Tag: 1980

Categories
Interviews

“I wanted to write the book because I believed the threat of global warming was real” – interview with Harold Bernard, author of 1980 book ‘The Greenhouse Effect’

In 1980 a book called The Greenhouse Effect was published. Its author, Buzz Bernard, kindly agreed to an email interview…

Buzz Bernard

A bit about where you were born, grew up, were educated

I was born in Eugene, Oregon; grew up in Portland, Oregon; and was educated at the University of Washington (Seattle)

What drew you to the Air Force? What did you do in your service?

The draft was still in effect when I entered college. My dad said, “You’re gonna have to serve in the military, so you might as well do it as an officer.” Thus, I joined the AF ROTC and was commissioned as a second lieutenant. I was hoping the AF might send me on to get a Master’s Degree in Atmospheric Science, but something called Vietnam came along. So much for furthering my education.

In the air force I mainly supported flying/combat operations. I ended my career (primarily in the reserve) as Deputy Director of Weather (Reserve), Air Combat Command.

When and how did your involvement in meteorology come about?

I always (at least since I was about 8 or 9 years old) knew I wanted to be a “weatherman.” I wanted to know what made it cold or hot, why sometimes we got snowstorms instead of rainstorms, what caused big windstorms, etc. There wasn’t any one big event that triggered my curiosity (like with many of my fellow meteorologists), I was just interested in weather.

When and how did you first hear about carbon dioxide build-up as a potential problem? 

I first heard about atmospheric carbon dioxide when I went on a research project sponsored by the Univ of Washington in the Alaskan arctic in the summer of 1962. My job was to drive an old WWII weapons carrier out to a hut at the literal  end of Point Barrow and record CO2 measurements. “Man, is this boring,” I thought. 

In the late 1970s, I became friends with an MIT professor emeritus who worked at the research firm I was working at (as a civilian) in Massachusetts. He’d been involved in linking sunspot cycles to climate cycles. I found that fascinating and wrote a trade book (WEATHER WATCH) about it. I asked the professor about the threat of warming from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. He brushed it off saying, “Don’t worry about it.” Well, I wasn’t worried about it, but wanted to find out more. So I began reading everything I could find about the subject, and drew my own conclusions as a layman. I decided that there was a real threat from anthropogenic warming caused by CO2. Not immediately, but maybe by the turn of the century. Thus came the book THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, which was what global warming or climate change was called back then.

I grew even more convinced of the threat of man-caused global warming through the 1980s and ended up writing another trade book about it that came out in 1993, GLOBAL WARMING UNCHECKED. By then, the threat of anthropogenic global warming was becoming more public, controversial, and politicized. Even many (most?) operational meteorologists (forecasters) didn’t believe in it, or maybe just wanted to ignore it. I was told by one forecaster who owned a big commercial firm that I was a charlatan. (I don’t think he had a clue how little money most authors really make.) When I joined a commercial forecasting operation a few years later, I was told by a friend to keep my mouth shut about having written books that dealt with global warming. No one at the company believed in it. Of course, the company has done a one-eighty since then and now can’t talk about it enough.

The book itself, how did it come about—were you commissioned or did you pitch it?

I was not commissioned. I wanted to write the book because I believed the threat of global warming was real. I had an agent by then because of WEATHER WATCH, and the agent was able to get a contract for the book with a subsidiary of a major publisher.

Anything you recall about the writing process—easy, hard, quicker or longer than expected, surprises on the way? (this is all fifty years ago, I know!)

Looking back, it was hard. There were no word processors then. I used a typewriter. Cut and paste was literal. Q&A with researchers was via snail mail not email. What little research I did was done in libraries, not on the internet. I hated doing the indexes at the end of books. I think that’s one reason I ultimately turned to writing fiction.

Were you happy with it?

Yes. Of course, I think any time you complete a book, you’re happy with it. In truth, I don’t think many of my friends had any idea what I was writing about. One of my bosses asked me, in all seriousness, “Do you have a greenhouse at your home?”He obviously hadn’t read the book yet.

How was the book received?

It wasn’t any big deal. I was not an author (or researcher) that anybody knew. There was no Amazon back then where you could track book sales or read reviews by customers.

Any further work you did on the Greenhouse Effect/thoughts on where we are now at?

As I mentioned earlier, I did write a follow-up book called GLOBAL WARMING UNCHECKED. From here on out, however, I’ll let the climate change experts/researchers write about the subject. I still follow global warming/climate change, and science has proven the early warnings were correct. People still occasionally ask me if I “believe” in global warming, as if the science were unsettled. I respond, “Do you believe in sunrise and sunset?”

Thoughts? Major challenges still remain in front of us. Heat waves, droughts, major floods, superstorms.

Me? I’m just gonna kick back and enjoy writing my WWII historical fiction series. I still have to do a lot of research, but it’s a lot more fun, I get more “attaboys,” and earn more money.

Which of your WW2 books should people start with and why?

It really doesn’t matter. They are all standalone novels, although WHEN HEROES FLEW: ROOF OF THE WORLD and WHEN HEROES FLEW: WHERE THE DAWN COMES UP LIKE THUNDER are connected. Readers in the UK might want to start with WHEN HEROES FLEW: BLACK THURSDAY or FIVE DAYS IN JUNE (which comes out in October), since both are set largely in and around London.

Which of them are you proudest of and why?

I would say the first novel of the series which was titled simply WHEN HEROES FLEW. I wasn’t thinking of a series then. But the novel sold well, got great reviews, and eventually drew some interest from a screenwriter, so I was off and running.

Anything else you’d like to say?

Thanks for this opportunity to help me recall how I got started in this crazy business of commercial writing. When I was younger, I was a meteorologist who wrote a few books. Now I’m a novelist who retains a keen interest in meteorology and climate change, but those subjects are no longer my profession They are hobbies. I think I have a wonderful life.

Categories
CO2 Newsletter CO2 Newsletter editorial

“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.” William Barbat, in 1980…

Here is the editorial geologist William Barbat wrote to accompany the first issue of Volume 2 of his CO2 Newsletter.

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.

With the population of developing countries doubling every 20 years and with the world’s food reserves actually shrinking at a disturbing rate, the threat to agricultural productivity posed by a continuing CO2 buildup translates into potential large scale, long term famine. Some climatologists have speculated that food productivity may actually increase in Russia, China and Canada with global warming. Warming would lengthen the growing season at high latitudes and possibly increase monsoonal and sub Arctic rainfall, but the continental interior portions of these countries may simultaneously dry up. Moreover, the decline in world grain production just in the last year (due in large part to the heat wave in the US) is equivalent to the entire wheat production of two Canadas, as an article in the Wall Street Journal recently pointed out. If the political leaders of any nation choose to ignore the CO2 buildup because they perceive benefits accruing to them from global warming, a distressing surprise may await their people

What factors allowed the CO2 problem to be ignored over the last decade when most other environmental problems received much attention and massive funding? And what factors led to the present de facto moratorium on nuclear reactor orders in the US. when this appears to be the only feasible large-scale substitute for fossil energy available for some time? Some answers might be:

Firstly, the earth was then experiencing a cooling trend that began in the 1940s. Also, quantification of the CO2 greenhouse effect and the effect of dust and smoke were being contested, and some workers strongly asserted that deforestation was possibly as great a villain as fossil-fuel combustion, which would imply that a CO2 perturbation would not be expected to last long after the CO2 outpourings ended.

Secondly, the environmental ‘crusade’ was largely directed against the business community, which had embraced nuclear fission for its perceived economic and environmental benefits. Environmental discussions often became sociopolitical monologues. Formal scientific training and disciplined scientific investigation were not always regarded as necessary basis for technical expertise. Environmental priorities tended to be ranked more by immediate visibility, symbolism, or emotional response rather than measurable impacts on people’s lives. Anti-civil acts were supposed to represent the suppressed will of the public, even if the acts were contrary to the public’s will as expressed by election results.

Most indicators now show that the post-1940 cooling trend was a cyclical swing which ended on schedule and that this bottoming out occurred about 0.2°C higher than the last such bottoming out of global temperatures in 1880-90.

The general consensus now seems to be that deforestation is nowhere near as great a source of CO2 as fossil fuel combustion at present, if it is a net source at all. The general expectation, then, is for a CO2 perturbation to last for many centuries.

From more than a decade of intensive studies and model analyses, the thermal sensitivity of the earth to CO2 doubling had been narrowed generally to about 2 to 3 warming. In recent months, new participants in the debates proposed a sensitivity of about one tenth that. It is difficult to imagine how 19th century scientists as Fourier, Tyndall, Ångström, and Arrhenius could have been so cognizant of the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect if a CO2 doubling would cause only 0.26°C average global surface warming. Even if true, such warming would reproduce temperatures of the 1930s, a warmth level which is credited with causing widespread drought in the U.S. and southern Eurasia. To halt the CO2 buildup before such a doubling occurs is seen as requiring a very rapid conversion to non fossil energy sources starting now. The current debate over the 0.26 figure might be resolved if the heretofore unpublished supporting material would be published for all to see.

Possibly a different choice of descriptive terms in many cases would help unify the scientific community and permit clearer communications with the public. If atmospheric heat absorption would be referred to as the ‘hothouse’ effect, as Fourier introduced it, rather than ‘greenhouse’ effect, any misunderstandings about impacts on agricultural productivity might be avoided.

‘Adapting’ to a highly different climate may be inappropriate to apply to future victims of malnutrition or storm-driven high tides of an elevated ocean. ‘Sacrificed’ may be appropriate if immediate counter measures to the CO2 buildup could actually prevent such problems.

The cost of instituting countermeasures may not refer to excess overall expenditures but to initial investments. In some cases, merely terminating subsidies and eliminating income tax credits, tax exempt bonds, and energy-investment tax credits for CO2 producing systems and reducing the regulatory cost and punitive restraints on nuclear energy would produce savings to the public while allowing fossil energy to be phased out as a natural industrial phenomenon, just as wood energy was supplanted by fossil fuels.

A bright side of the scientific political scene is provided by the newly started evaluation of the policy-related issues of the CO2 problem under the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), as organized by William Nierenberg, director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography. At long last, a systematic analysis of the policy options and tradeoffs has been started, including the options of deferral and inaction. Ironically, the birth of this study derives from the Synfuels Act, which also provides massive subsidies for the most CO2 productive energy system available.

What is still lacking is a specific plan to show how the energy substitution scenarios of F. Niehaus and David Rose could be translated into reality in order to halt the CO2 buildup at optional ceiling values. These are the only CO2 limiting scenarios advanced so far which do not call for a virtual cessation of energy use worldwide. It would be beneficial to have for comparison specific scenarios which call for large-scale reduction of energy use, showing who is expected to give up what. Also, a specific scenario of the supplanting of fossil fuels with energy sources other than nuclear (wind, solar, hydroelectric) would be helpful to the public. People could see just what substitutions and cutbacks would be required to them specifically. The people of the world should then be allowed to select the preferred course of action or adaption without intimidation, coercion, or obfuscation.

With a more unified scientific effort, with CO2 limiting scenarios clearly set out in comparison with any other possible courses, and with better means of passing this knowledge to the public, we might soon progress toward practical solutions.

Citation   Barbat, W. (1980) Editorial. CO2 Newsletter, Vol. 2, no.1, p.2

Categories
United Kingdom

May 30, 1980 – Report of the Climate Impact Investigations working group…

Forty six years ago, on this day, May 30th, 1980, a subgroup of civil servants is looking at climate impacts (nb this is more broad than carbon dioxide build-up, which was not, in the eyes of many, the only show in town).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the mid-1970s the Met Office had found it had to work harder to monopolise (or control) the debates on climate impacts for the UK.

The specific context was that by this time it was clear that the Thatcher government was supremely uninterested in questions of preparations for increased climate extremes.

What I think we can learn from this is that after you lose a battle (as the pro-action forces had in 1979-80) there is a refractory period…

What happened next. 

The issue was there in the undergrowth, growing, but did not ‘break through’ 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.

Also on this day: 

May 30, 1990 – Midnight Oil do a gig outside Exxon’s HQ in New York

May 30, 1996 – Denialist goons smear scientist

 May 30, 1996 – Minerals Council investment pays off, again…

May 30, 2007 – Kevin Rudd pledges to ratify Kyoto, set emissions target and create an ETS

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