Tag: 1978

Categories
Aviation United States of America

December 28, 1978 – fly the plane. Don’t keep tapping the fuel light.

Forty five years ago, on this day, December 28, 1978, things go wrong.

With the crew investigating a problem with the landing gear, United Airlines Flight 173 runs out of fuel and crashes in Portland, Oregon, killing 10. As a result, United Airlines instituted the industry’s first crew resource management program. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been other recent airline disasters which were ultimately down to to crews failing to do the smart thing. My favourite is the Tenerife KLM PanAm disaster caused by an arrogant Dutch guy – but broader systemic breakdown and bad habits was behind it of course, it always is.

What I think we can learn from this

 it was these disasters that got the aircraft manufacturers and the State and the insurers together and insist that the way that pilots and crews interacted was the subject of better training. So you get crew resource management and notechs- the non-technical aspects. This would be a huge boon for social movement organizations but they just can’t get their heads around this stuff…

What happened next

Crew Resource Management became a thing. Aviation by the 90s had become absurdly safe, once the hijacking and blowing up aspect got taken care of.

Even with the 737 disasters and the icy pilots, if you look at the number of flights and number of passengers vs actual loss of life from commercial aviation it is absolutely safe now. Pity about the planet, but you can’t have everything…

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

Gawande, A. The checklist manifesto

Categories
Antarctica Arctic

October 8, 1978 – The Times runs an “ice caps melting” story

Forty five years ago, on this day, October 8, 1978, the Times ran an article, on page 15, about the ice caps melting, based on a Nature article.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that US scientists had produced lots of data and reports that really pointed to a warming world because of carbon dioxide. The World Meteorological Organisation and UNEP were doing the same. The First World Climate Conference was coming up in a few months …

What I think we can learn from this – the Times used to be a real newspaper.

What happened next

We did not act on climate change. And the Antarctic did indeed start to properly melt, as had been hypothesized in 1973. And the West Antarctic ice sheet is exquisitely vulnerable because it is sitting on mountain peaks rather than bedrock.

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.

Categories
United Kingdom

October 4, 1978 – the Interdepartmental group on Climatology meets for the first time…

Forty-five years ago, on this day, October 4, 1978, senior UK civil servants and scientific advisors began a short bunch of meetings…

“The Interdepartmental Group on Climatology (IGC) first met on 4 October 1978. Its task was to specify a research programme that might answer long-term questions about climate change, while keeping national programmes co-ordinated with the rapidly expanding international projects, such as those of the European Economic Community (EEC) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) as well as research in the USA.”

Agar, 2015

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the British state had been aware of potential climate change for a very long time. By 1967 the issue was cropping up on television. A junior minister, Lord Kennet, had written a crucial memo in July 1968, and the first Environment White Paper mentioned carbon dioxide as a potential problem. But Met Office Supremo John Mason had managed to slow things down despite the best efforts of various civil servants and scientists. Eventually though, an interdepartmental committee was formed.

What I think we can learn from this is that the British state response was this weak at this time. Though to be entirely fair, there was a lot going on in terms of industrial unrest, Northern Ireland the IMF crisis you name it. The 1976 drought could be dismissed as a one-off, of course

Interdepartmental committees are going to follow the usual lowest common denominator trajectory, with big departments able to act as a veto on anything they don’t like and small departments knowing that and seeing no point in rocking the boat…

What happened next

The interdepartmental committee report, which was pretty weak, was not released until after the change in government. Members of the Conservative cabinet of Margaret Thatcher almost just filed it away without it even being seen.

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.

Categories
United States of America

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

Forty five years ago, on this day, July 12, 1978, US scientists gathered to review 

1978 Woods Hole workshop to review “Report of the Workshop to Review the U.S. Climate Program Plans”, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, July 12-19, 1978, to the Climate Research Board 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the National Academy of Science had released its big fat report in the middle of 1977. And there was now a US Climate programme as well, thanks to George Brown’s efforts to get a climate act through. This workshop is about “well how are we doing? What do we do next?” 

What I think we can learn from this is that you can get a research agenda with policy implications embedded within the state but then you need to husband it, make sure it’s on track. And that’s unglamorous but it’s needed, obviously, and will take up a lot of time and energy. But there isn’t really an alternative because if you don’t nurture it, you’re screwed (spoiler, you are anyway!)

What happened next

The climate issue continued to build and build and by 1980 81, it had some serious legs on it. And then came Reagan and the Heritage Foundation, grinding into gear and making sure that things like the Global 2000 report don’t have as much afterlife as they otherwise might. See. May 13 1983 blog post 

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.

Categories
Fossil fuels United States of America

June 6, 1978 – Exxon presentation about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty five years ago, on this day, June 6, 1978, Exxon got told about the climate crisis to be caused by its product… We know this thanks to the hard work of the folks at Inside Climate News and Exxon Knew.

6 June 1978 PRESENTATION SHARED WITH EXXON MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE from Exxon Research and Engineering Science Advisor, James Black

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Exxon had been aware of the climate issue like anyone else for a long time. They were beginning to liaise with certain scientists, like Wally Broecker, to do some investigation of their own and to offer Exxon facilities, ships etc. as platforms from which useful data could be measured.

What I think we can learn from this. This isn’t necessarily an effort at silencing or cooptation (in fact, that would be a perverse reading). This is just a big company trying to figure out what’s going on.

What happened next

Of course, since then, Exxon has done pretty much everything within its power to block climate action, because that action would impinge on their profits.

The predictions their scientists made in the 1970s? Pretty good… https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

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.

Categories
Renewable energy United States of America

May 3, 1978 – First and last “Sun Day”

Forty five years ago, on this day, May 3, 1978, the first and last “Sun Day” organised by Dennis Hayes took place

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Day

QUOTE FROM  In the rain! (Graetz, 2011: 117)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Denis Hayes had been neck deep in the Earth Day organising of 1970 and spent the rest of the decade trying to get people to take alternative energy solar energy seriously.

The National Academy of Sciences report on climate had come out in July of 1977. Carter had signed the Climate Change Act that had been proposed by George Brown. People were beginning to think that carbon dioxide might really screw us. Increasing the amount of solar energy was clearly a good idea, but didn’t get implemented. 

What I think we can learn from this

Solutions technological, political, economic, social, have existed and they have constantly been out fought, outspent by existing vested interests and the natural small c conservatism and inertia and obduracy of large technical systems.

Getting a new technology to be accepted is a very very hard task.

What happened next

Well, famously, the Reagan administration took the solar panels off the White House in 1986. But by then Reagan’s goons had already done a very good job in destroying momentum towards ecological sanity (not that a second Carter term would necessarily have delivered).

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.

Categories
Austria

 Feb 21, 1978 – “Carbon dioxide, climate and society” workshop

Forty five years ago, on this day, February 21 1978, a workshop took place at the Cold War lek known as IIASA, in Austria.

Carbon dioxide, climate and society – Proceedings of a IIASA workshop co-sponsored by WMO, UNEP and SCOPE, (Laxenburg, Austria) 21-24 Feb 1978.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

In the US the 1977 NAS report had come out.  UNEP were hosting meetings with the WMO Preparations were underway for the First World Climate Conference, to be held in February 1979.  IIASA had been looking at Energy and Climate for a while, including with previous workshops in 1975 and this one in 1976 about Climate and Solar Energy.  Some of the big names – Flohn, Nordhaus etc, were around.

What I think we can learn from this

Smart people were “on it” quite early (i.e. 20 years after Plass, Revelle, Bolin, Keeling et al had seen what the problem was).  They scratched their heads and couldn’t see easy ways forward Because there weren’t any. There certainly aren’t any now. 

What happened next

This meeting and others fed into the late 1970s awareness of the problem (among a tiny number of people!)

IIASA kept having consequential meetings on climate (see their stuff on CCS in the early 2000s)

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Schrickel, I. (2017)  Control versus complexity: approaches to the carbon dioxide problem at IIASAWynne, B. (1984) The Institutional Context of Science, Models, and Policy: The IIASA Energy Study. Policy Sciences

Categories
United States of America

February 1, 1978 – US TV show MacNeill Lehrer hosts discussion about climate change

Forty five years ago, on this day, February 1 1978  the PBS “MacNeill Lehrer Report” had various smart people talking about the climate problems ahead (Robert Jastrow, Gordon MacDonald, Stephen Schneider, Clairborne Pell). They let Jastrow go first, shilling his Ice Age is Coming book. Then Gordon MacDonald, who had been warning about carbon dioxide build-up since 1968, and had helped write the first public facing report on it in 1970,  was able to respond –

“GORDON MacDONALD: Bob Jastrow talked about the natural fluctuations in climate. I think that basically the picture he drew is correct, except he left out one important factor, that is, man. Man has been doing lots of things that are going to change climate in very significant ways. For example, he`s burning oil, gas, coal, putting the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. He`s also clearing forests, turning lands that were once covered with biologically active material into areas that are no longer biologically active. That means that the carbon that was once fixed in those forests is now released into the atmosphere. These two effects plus a very important effect, that is, natural gas coming from deep within the earth, coming into the atmosphere and being oxidized, all lead to the greenhouse that you described.”

https://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_507-ms3jw87f1f

And yes, that is Stephen Schneider with hair –

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

In 1977 the National Academy of Sciences had released a big fat report saying there was probably a problem about carbon dioxide buildup, and other books had been written in the mid 70s (e.g. Wilcox). So television producers, who were always needing to fill up space and to seem to have their finger on the pulse, will have looked upon this as a good topic. Schneider was a no-brainer. MacDonald and Jastrow were among the JASONs who had been up to their necks as well in ozone discussions, and MacDonald was at the time of this television appearance leading work on a JASON Technical Report “The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate.”

What I think we can learn from this

These sorts of chin-stroking documentaries and discussion panels have been going on a long time. And at one point, certainly up to this point, they had their place. But since then they have become an opportunity for middle-class people who don’t want to get off their fat asses to say “oh, there’s still a debate going on.”

What is amusing about some of the denialists is they don’t admit (or perhaps even know) that some of the people they pointed to as ‘Big Scientists Who Disagree’ in the 1990s were Ice Agers. That doesn’t fit their narrative (though they never forget to cite the paper Stephen Schneider co-authored with Rasool in 1971…)

What happened next

The contestation over whether carbon dioxide buildup mattered led to a process in 1979 known as the Charney report, which said there’s no reason to think otherwise.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
United Kingdom

December 22, 1978 – UK Energy Department chief scientist worries about CO2 levels and pressure to reduce them…

On this day, December 22, 1978, the chief scientist at the UK Department of Energy, Hermann Bondi, wrote to the civil servants in the Cabinet Office, as part of the general raised awareness about climate issues in the late 1970s…

Weighing the short- and long-term effects of climate predictions, Hermann Bondi, the Chief Scientist at the Department of Energy from 1977 to 1980, wrote to the Cabinet Office in late 1978:

“If it became the accepted scientific view that the CO2 level would continue to rise largely due to the combustion of fossil fuel and that this was likely to have undesirable climatic effects then the pressure for reducing fossil fuel combustion would be immediate and severe. … Whether the scientific predictions turned out to be right or wrong the effects of the change in fuel consumption pattern induced by the prediction could be far-reaching. I regard this possibility as of far greater importance for this country than the effect of an actual climatic change. And the impact would almost certainly come very much sooner.”

H. Bondi to R. G. Courtney, 22 Dec 1978, KEW, Ref. R 2959, CAB 164/1422. Also see ‘‘Interdepartmental Group on Climatology: Comments on CPRS Paper ‘Economic Effects of Climatic Change’ by the Department of Energy,’’ KEW, CAB 164/1422

Agar 2015

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 335ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Through the mid-70s awareness and concern grew. The UK government finally set up an inter-departmental committee (despite the resistance of theMeteorological Office top dog, John Mason ).

Why this matters. 

We knew. I know I keep saying it, but by the late 1970s, there was enough knowledge out there to be properly worried….

What happened next?

A report was finally produced. New Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was briefed on it in 1980 ,and responded with incredulity “you want me to worry about the weather?” And eight more lost years would  go by on her watch until she finally was properly persuaded on the threat of the “greenhouse effect”…

Categories
Canada Science Scientists

December 10, 1978 – Academic workshop on “Climate/Society Interface” begins in Toronto…

On this day, December 10, 1978  a five day Workshop co-hosted by the CSU and SCOPE 

“Workshop on Climate/Society Interface” began in Toronto..

This was (presumably?!) a kind of sequel/follow up to the February 1978 IIASA workshop “Carbon Dioxide, Climate and Society” which had been cosponsored by WMO, UNEP, and SCOPE, February 21 – 24, 1978.

Papers included

Margolis, H. (December 1978) Estimating social impacts of climate change–What might be done versus what is likely to be done.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 335ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]