Tag: Fred Pearce

Categories
Germany IPCC UNFCCC

April 8, 1995 – Journo points out the gamble on climate

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).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14619720-300-world-lays-odds-on-global-catastrophe/

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.

Also on this day: 

April 8, 1970 – Australian National University students told about C02 build-up…

April 8, 1980 – UK civil servant Crispin Tickell warns Times readers…

April 8, 1995 – Australian environment minister says happy with “Berlin Mandate”

April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

March 7, 1988 – “We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate” 

Thirty five  years ago, on this day, March 7 (or thereabouts) 1988 at a conference on Gaia running from 7 to 11 March…

Richard Gammon of the US government’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory at Seattle in Washington state, seems to have been the first off the starting blocks. After seeing the complete data for 1987 and the first results for 1988, he told a conference in March 1988: “Since the mid-1970s we have been in a period of very, very rapid warming. We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate.”

(Pearce, 1989:3)

[“The Gaia Controversy: AGU’S Chapman Conference” in San Diego was from March 7 to 11.]

Rarely has a hypothesis immediately sparked such a passionate response. There is something in it for everybody, from hard core scientists to philosophers, ultraconservationists, students of world religions, mystics, politicians, and space enthusiasts; they were all there in San Diego, March 7–11, 1988, for the AGU Chapman Conference on Gaia Hypotheses. For 4 days an impressive list of specialists presented and debated the pros and cons of Gaia Hypotheses from diverse perspectives: modern and ancient biology, ecology, biochemistry, the physicochemical systems of the Earth, oceans, and atmosphere, and the evolution of the solar system.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 352.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that “earth systems” scientists were very interested in the Lovelock and Margulis Gaia theory, enough to have a conference about it. And from the October 1985 Villach meeting onwards, the scientists and politicians were all getting more interested in just how soon the signal would emerge from the noise on climate change…

What I think we can learn from this

James Hansen was not an outlier in his June 1988 testimony.  Sure, there wasn’t necessarily a majority, but what Hansen said was not all that unusual or surprising (see Schneider’s Greenhouse Century for accounts of how journalists kept looking for quotes from him to try to set up a “Hansen/Schneider split” story.)

What happened next

Within months climate change would become unavoidable for politicians. No more long grass…

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

Kaufman E., 1988. The Gaia Controversy: AGU’S Chapman Conference  Eos, Transactions American Geophysical UnionVolume 69, Issue 31 p. 763-764 https://doi.org/10.1029/88EO01043

Pearce, F. (1988) New Scientist

Pearce, F. (1989) Turning up the heat

Categories
Science Scientists

October 15, 1985 – Villach meeting supercharges greenhouse concerns…

On this day, October 15 in 1985, scientists from around the world began a meeting that would lead to the final arrival of the climate “issue” on the international agenda.  Here is the beginning of an article by prominent science writer Fred Pearce, writing in 2005…

“The week the climate changed; Villach, a sleepy spa town in southern Austria, is not an obvious place from which to change the world. But 20 years ago this week, a conference there became the spark that lit today’s burning concern about global warming. Before Villach, the greenhouse effect was a subject for specialised physicists – a possible problem for future generations and nothing more. After Villach, global warming swiftly became the world’s top environmental story. The conference, say the people who were there, was the catalyst for the formation of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the gatekeeper for the science of climate change – and led to the Kyoto protocol. So what happened? Was it atmospheric chemistry or personal chemistry?

Pearce – “The Week the Climate Changed” New Scientist

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 343.35ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – since the early 1970s there had been international meetings of scientists to look at Man’s Impact on the Climate/Environment, in various places (Williamstown, Wijk, Norwich, Villach). From 1972 some of these meetings had been co-sponsored by the UN Environment Program, alongside the World Meteorological Organisation. The models got better, the scientists got surer of what was happening, what might happen…

The Villach 1985 meeting is the one at which the non-carbon-dioxide greenhouse gases got properly added up, and they realised trouble was afoot, less hypothetically and sooner than they’d been thinking…

Why this matters. 

History is good, isn’t it? If you didn’t think that, you’d not be reading this site.

What happened next?

American senators got the message – in December we’ll talk about Carl Sagan’s testimony in December 1985.  The US Department of State, nervous about being bounced into binding international action on carbon dioxide the way they had been about ozone, decided to slow the whole thing down and make sure governments got to vet scientific statements…