Sixty nine years ago, on this day, August 9th, 1955, Gilbert Plass submits a paper… You can read it here.
(Manuscript received August 9 1955
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Plass had been talking, researching, writing about CO2 buildup for a while. He made public statements in May of 1953 [see my Conversation article], at the American Geophysical Union that went viral. And here he was submitting an article to Tellus, a Swedish academic journal. (Tellus was the watering hole for atmospheric physics those people at that time.)
What we learn is that smart people could see what was happening.
What happened next. Plass wrote that paper. He wrote another paper, I think, in 1959. And he also had an article in Scientific American in 1959. That, btw, was advertised in the Observer.
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.
NB Hutchinson was aware of C02 build-up at the latest in 1948
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Conservation Foundation had been set up seven years previously. And they were hosting this big meeting of all sorts of prestigious environmental thinkers, scientists, etc. And there was just one glancing mention of carbon dioxide build up, despite the facts that
Gilbert Plass had flagged it two years earlier
One of the big names – G. Evelyn Hutchinson had been aware of C02 build-up, and writing/talking about it from 1948…
What we learn from this is that smart people think that they can spot future problems. But actually, the real problem might be something they’ve overlooked as trivial. And that although it’s important to listen to experts, expecting them to be able to gaze into the crystal ball with anything approaching usefulness is maybe unwise…
What happened next? Well, the Conservation Foundation did indeed get cracking with work on CO2 in 1963. But then, at the follow-up meeting of the Conservation Foundation in I think 1964, or 1965, also had only one fleeting mention. And that was when Frank Fraser Darling raised it in q&a, only for it to be dismissed, essentially.
It’d be interesting to see if there’s archives of that started it. And if there were people in the States that I could ask to do the research or where the files might be.
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 nine years ago, on this day, April 12th, 1955, a regional newspaper in England explained what was coming.
Anon, 1955. Melting Ice Could Menace the World. Coventry Evening Telegraph April 12 p.7
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there was, for many years, a consensus that the world was warming up. It wasn’t quite so clear what was causing it. This article explicitly mentions carbon dioxide as one possible culprit.
What we learn is that the idea of the world warming was not particularly controversial. But the mechanism was, and what Gilbert Plass, drawing on Guy Callendar, did was give a plausible explanation. That’s a really important distinction, something I hadn’t quite figured out.
What we learn is that the British regional press back at this time was still worthy of the name more or less (though I’m sure it didn’t feel to campaigners at the time that it was!). One mustn’t look at the past with rose-tinted glasses.
What happened next The Coventry Evening Telegraph did keep reporting on the issue. There was just a general awareness that things were warming up, and that there might be trouble ahead.
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.
What we can learn from this is that awareness of potential peril and long-term big changes was out and about in mainstream and far left circles. And of course, mainstream ideas draw on observations and insights from the margins, the extreme left and extreme right. Blah, blah, Overton Window, blah, blah.
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, June 9, 1955, the finest brains (sic) in the UK met to chew on atmospheric research. Didn’t spot the elephant in the room (it was small, to be fair!)
It is appropriate, in view of the forthcoming intensification of atmospheric research during the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58, to examine the present state of research in such a subject as radiative balance in the atmosphere, and a one-day discussion meeting on this subject was held in London at the Royal Society on June 9. In such a short period it was clearly out of the question to attempt any comprehensive survey, and attention was concentrated instead on subjects in which research is being actively pursued.
Nature 1 October 1955
Meteorological Magazine
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 the International Geophysical Year was coming. There had already been a bunch of articles in the media speculating on carbon dioxide buildup. And having three years after the London smog, and the year before the Clean Air Act was passed, the quality of air was still very high on the agenda as it should be, as it still really needs to be.
What I think we can learn from this
Carbon Dioxide build up was NOT on the agenda. Not because these people were stupid, complacent, careless or anything else. Just wasn’t on their radar yet. Not enough evidence etc built up. Only Callendar, some newspaper articles and comments by Plass.
What happened next
The International Geophysical Year happened next…
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.
