Seventy one years ago, on this day, May 24th, 1954,
24 to 26 May 1954 – Eriksson, “Report on an informal conference in atmospheric chemistry held at the Meteorological Institute, University of Stockholm, May 24-26, 1954,” Tellus, 6 (1954)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the question of carbon dioxide build-up had returned to prominence with the 1953 presentation by Gilbert Plass at the American Geophysical Union’s meeting. The Swedes had a lot of expertise in this field, and prestige (Carl Rossby etc).
What I think we can learn from this is that from the early 1950s good scientists were looking at this and going “hmm.”
What happened next. According to Weart (1997) they set up carbon dioxide monitoring stations and just got noise because there were too many forests nearby.
Rossby died too young. The baton was picked up by Bert Bolin and others. For all the good it did us, at a species-level.
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.
Fifty five years ago, on this day, March 4th, 1970, a snappily titled academic paper was submitted
Variations of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere By BERT BOLIN and WALTER BISCHOF, Institute of Meteorology, University of Stockholm
(Manuscript received March 4, 1970; revised version May 28, 1970)
ABSTRACT
Six years of measurements (1963-1968) of carbon dioxide in the troposphere and the lower stratosphere are presented. The data reveal an average annual increase of the C0,-content of 0.7 +O.l ppm/year, while during this time the annual industrial output has increased from about 1.9 ppm to 2.3 ppm/year. Thus the increase in the atmosphere is about & of the total output. Considerations of the possible increase of vegetative assimilation due to the higher COX-content of the atmosphere reveals that this is at most of the output, probably considerably less. The net transfer to the oceans thus is at least equal to + of the industrial output. The transfer rate across the sea surface seems effective enough not to represent an appreciable resistance and the decisive factor for determining this transfer therefore is the ocean circulation or turn over rate. The figures quoted indicate that 20-25 %, of the world oceans must have been available during the time of rapid increase of the industrial output of CO, (the last 30-50 years) to explain the rather large amount that has been withdrawn from the atmosphere. Still a continued increase of the fossil fuel combustion as forecast by OECD implies that the C0,-content of the atmosphere at the end of the century will be between 370 pprn and 395 ppm as compared with 320 ppm, the average value for 1968.
The amplitude of the seasonal variation is found to be about 6.5 ppm at 2 km and 3.5,ppm in the uppermost part of the troposphere. The phase shift of the seasonal variation between these two levels is 25-30 days. On the basis of these data a vertical eddy diffusivity K = 2. lo6 cm2 sec-l is derived. The amplitude of the seasonal variation in the lower stratosphere, 11-12 km, is less than…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Bolin had been switched on fifteen years previous to the issue of carbon dioxide build up. He’d studied, after all, under Rosby, who died prematurely. Bolin had really caught hold of Keeling’s data and understood even then, I think the implications, (see 1959 Science Notes).
Bolin kept beavering away on the science, but also on the politics. And this paper is fairly typical. The findings are not necessarily startling, but in retrospect, they are part of the ominous “pending debacle” of it all.
(Fwiw, Bolin was also helping Keeling in Europe at this time, I’d need to go and reread Keeling’s biography to get the details right)..
The other context is that by the time this was submitted, even the king of the Netherlands was talking about CO2 build up at the beginning of 1970, the European Conservation Year.
What I think we can learn from this is that we knew plenty, we just didn’t understand and we didn’t want to accept the implications.
What happened next Bolin kept at it. The 1970s saw him begin to team up with Mustafa Tolba, head of the United Nations Environment Program, which was possibly the one thing that emerged from the Stockholm conference in 1972.
Bolin would talk to journalists about CO2 build up (see 1978 BBC radio documentary).
Bolin was the obvious pick, unanimous, I think, to be chair of the IPCC, which he obviously held for quite some time. And if anyone can be said to have died a good a well-timed death, it’s Bolin. He died just after the 2007 Bali COP, which obviously he did not attend because he was too ill. The Bali COP saw the “roadmap to Copenhagen” laid out. So he died thinking that maybe just maybe, we wouldn’t be entirely too late to act on the warnings that he had been giving since 1959
Thank goodness he was not still alive to witness Copenhagen.
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.
Forty four years ago, on this day, February 19th, 1981, Nature publishes an article, by Wendy Barnaby, about an Earthscan meeting the previous week in Stockholm,
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the OECD and the IEA – and other bodies – were beginning to hold meetings about energy and environment and especially climate, in the context of the second oil shock the tail end of the 70s, thanks to the overthrow of the Shah.
The other context was that the United States Council on Environmental Quality had been trying to get things moving, but now Reagan was present with his goons, (and see the end of the article before the greenhouse one in the screengrab above! – it all looked a little unsure about what would happen.
And this is also in the context of the First World Climate Conference, which had taken place in February of 1979, Nature had an interesting relationship with carbon dioxide build up, shall we say, with its erstwhile editor, John Maddox, being a vehement opponent of the theory up until and including 1987 (he seems to have climbed down from this by 1995).
What I think we can learn from this is that in the late 70s, early 80s, there was a flurry of activity, awareness, and slowly growing consensus.
What happened next There was a flurry of reporting in New Scientist, the FT etc. A documentary, “Warming Warning”, by Richard Broadwas broadcast the end of that year, in part inspired by this report in Nature and other accounts.
Forty six years ago, on this day, December 13th, 1978, John Maddox (pictured – editor of Nature and very very much an opponent of the idea that carbon dioxide build up was something to worry about) presented a programme called One Degree Over on BBC Radio, with guests including famed Swedish scientists Bert Bolin.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the interdepartmental Panel on Climate Change was meeting and was going to really produce a report sometime soon. The World Meteorological Organisation was banging on the drum. The First World Climate Conference was due to take place in another two months, in February of 1979. And so, a radio programme about global warming was a good fit. The producer Michael Bright had already done stuff in the early 70s on “A Finite Earth?”, so was well-informed.
What we learn is that the Meteorological Office’s John Mason was there being a dick, but Bert Bolin was also being interviewed. And ultimately, people were informed about what was at stake.
What happened next. The new Thatcher government was uninterested in climate change. There was a discussion among Cabinet members about whether to even release the interdepartmental report. Thatcher used the climate issue to propose nuclear power at the G7 in June of ‘79. The interdepartmental report was finally released in February of 1980, to precisely no one’s interest or concern, except people like Crispin Tickell.
And the emissions kept climbing.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that after the 1972 Stockholm Environmental Conference the United Nations Environment Program had been set up, and there was money and interest sloshing around for computer modelling of climate. It was fairly crude by today’s standards, but, you know, baby steps. There was Bolin, Flohn and the others. And presumably, Olof Palme was being kept informed. Flohn certainly briefed Palme at some point. I think that year
What we learn is that the scientific understanding of the build up of the consequences of the buildup of CO2 came along in leaps and bounds in the 70s. They’re only a couple of years away from “yellow danger light” as per Thomas Malone in July of 1977. Of course, the old beasts – Landsberg Charney and John Mason, were pooh poohing it all together. And Reid Bryson was angry that his dust theory was going tits up. But it was real, the emerging carbon consensus. That’s what we learned.
What happened next. A meeting in Norwich the following year put the death to the cooling idea. The Energy and Climate report of the National Academy of Sciences came out in 1977. And then, of course, the First World Climate conference in 1979. And that’s the end really, of there being serious debate about the CO2 problem.
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.
Thirty six years ago, on this day, June 6th, 1988 there is a well-publicised warning by scientists in Stockholm (Bolin etc) releasing study.
We are entering a new phase….
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that ever since the pivotal meeting in Villach, in September 1985, scientists had been trying to raise the alarm – briefing senators, writing reports etc etc.
What we learn is that James Hansen’s testimony, on June 23 1988, did not appear in a vacuum. The terrain was being prepared by many others.
What happened next was that Hansen’s testimony – and the Changing Atmosphere meeting in Toronto the week after, at the end of June – set the ball rolling.
The emissions have kept climbing, of course. As have the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. And here we are.
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.
Sixty five years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1959, a popular science journal, Science News, covered the findings of Swedish climate scientist Bert Bolin.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 316ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Bolin had been paying attention. His boss Carl Rossby was now dead and Bolin was stepping up and had spoken at the AAAS meeting earlier that year.
What we learn – it wasn’t a big secret or surprise or particularly controversial, that CO2 would increase rapidly. Since Gilbert Plass’s statements in 1953 this was common knowledge.
What happened next Bolin kept working on it, kept pressing. By the early 1970s had got the United Nations Environment Program, created at Stockholm, on side and then became first IPCC chair. He died in 2007.
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.
Forty seven years ago, on this day, May 6th, 1977, Swedish scientist Bert Bolin sounded a warning about other sources (besides burning oil, coal and gas) leading to more CO2 in the atmosphere.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Bolin had been looking at carbon dioxide buildup and its consequences since the late 50s. There were concerns about food production; these had been voiced publicly by Henry Kissinger in 1974. And other work was ongoing about that. What Bolin was doing here was pointing out how deforestation and agriculture might be contributing to CO2 build up alongside the vast increases in fossil fuel burning for energy production.
What we learn is Bolin was a mensch and that people reading science knew what was going on.
What happened next? Bolin ended up as the first chair of the IPCC and lived long enough to see the Nobel Prize and died shortly after that in 2007.
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.
Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, April 8th, 1995, Fred Pearce of the New Scientist points out that there is a gamble going on (as did Australian climate scientist Graeme Pearman three years earlier).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the first COP had just finished. Rich nations had been resisting emissions cuts using scientific uncertainty as their final excuse. But Swedish scientist Bert Bolin, who had been banging on about climate change, and carbon dioxide build up since 1958, at the latest, was telling them that the IPCC Second Assessment Report would be out later this year and that they shouldn’t expect to be able to use the uncertainty card for very much longer, more or less.
What I think we can learn from this is that the really sharp battles at the end of 1995, were all about that. I hadn’t quite grokked that before.
What happened next
Well, there were really sharp battles at the end of ‘95. From the middle of ‘95 efforts by denialists to smear individual scientists (the “Serengeti Strategy”) and the process in order to slow progress towards a serious protocol.
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.
Sixty four years ago, on this day, April 1st, 1960, a weather satellite started being like the wheels on the bus (i.e. going round and round).
On 1 April 1960, the USA launched its first meteorological satellite, TIROS 1. It was a remarkable experience for people to be able to view the earth and its atmosphere from the outside. The bluish colour of our planet fascinated observers and a number of well-known features of the circulation of the atmosphere became visible through the cloud formations that they create.
(Bolin, 2007) Page 19
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 316.9ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that we’d been talking about putting satellites into space for 100 years. And that had finally happened in September 1957 with Sputnik. The Americans had some failures but were now on the path
Tiros 1 was a weather satellite. And how sad that Johnny von Neumann wasn’t alive to see it. A shame.
What we learn from this is being able to really see and measure the world from above had an enormous impact on not just weather forecasting, but also just thinking about how the systems worked. (See Paul Edwards’ A Vast Machine).
What happened next? A lot more satellites, a lot bigger computers, a lot better picture and precisely zero meaningful action. On the problem we identified.
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.
