Tag: 1980

Categories
CO2 Newsletter

C02 Newsletter Vol. 2, no. 1 – “hottest summers result in lowest summer rain fall in the five ‘Wheat Belt’ states”

The seventh edition of the CO2 Newsletter, (Vol. 2, no. 1) published bi-monthly by American geologist William N. Barbat between 1979 and 1982 is live. You can download a pdf and see the full text here.

The eight page issue has a front page story pointing out that “Hottest summers result in lowest summer rainfall in the five ‘Wheat Belt’ states” Barbat does a good job (as ever) in being fair and balanced. At one point he notes

Projections of cyclic global temperatures with an added CO2 greenhouse effect (at 2 to 3° C global temperature rise for a CO2 doubling) give an expectation of global temperatures warmer than the dustbowl era before 2000 (e). Good analogies are not available to predict what climatic effect a continued CO2 increase and further global warming might produce eventually, other than past global warmings have generally been accompanied by a widening and slight poleward shift of the semi- tropical arid belts.

There’s also an editorial, feedback from readers, excerpts from recent reports and a concluding article “A need for rational answers about energy.”

It remains heart-breaking, of course. Barbat’s editorial begins

Whether the divisiveness of the previous decade will end with the November 4 elections in the US. remains to be seen. Some express hope the ‘me’ decade is ending and the ‘we’ decade is beginning, which would help greatly is combating the CO2 problem.

Potential impacts of the CO2 buildup appear to represent by far the largest, most serious, man caused environmental problem that the world will face in the not-too-distant future. Because the threat of famines from climate change and of mass migrations due both to hunger and the potential sea level rise will impact almost everybody, the CO2 problem should be expected to bring together opposing factions on environmental and energy problems. Any delay in closing ranks to halt the CO2 buildup is seen by some knowledgeable workers as leading to more human grief.

As ever, if you have comments, suggestions, memories of reading the Newsletter when it was first published, do get in touch.

Categories
United States of America

May 5, 1980 – Frank Press to Jimmy Carter on climate

Forty six years ago, on this day, May 5th, 1980, Frank Press writes to President Jimmy Carter

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that American scientists had been trying to raise the alarm for some years about carbon dioxide, and even before his inauguration, Carter was being lobbied in December ‘76 about the CO2 issue. And from early days, early in ‘77 that had been ongoing, his Chief Scientific Advisor, Frank Press, was, I think it’s fair to say, relatively lukewarm on the issue. He had been lobbied in early ‘77 by, I think Weinberg and someone else.

In 1979, Press had, perhaps feeling a little bit cornered on the CO2 issue, asked the National Academies of Science people, especially Jule Charney, to look into the question. And the Charney report that had said, basically, there’s no reason to believe that if we continue putting vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, then the temperature will do anything other than rise markedly. 

The specific context was that here we are in an election year, and Frank Press has already chided Gus Speth of the Council on Environmental Quality, about CO2 as a non issue. We’ve already had the Global 2000 report, which mentions CO2, and Press writing to Carter, minimising what the Charney folks wrote, because a slightly more equivocal report had been produced by an ‘ad hoc panel’…

What I think we can learn from this. is that chief scientific advisors are human beings with their own biases and blind spots and while there was a much bigger scientific awareness in the States than in the UK, there was still the roadblock of politics. I’m not saying that Frank Press was anywhere near as bad as the Met Office’s John Mason…

What happened next. Well, Carter lost the 1980 election, the Council on Environmental Quality released a report in the interim period before Reagan took office. Reagan was a catastrophe on so many levels, and it would be 1988 before policy making around climate change was even spoken of. 

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 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
CO2 Newsletter CO2 Newsletter articles

Front page news – “Broecker’s 6 meter rise does not appear unreasonable” – C02 Newsletter Vol. 1, no. 5

Here’s the front page story on the CO2 Newsletter for June-July 1980. You can find out more about the newsletter here.

We knew. We knew. Brave diligent people like William Barbat tried to amplify the science, connect the dots, connect the policymakers, the publics and the evidence.

A sense of urgency was introduced to the CO2-greenhouse problem July 30, 1979, when Wallace Broecker (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) explained to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, “We have good evidence that during the peak of the last interglacial period, the sea level did indeed stand 6 meters (20 feet) higher than it does now, and we don’t think the temperature of the globe was any more than 1 degree Celsius warmer than now.”

A 1 degree C warming is generally expected to be reached shortly after the turn of the century if the CO2 buildup continues as in the past, The energy scenario of F. Niehaus (International Atomic Energy Agency) which might halt a CO2-induced global warming just short of 1 degree C, as shown in the inset, would call for a rapid phase-out of fossil mostly by nuclear, This scenario was presented at the same Senate hearing. 

Broecker’s 6 meter rise (point ‘a’) does not appear unreasonable on a plot of temperatures vs. sea elevations ranging from ice ages to no-icecap conditions. Global average temperatures of 4 degrees to 5 degrees C cooler than now are shown for the ice ages, as used by Svante Arrhenius in his CO2 greenhouse model of 1896. Corresponding to these periods of maximum glacial advance are vestiges of shorelines 85 to 130 meters lower than now as shown by bar +b’. (Lag in destruction of the Laurentide ice sheet precludes

other equilibrium values for conditions cooler than now.)

An approximation of the pre-glacial global temperature as shown here 5. degrees C greater than now (point ‘c’) is derived from Eocene and early Oligocene subtropical and tropical sea-surface temperatures in the literature. These sea temperatures were based on oxygen isotope measurements made on shells of pelagic foraminifera which grew at that time,

Arrhenius had also judged that the average Arctic temperatures prior to the existence of ice sheets in that hemisphere were about 8 to 9 degrees C warmer than modern temperatures, based on observations of vegetation and animal life. Allowing for 3X to 4X polar amplification, this would correspond to an average global temperature 2 degrees to 3 degrees C warmer than now, which essentially matches the consensus of estimates for global warming which may accompany a CO2 doubling, Such a doubling is expected to be reached about 2025-2050 if growth of CO2 production continues its historical rise.

Because the West Antarctic icecap is believed by John Mercer (Institute of Polar Studies, Ohio State) to have formed at cooler temperatures than the Greenland icecap, the potential sea elevation corresponding to the absence of the Greenland ice is shown here as the sum of the rise if both icecaps were absent, that is, 12 meters higher than present. This 12 meter height – if valid can be considered to be a minimum value, for it is likely that the East Antarctic ice cap was smaller than its present size when global temperature was 2 degrees to 3 degrees C warmer.

No estimates have been published yet for how fast the Greenland ice sheet might disappear with a CO2 -induced warming, and much controversy still surrounds estimates of how fast the West Antarctic ice sheet may disappear due to a lack of precedents. If the CO2 buildup continues unabated, the  expected warming over the next half century may take place in about one-tenth the time that a similar temperature rise occurred about 10,3000 degrees before present, during which time sea level was about 0.2 to 0.3 meters per decade according to the compilations of Rhodes Fairbridge.

To illustrate the seriousness of a potential equilibrium with the warmness of a CO2 doubling, the Jefferson Memorial is depicted on the same elevation scale. For other comparisons, the absence of icecaps would correspond to sea level at the clock face of London’s Big Ben and up to the roadway of San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge.

Categories
CO2 Newsletter Energy Germany

March 3, 1980 – Amory Lovins at a workshop in Germany

On this day, 46 years ago, energy guru Amory Lovins was at a workshop in Germany.


As per the wonderful CO2 Newsletter of William Barbat –

From ‘ Efficient Energy presented Futures’, by Amory B, Lovins, at the Workshop on Energy/Climate Interactions, Munster, FRG, March 3, 1980, and pending publication with the Proceedings (Energy/Climate Interactions, W. Bach, et al., editors) by Reidel (Dordrecht, Netherlands)

“The integrated burn of fossil fuel, and the associated risk of global climatic change, can be minimized by economically efficient energy policies based on very efficient energy use and rapid deployment of appropriate renewable energy sources. Such policies can stabilize the rate of burning fossil fuel and gradually, over a half-century or so, reduce it to approximately zero. Economically and technically sophisticated recent studies in many industrialized countries have shown that it is cheaper, faster, and easier to increase national energy productivity by severalfold than to increase energy supply. If such studies are taken as an existence proof, a worldwide Western European material standard of living for 8 X 10 people could be maintained with today’s rate of world energy use ( 8 TW) or less, even with un-changed life-styles in the developed countries and complete industrialization of the developing countries. At these cost-effective levels of energy productivity, virtually all long-term energy needs can be met by appropriate renewable sources that are already available and that are significantly cheaper, faster, and otherwise more attractive than competing power stations and synthetic-fuel plants. Only major efficiency improvements and, secondarily, appropriate renewable sources can substantially change the timing of, or reduce the risk of CO2 problems.”

-Abstract.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been thinking about the likely consequences of the build-up of carbon dioxide from the early 1950s, and measuring its rise accurately from 1958.

The specific context was that by the mid-1970s,that measuring was turning to awareness/alarm and the desire to do something before the shituation got completely out of hand. This workshop happened in the aftermath of the First World Climate Conference, which had failed to be a rallying point.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew.

What happened next  We failed to do anything before the shituation got completely out of hand.

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: 

March 3, 1980 – International Workshop on the energy climate Interactions in Germany

March 3, 1990 –  “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

March 3, 1990 – Energy efficiency could save billions a year, Australian government told (says ‘whatevs’).

March 3, 1990 – The Science Show on the “backlash to Greenhouse warnings”

Categories
CO2 Newsletter CO2 Newsletter editorial

CO2 Newsletter Editorial: “The new decade begins on an optimistic note”

Every issue of the CO2 Newsletter had an editorial. They are William Barbat’s attempt to share (and shape) situational awareness.

Here, in March 1980, he is breathing a sigh of relief because it seems the various elements of the state (the Department of Energy, the Council on Environmental Quality) is finally beginning to get its act together. Sadly, all that would be wrecked from November 1980, with the coming of the Reagan gang. (And yet, Barbat persisted. The man had brains and guts).

The new decade begins on an optimistic note as the CO2-greenhouse problem is beginning to receive deserved attention in scientific, political, and economic institutions. Also this particular environmental issue may unite former adversaries in a common effort. David Burns, head of the AAAS Climate Program, has noted a great increase in the number of major papers which are being prepared for publication on the CO2 problem. Also our growing readership indicates to us that the Newsletter is fulfilling its role of enlightenment. Soon a European distributorship for the Newsletter may be established. Most heartening though is the apparent absence of polarization toward the CO2 problem.

Still much skepticism remains concerning the seriousness and urgency of the CO2 problem. Although a rapidly growing number of scientists feel that we now have sufficient knowledge of impending CO2– induced impacts on which to base energy policies, others feel that much more concrete evidence must first be gained throughout the world to substantiate theories and models. Some non-technical people grossly misinterpret this skepticism as representing negative proof.

From the very beginning, much work on the CO2 problem has been performed under adverse conditions or severe financial restraints. Tyndall had to trouble-shoot his galvanometers and have them reconstructed in order to measure the absorption and radiation of heat by CO2. He found that the green dye used in the silk covering of the copper coils of the most delicate instruments of his day contained some iron compound which caused the needle to deviate. Arrhenius lacked laboratory determinations of the absorption coefficients for CO2 and water vapor at plus 15 degrees C, and he also lacked the laboratory equipment needed to make the determinations. “Such experiments . . . would require very expensive apparatus beyond that at my disposal.” Ingeniously, Arrhenius used the earth’s atmosphere instead as his laboratory. Ernest Rutherford described the challenges of those days clearly’ “We haven’t the money, so we’ve got to think.”

Modern workers on the CO2 problem seem to be little better off. The federal funding of Keeling‘s invaluable monitoring of atmospheric CO2 concentrations fell victim to the race to put a man on the moon for several months in 1963. The General Circulation Model of Manabe and Wetherald reportedly contained a programming error, which apparently could only be eliminated by a computer rerun which exceeded their resources. Glaciologists are asked to make predictions of future ice sheet behavior from very sparse data. As far as we can tell, the only available forecast of the warming threshold for West Antarctica Ice Sheet destruction relies solely on a temperature datum provided by a map made from Russian observations taken during the International Geophysical Year. Polar research has been funded meagerly by the U.S. in recent years.

Meetings which bring together atmospheric scientists, climate modelers, terrestrial and marine biologists, ocean geochemists, and other workers to analyze the CO2 problem collectively are greatly limited as to frequency and numbers of invited participants. Publications concerning such meetings are usually incomplete and much delayed. Some important results of the scientific analyses are not even available for purchase through normal channels because some agencies seem to act more as a sink than a source of information. Thus, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the relatively small number of scientists who have brought us so much understanding with so little.

Categories
Science United Kingdom

February 5,  1980 – the Met Office beavers away…

Forty six  years ago, on this day, February 5 1980 the UK Met Office was beavering away at the carbon dioxide problem.

Met Office meeting abt C02 BJ dash 336 dash 2 (138).JPG        5/2/1980        PR Rowntree        Summary of conclusions reached during discussion of CO2 experiments.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Met Office had been aware of the idea of carbon dioxide build-up as a long-term warming influence since 1953 at the absolute latest (and in fact, all the way back to Arrhenius in 1895).

The specific context was that American scientists and politicians had been warming (see what I did there?) to the issue for a while.  The Met Office had, very reluctantly (thanks to its boss, John Mason) started scientific work in 1976, putting one of their brightest young research scientists on the case, with others.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known about this problem for a very very long time.

What happened next:  Once Mason retired and was replaced by John Houghton, in 1983, the Met Office began to play a stronger and more useful role in investigating climate change, alongside the UEA Climatic Research Unit.

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: 

 February 5, 1986 – Thomas Sankara Imperialism is the arsonist of our forests and savannas  – All Our Yesterdays

February 5, 1992 – Liberal leader Hewson snubs the Australian  Conservation Foundation

February 5, 1993 – Space Based Energy experiment takes place

February 5, 2007 – Australian Prime Minister trolled by senior journalist

Categories
Coal United Kingdom

 December 10, 1980 – the future for coal and the environment

Forty five years ago, on this day, December 10th, 1980, the National Coal Board’s top science bod says what he thinks…

10 December 1980 lecture THE FUTURE FOR COAL AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 339ppm. 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 carbon dioxide build-up as a problem was by now almost 30 years old. There had been waves of concern, each had receded leaving, well, not very much.

The specific context was that Gibson had been up to his neck for the last few years in various investigations of what to do about C02 build-up, if anything could in fact be done.

In 1979 Margaret Thatcher, as the new Prime Minister had met her chief scientific advisor. He tried to get her interested/concerned and her retort was “you want me to worry about the weather?”

What I think we can learn from this – the warnings were there. They were largely ignored.

What happened next – the problem would not become an issue until 1988…

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: 

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

December 10, 1985 – Carl Sagan testified to US Senators on #climate danger

 December 10, 1991 – denialist hosted by the “Tasman Institute” – All Our Yesterdays

December 10, 2006 – Shergold Group announced

Categories
Australia

September 17, 1980 – Canberra Times reports “fossil fuels changing climate”

Forty five  years ago, on this day, September 17th, 1980, the Canberra Times ran a story on page 7 “Fossil fuels changing climate.”  Read it and weep.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 339ppm. 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 in various places (I can speak for the US, UK, Germany) research was underway and far-sighted politicians were beginning to worry. In 1977 the Canberra Times had a page 5 story “Cities “could be flooded”. While the First World Climate Conference hadn’t delivered a particularly strong statement, nonetheless, concern was there.

The specific context was that CSIRO scientists had been beavering away. One of them, Graeme Pearman, had been involved in 1977 in various studies in the US and Europe, and had returned and held a seminar. The Australian Academy of Science and others had sponsored a workshop on Phillip Island in November 1978.

What I think we can learn from this – don’t expect governments of societies built on extraction and export to be enthused when you tell them that there is trouble ahead if they don’t change their ways.

What happened next

They were not enthused. They did not, in fact, change their ways. The trouble is arriving.  But it’s early early days of the Fafocene.

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: 

September 17, 1954 – nuclear electricity will be too cheap to meter – All Our Yesterdays

September 17, 1969 – trying to spin Vietnam, Moynihan starts warning about #climate change

September 17, 1987 – report on “The Greenhouse Project” launch

September 17, 2002 – UK Government announces feasibility study into Carbon Capture and Storage

Categories
Antarctica

September 1, 1980 – “Soft Underbelly of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet” article submitted

Forty five years ago, on this day, September 1st, 1980, Terry Hughes, glaciologist, submits The weak underbelly of the West Antarctic ice sheet” to Journal of Glaciology,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 338ppm. 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 weak underbelly of the West Antarctic ice sheet | Journal of Glaciology | Cambridge Core

The broader context was that the melting of ice caps was one of the “indicators” for awareness of climate change. 

The specific context was John Mercer’s article had come out in Nature in January 1978 .

What I think we can learn from this is that we had plenty of advanced warning.

What happened next – the emissions kept climbing. They were always going to climb a bit, but they are now 60% higher than they were in 1990, when we all agreed that Something Must Be Done.

See also the novel Icequake

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

Hughes TJ. The weak underbelly of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Journal of Glaciology. 1981;27(97):518-525. doi:10.3189/S002214300001159X

Also on this day: 

September 1, 1970 – Environmentalism is an elite-diversion tactic, says American Maoist

September 1, 1972 – “Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse Effect” published in Nature

September 1, 1983- #climate change is all in the game, you feel me?

September 1, 1998 – Sydney Futures Exchange foresees a bright future. Ooops.

Categories
United States of America

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

Forty five years ago, on this day, August 4th, 1980, Time Magazine was reporting on the “Global 2000” report put out by the Carter Administration.

As compared with such doomsday forecasts as that of the Club of Rome’s 1972 The Limits to Growth, which predicted mass starvation, political chaos, and general catastrophe by the middle of the next century, the study is cautiously restrained, even muted, giving its warnings more impact in a way…. 

Less predictable, but no less frightening: a possible global heating from the growing volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—expected to rise a third over preindustrial levels by century’s end from continued burning of fossil fuels.

“Toward a Troubled 21st Century: A Presidential Panel Finds the Global Outlook Extremely Bleak,” Time Magazine (4 August 1980): p. 54

Environment: Toward a Troubled 21st Century | TIME

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 339ppm. 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 the warnings had been coming for a long time. Time had covered it in 1953, after all.

The specific context was that the Global 2000 report, begun shortly after Jimmy Carter became President, was a pretty good stab at the problems ahead. Of course it was met with a fierce and stupid backlash by fierce and stupid people at the Heritage Foundation etc.

What I think we can learn from this – any effort to raise the alarm will be met with the cry of “alarmist”, no matter how credentialled, sober and cautious you are.

What happened next – in September 1980 it was obvious that Ronald Reagan, republican candidate for the presidency, wasn’t even AWARE of the Global 2000 report. And the rest? It’s history and emissions, until the latter mean there’s none of the former. Oh well.

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

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

August 4, 2008 – Police pepper spray #climate campers