) was all the rage as well. The broader context is, of course, that the people of Los Angeles had more immediate air pollution issues on their plate, namely smog, which they wanted to believe, and were encouraged to believe came from well, anywhere, but the motor car.
(note to self – this was 8 days after the Macleans Magazine article by Berrill; did they just clip it and get a react quote from George Kimble?]
)What happened next
There would be more and more carbon dioxide stories for two years, to the late 50s. And then, oddly, because it was no longer speculation, because it was fact, the whole thing became less newsworthy (especially without the International Geophysical Year hook).
Btw one of the people cited in this article (George Kimble) wrote a 1962 article in the New York Times.
What I think we can learn from this
And I suppose it’s the speculation, “the competing theories” that help a journalist pad out a story and leave the reader with a sense of being informed about an ongoing scientific controversy. Once it’s over, well, the reader then would be focusing on “what can we do?” And certainly on carbon dioxide, not much is the answer, whereas there is a bewildering plethora of solutions for nitrogen, sulphur, etc. See, the “Breath of Life” book published in 1965.
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.
Seventy years ago, on this day, May 18, 1953, the American weekly magazine Newsweek ran a snippet about the ‘carbon dioxide is building up and we should watch out’ statement of Gilbert Plass at the American Geophysical Union (see May 5)
Newsweek; New York Vol. 41, Iss. 20, (May 18, 1953): 75 https://archive.org/details/sim_newsweek-us_1953-05-18_41_20/page/74/mode/2up?view=theater
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that two weeks previously, Gilbert Plass had made some very eye-catching statements at the American Geophysical Union that had been picked up and broadcast. This is the first report by Newsweek that I can find and it was followed shortly after, by something from Time.
What I think we can learn from this
This is the moment in which the carbon dioxide theory of climate change really starts to enter into popular discourse. The context was that people were sure the world was getting hotter. It was a question of why.
What happened next
Plass did his scientific work and in 1955/56 released papers about the carbon dioxide theory of climate. There was a further paper in Scientific American in 1959. There’s a direct line between Plass and Guy Callendar with whom Plass corresponded.
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, May 5, 1953, the modern “carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas” era began.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Plass had become interested in the question of carbon dioxide buildup while being paid by Ford Motor Company. He had corresponded with British steam engineer and scientist Guy Callendar. Plass only looked at how carbon dioxide actually functions in the real world, and whether the bands become saturated or not (they don’t).
What I think we can learn from this
This is the pivotal moment, when someone takes the carbon dioxide theory and starts hammering it out…
This classic warning went around the world. It was eye-catching, and it was syndicated, certainly in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. And it probably helped. George Wendt in his writing in the UNESCO magazine Courier, which also got syndicated. So you can see these couple of people speaking up about it.
Plass’s warning also popped up in Time, Newsweek, and elsewhere, this was really consequential.
What happened next
Plass kept writing and thinking about climate build up carbon buildup. In 1956, he had an academic article published in Tellus, the Swedish scientific journal.- “the carbon dioxide theory of climate change”, and also a popular article in the American Scientist.
He was there in 1961 at the New York Academy of Sciences/American Meteorological Society meeting and at the 1963 Conservation Foundation meeting. But that was his last gasp on the topic…
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.
