Tag: 1977

Categories
Papua New Guinea

August 5, 1976 – “It is wise to influence the climate” writes Mikhail Budyko…

On this day 50 years ago, the Post-Courier of Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, ran a feature by Russian climatologist Mikhail Budyko about, well, climate change. It had originally been published in the UNESCO Courier.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 331ppm. As of 2026, 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 Russians (including Budyko and Federov had been looking at atmospheric change – deliberate and accidental since the late 1950s.

The specific context was that still, in the mid-1970s it wasn’t clear to everyone if we were going to get hotter (and why) or colder (and why). There were still competing theories around dust etc. 

What I think we can learn from this – the UNESCO Courier was a proper publication. We used to be a smart-ish species. We have idiotified ourselves. Or been idiotified by the most greedy and vicious among us, who find an intelligent populace a threat. 

What happened next. The debates, sadly, continued, long after they needed to. The World Meteorological Organisation proposed and hosted a climate conference in 1979, and in a less suicidal timeline that would have led to actual action on carbon dioxide. Oh well.

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 5, 1971 – First “South Pacific Forum” happens

August 5, 1997 – “Climate Change Policies in Australia” briefing 

August 5, 1997 – Australian politician calls for “official figures” on #climate to be suspended because they are rubbery af 

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight 

Categories
United States of America

August 4, 1977- “Workshop on Anticipated Plant Responses to Global Carbon Dioxide Enrichment”

Forty nine years ago, on this day, August 4th, 1977,

Duke University in Durham, North Carolina on August 4-5, 1977 for “Workshop on Anticipated Plant Responses to Global Carbon Dioxide Enrichment”….  Five years later, on May 23-28, 1982, a similar “International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity” was held in Athens, Georgia.

(Idso, 1982: 72- 73)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 333ppm. As of 2026, 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 mid 70s conferences, especially in the US and Europe, about carbon dioxide build up and the social, economic, biological, military implications it was becoming a known fixture on the circuit, the carousel.

The specific context was that the biologists have been banging on about CO2 build up for a long time. See, for example, 1948 Evelyn Hutchinson at the AAAS, and Lamont Cole in the 60s, and so on and so on.

What I think we can learn from this So this is a point I make regularly; You can’t just look at what the climatologists and meteorologists are saying. You also have to look at the ecologists and biologists, George Woodwell, for example.

What happened next There was another conference in 1980 andSherwood Idso wrote a truly demented article that somehow got published in Science. And this came up in the 1980 hearings, [insert quote from co2 newsletter], and Idso kept on being a nut job denialist, unable to accept that he had been wrong, so just doubled down and kept being wrong (see also Reid Bryson) until he died.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 4, 1978 – “A Terminal Mesozoic ‘Greenhouse’: Lessons from the Past” 

August 4, 1980 – “Towards a Troubled 21st Century” reports Time Magazine 

August 4, 1988 – Hawke Cabinet asks for “what can we do?” report on climate.

August 4, 2004 – Australian farmers nervous about climate change. Ignored 

August 4, 2008 – Police pepper spray #climate campers 

Categories
United States of America

July 25,  1977 – the Ironwood Daily Globe tells the truth

Forty-nine years ago, on this day, July  25th, 1977,

In reporting the “Energy and Climate” study, the Ironwood Daily Globe (Ironwood, Michigan) ·of Mon, 25 Jul 1977 tells the truth on page 1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 333ppm. As of 2026, 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 newspapers had been writing stories about carbon dioxide build up for over twenty years by this point. A flurry in the 1950s, mostly around Gilbert Plass’s work and then the studies before and during the International Geophysical Year. Then frequency had dipped a bit, but picked up in the late 1960s.

The specific context was that a two year study by the National Academies of Sciences, on ‘Energy and Climate’ had been released with some fan-fair.

What I think we can learn from this – this news was not restricted to the coastal elites – those in ‘flyover country’ were aware too,

What happened next

There was an effort to get the carbon dioxide issue onto the agenda by a host of scientists (and also the geologist William Barbat). It failed not because they weren’t smart or talented enough, but because, well Thatcher, but then Reagan and his goons. It was not until 1988 that the problem finally became an issue.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – “Mineral Fuel Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect” 

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target 

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet 

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet” 

July 25, 2001 – Australian Environment Minister says the quiet part out loud about Kyoto 

July 25, 2008 – More economic “modelling” against an emissions trading scheme  

Categories
Deforestation United States of America

May 26, 1977  – “Forest loss poses threat to Earth” (Do bears shit in those forests?)

Forty eight years ago, on this day, May 26th, 1977, The Grand Island Independent (Nebraska) runs a a story on p34, “Forest Loss Poses threat to Earth”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that by the mid-1970s various types of scientists were beginning to look at atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up and go ‘uh oh’. There was a side debate about whether the carbon dioxide problem was down to fossil fuels or fossil fuels and other issues (deforestation).

What I think we can learn from this is that we have had fifty years of this stuff. And we just keep making things worse. Because we are not that smart. And we think we can dump the costs on other people/species. 

What happened next. We dumped the costs on other generations, until it was us.

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: 

May 26, 1978 – “Advisory Group on Climate” meeting

May 26, 1990 – Times front page about Thatcher going for stabilisation target – All Our Yesterdays

May 26, 1993 – more “green jobs” mush

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

Categories
Australia Energy Renewable energy Solar Energy

May 5, 1977 – Australian silence on solar

Forty nine years ago, on this day, May 5th,  1977

– QUESTION AUSTRALIAN ENERGY POLICY

Senator WRIEDT:

TASMANIA

– My question is directed to either the Minister for Science or the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. I ask whether the Minister is aware that the solar energy report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources states:

There is no Australian energy policy and in the absence of any central direction to co-ordinate a search for alternatives, the complacency that currently exists will continue.

Is the Minister aware also that the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Thomas, endorsed at least the first part of that statement this morning on the radio program AM? Does the Minister agree with that proposition? If not, is he able to indicate what is the energy policy of the Government?

Senator WITHERS:

WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I shall take this question as I think it properly belongs in the area of responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Resources. I have not had the advantage of reading the report put down in the Senate yesterday by my friend and colleague, Senator Thomas. Therefore, I think it would be unfortunate if, not having read the report, I were to make any comment on it. However, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has drawn my attention to it, I shall look at it and certainly shall draw the honourable senator’s comments to the attention of my colleague in the other place  . https://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770505_senate_30_s73/#subdebate-3-0

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that there had been interest in solar energy, especially in the aftermath of the first oil shock, ‘73-74 but that with the return of a Liberal National Government, some of that enthusiasm melted away. 

The specific context was that there were lots of attempts at energy investigations and so on. (What’s interesting here is that thanks to what’s being said in Parliament, you can learn what is and isn’t being said on the radio, and to a lesser extent, the television and TV and radio are much harder things to research than newspapers.)

What I think we can learn from this is that when you have plentiful supplies of coal, investigating solar seems stupid and unfriendly to the incumbents, and people who are unfriendly to the incumbents tend not to prosper in our political systems. 

What happened next. Solar energy advocates kept banging on, largely ignored. There was a petition in late ‘77. Solar only really took off in the 2010s onwards.

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: 

May 5, 1953 – Gilbert Plass launches the carbon dioxide theory globally

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

May 5, 1973 – Miners advertise for a greenie to join them

May 5, 1990 – Coal barons have to pretend to care –

May 5, 2000 – Business Council of Australia boss on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues”

Categories
Germany Science

March 21,1977 – Workshop on the carbon cycle in Germany

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.

Also on this day:

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

March 21, 1994 – Yes to UNFCCC, yes to more coal-fired plants. Obviously. #auspol

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

Categories
Science United States of America

August 15, 1977 – “Theoretical climate effects of doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide content”

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, August 15th, 1977,

Theoretical climate effects of doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide content.

 Presented at the Third Ecology-Meteorology Workshop, University of Michigan Biological Station, 15-18 August 1977

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 333ppm. 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 by the mid-1970s scientists studying the issue were getting more and more concerned. In 1975 the first “global warming” paper appeared – vale Wally Broecker) and the National Academies of Science started paying attention to “Energy and Climate”. President Carter had kicked off the “Global 2000” report too. Word was getting round…

The specific context was that American science wasn’t at that time under full assault by a bunch of crooks, thugs and wilfully ignorant theocratic racists. So, the good old days.

Also, in 1975 this paper had come out – The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model in: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 32 Issue 1 (1975)

What I think we can learn from this – People knew. Not everyone, but more than you’d think.

What happened next – in 1979 the First World Climate Conference happened in Geneva, Switzerland, organised by the World Meteorological Organisation. It could have been pivotal, but wasn’t. The thick end of another decade was wasted.

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: 

August 15, 1952 – flash flood – caused by Weather Modification experiment? – All Our Yesterdays

August 15, 1989 – Queenslander mayor says the greenhouse effect is like“a bird urinating in the Tweed River while in flight”

August 15, 2010 – Russia halts grain exports because of droughts and heatwaves

August 15, 2010 – a walk against warming fails to catch fire. #RepertoireRot

Categories
Science

June 6, 1977 – Flohn speaks on “Growth Without Ecodisaster?”

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, June 6th, 1977 German climatologist Herman Flohn, who had been aware of Guy Callendar’s work during the war, asked “whither the atmosphere and Earth’s climate?,

Flohn at “Growth without Ecodisasters?” conference –  Whither the Atmosphere and Earth’s Climates? by Prof. Hermann Flohn (Germany): Chman Dr Thomas F. Malone (USA)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that in the mid-1970s it became obvious to smart scientists that the carbon dioxide problem was going to be THE issue – see for example Wally Broecker in Science in 1975.

The specific context was that by the mid-1970s there was also a steady circuit of these sorts of hand-wringing international conferences, the humanities version of what the IIASA crowd of technocrats were doing… 

What I think we can learn from this is that the 1970s really was – as per Richard Nixon and the UK Conservation Society – the “decade of decision.”  And we – at a species level – decided by not deciding. Oops.

What happened next

Flohn kept up the good fight – as late as the 1990s he was trying to push back against the climate denialists (LINK) 

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: 

June 6, 1977 – German scientist Hermann Flohn asks “Whither the Atmosphere and the Earth’s climate?” – All Our Yesterdays

– 

Categories
Australia

June 2, 1977 – Australian scientists SCOPE the climate problem

On this day June 2nd 1977, 48 years ago, Australian Scientist Graeme Pearman gathered fellow scientists to tell them what had been going on.

2-3 June 1977 The Australian National Committee of the UN Study Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) held a workshop on this subject at the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Physics, Aspendale on June 2 and 3. The objectives of the workshop were: 

A: To communicate to the interested Australian scientific community — i) The results of the recent SCOPE meeting in Ratzeburg and the ERDA meeting in Miami on the C02 – climate problem.  (Pearman, 1977 Clean Air)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 333ppm.  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 for this was the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide build-up was going to be a Real Problem, and probably Quite Soon was just forming – a series of international meetings had taken place, and Pearman was at a couple of them.
You have to remember, this was way before email and easy communications. You couldn’t just circulate pdfs…

The specific context was that Australian scientists had been measuring C02 amounts for a few years – first on planes, and about now, at Cape Grim in Tasmania.

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – we knew enough to be worried, half a century ago

As “active citizens” – we knew enough to be worried, half a century ago

Academics might want to ponder… we knew enough to be worried, half a century ago.

What happened next: xx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

The 1974 post about Australia and climate at RMets

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 2, 1986 – US Senators get going on climate

June 2, 1989 – “James Hansen versus the World” – good article on actual #climate consensus let down by title

June 2, 2002 – Low carbon spaces, eh… SDC RIP – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Academia United States of America

October 1, 1977 – Worldwatch on “Redefining National Security”

Forty-seven years ago, on this day, October 1st, 1977, the first or at least ONE of the first, reports that frames climate as a national security threat is published.

Redefining National Security. Worldwatch Paper 14. OCTOBER 1977

Brown, Lester R.

This paper, an adaption from the author’s forthcoming book “The Twenty-Ninth Day: Accommodating Human Needs and Numbers to the Earth’s Resources,” deals with non-military threats to national security. Since World War II the concept of national security has acquired an overwhelmingly military character. The policy of continual preparedness has led to the militarization of the world economy, with military expenditures now accounting for six percent of the global product. Most countries spend more on national security than they do on educating their youth. The overwhelmingly military approach to national security is based on the assumption that the principal threat to security comes from other nations. But the threats to security may now arise less from the relationship of nation to nation and more from the relationship of man to nature. Dwindling reserves of oil and the deterioration of the earth’s biological systems now threaten the security of nations everywhere. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was beginning to say, CO2 building up is going to do things to agriculture, and so forth. What are the national security implications? We’d already had Kissinger talking to the UN General Assembly in 1974. So when a new upstart think tank called World Watch wants an angle to catch the attention of Washington DC insiders, then national security implications is not a bad bet.

What we learn is that the idea of climate hawks framing the issues in ways that are going to catch the attention and get past the “greenie hoax” shields of so-called important people has been around a lot longer than its proponents might want to give it credit for. And it has persistently not worked. 

What happened next? World Watch kept watching the world as the world kept falling apart on its Watch. Watch watch? Such watch? as the famous as the comedy scene in Casablanca.

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 1, 1957 – US Oil company ponders carbon dioxide build-up…

October 1, 1997 – Global greens gather in Melbourne, diss Australian #climate policy