Tag: AAAS

Categories
United States of America

April 4, 1979 – DOE and AAAS meet on social science and climate

Forty five years ago, on this day, April 4th,1979, the Department of Energy and American Association for the Advancement of Science began a four day meeting about social sciences and climate change. 

4-7 April Annapolis Maryland DOE and AAAS meeting on social science and climate. See Felli “The Great Adaptation”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that from 1977 onwards, the Department of Energy I (don’t think it was called quite that then) and the AAAS were interested in climate and what could be done; or, perhaps more how societies might adapt because mitigation didn’t really figure that brightly at this stage. And so these sorts of workshops and meetings were happening all the time. This one was not particularly pivotal. I just mentioned it because I can… 

What we learn is that the question of societal responses to climate change was well on the agenda by then. 

What happened next – William Kellogg had no trouble writing a book published in 1981. We kept knowing, and not knowing…

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: 

April 4, 1957 – New Scientist runs story on carbon dioxide build-up

April 4, 1964 – President Johnson’s Domestic Council on climate…

April 4, 1978 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about atmospheric C02 build-upApril 4 – Interview with Ro Randal about “Living With Climate Crisis

Categories
Science Scientists

January 8, 1968 – LaMont Cole to AAAS about running outta oxygen, build-up of C02 etc

Fifty six years ago, on this day, January 8th, 1968,

According to a Newsweek report (8 January 1968), Professor L. C. Cole of Cornell University (in a paper delivered at the 134th annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) asks whether man is not destroying the earth’s natural supply of oxygen. He points out (1) that the increasing combustion of fossil fuels has greatly accelerated the formation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and (2) that, in the United States alone, some one million acres of suburbanised forest and grassland each year lose their ability to regenerate the oxygen supply through photosynthesis.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was concern among a few scientists that levels of oxygen would drop and that we would all ultimately suffocate. That was rendered null a year or two after this, but there was generalised concern about oxygen levels, carbon dioxide levels, you name it. As the consequences of modernity, as we laughingly call it, were becoming apparent. Cynically, you could also say that people were so fed up with the Vietnam War, but there were costs attached to speaking out against that, that they found something else to be worried about….

What we can learn is that there have been scientists warning of trouble ahead. But those scientists may have sometimes understandably picked something to be concerned about that wasn’t actually there. That doesn’t mean that all warnings are bad warnings. 

What happened next, as above, the oxygen depletion thing was put to bed in 1970 or so. Lamont Cole died in I think, 1979. 

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

Cole, L. 1968. Can the World Be Saved? BioScience, Vol. 18, No. 7 pp. 679-684 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1294188 .https://doi.org/10.2307/1294188

Also on this day: 

Jan 8, 1958 – “The masters of infinity… could control the world’s weather”, says LBJ

January 8, 2003 – Energy firms plan to “bury carbon emissions”…

January 8, 2013 – Australian Prime Minister connects bush fires and #climate change

Categories
Science Scientists

December 26, 1968 – “Global Effects of Environmental Pollution” symposium

Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 26, 1968, Fred Singer, who had been present for the foundation meeting of the International Geophysical Year, and would go on to be a weapons-grade asshole denialist, organised a symposium (it was part of his day job). That symposium was about the global effects of environmental pollution for the American Association for the Advancement of Science

https://doi.org/10.1029/EO051i005p00476

Smart cookie called J. Murray Mitchell was there and laid it out.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US Federal Government was making some of the right noises about climate change. It had just found out that there would indeed be a United Nations meeting in 1972. But this meeting will have been organised months and months in advance of that final decision.

What’s amusing about it is that Fred Singer became one of the leading the nihilists denialists.

What I think we can learn from this

We knew way back when. We knew.

What happened next

Caroll Wilson organised the 1970 Workshop in Williamstown about Man’s Impact on the environment. The following year there was Man’s Impact on Climate, organised by William Kellogg, in Stockholm.

This 5 years was the period where are the new institutions and collaborations got hashed out – GARP, then SCOPE and so on…

J. Murray Mitchell was exceptionally blunt (and accurate) in his warning in 1976 – “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century then we’ve had it.”

We were and we have.

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

September 15, 1948 – Biologist Evelyn Hutchinson mentions carbon dioxide build-up at an AAAS symposium.

On this day seventy five years ago at an American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium the famed biologist Evelyn Hutchinson mentioned carbon dioxide buildup as something to be aware of, in his pivotal article Circular Causal Systems in Ecology:

The problem of the constancy or variability of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere as a whole is a difficult one, owing to the large number of possible sources of purely local disturbance. The earlier data have been reviewed by Letts and Blake (1900) and, more recently, practically all the available information has been considered by Callendar (1940). … Meanwhile, it seems far more likely that the observed increment in the carbon dioxide of air at low levels in both Europe and eastern North America is due to changes in the biological mechanisms of the cycle rather than to an increase in industrial [[p. 228]] output. It is quite probable that the net effect of the spread of the technological cultures of the North Atlantic basin has been to decrease the photosynthetic efficiency of the land surfaces of the earth. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that English steam engineer Guy Callendar had been collating what carbon dioxide measurements existed, and said they were going up, in line with Svante Arrhenius’s late 19th century suggestion. But all this was very sketchy – precise measures were not yet a thing.

What we can learn – the biologists and ecologists (stocks and flows, flows and stocks) were paying attention. 

What happened next – Evelyn Hutchinson mentioned it in a big 1955 US conference about resources and conservation – crickets. He also mentioned it to King Hubbert (him of the Peak) and so it ended up in Hubbert’s Energy Resources report in 1962…

Categories
Science Scientists

April 2, 1979 – AAAS workshop in Anaheim begins…

On this day, April 2 1979. Yes, the same year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science started a four day workshop in Anaheim, Maryland. 

The following from the rather good recent Verso book “The Great Adaptation” helps set the scene

“The US Department of Energy was no longer willing to overlook the climate question. In collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAA) the leading US scientific body and publisher of the journal Science, it financed a research programme on the social and economic impacts of climate change. Roger Revelle and Stephen Schneider were each involved in organising the programme, which in 1979 resulted in the first international conference dedicated to the social sciences of global warming. This seminar, held in Annapolis, Maryland, sought to bring together speialisgts in economic history, anthropology, economics and political science to think through the consequences of global warming and the responses it demanded: Schneider, Revelle, Kellogg, Orr Roberts, Kenneth Hare and Crispin Tickell all took part…”

(Felli, 2015/2021: p44)

Why this matters. 

Again? I keep banging on about the late 1970s. There’s a method to my madness, which you’ll hopefully read about in a gasp yes, book at some point. 

What happened next?

More studies, but then basically, with the coming of the Reagan administration in 1981, the funding dried up, and Reagan appointees tried, for a few years, at least, to silence the climate scientists. See, for example, what happened to James Hansen in 1981 after his front page story in the New York Times. By the mid-80s, this became much harder, and eventually they had to move to plan B…