Twenty five years ago, on this day, January 23rd, 2001,
World temperatures may increase by as much as six degrees Celsius over the next century, leading climate change scientists say in an alarming report that adds new urgency to the warnings on global warming.
The projected increase, which would be the most rapid temperature change in the past 10,000 years, is expected to push sea levels up by nearly a metre, threatening tens of millions of people, and generate more floods, droughts and fires.
The report found that the 1990s were the hottest decade since instrument records were first taken in 1861 and that 1998 was the hottest year. And for the first time scientists agreed that the warming is mostly due to human activity.
The gloomy prognosis was released in Shanghai yesterday by the respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a joint project of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation.
International Climate Change Taskforce report
2001 Schauble, J. 2001. Six Degrees Hotter: Global Climate Alarm Bells Ring Louder. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 January, p.1.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that scientists had been warning about CO2 build up causing warming in the 20th century of significant proportion since – well, you can say Calendar in 1938 but I really think Gilbert Plass in 1953 is the point at which people start to pay attention, (some attention). And by the late 1970s as you’ll see from the CO2 Newsletter, The warnings were firm, firm enough to alarm scientists and some politicians.
The IPCC was created to provide, well, to provide scientific imprimatur, but also to make sure that the independent scientists didn’t get paid too much attention, as they had over ozone.
The specific context was that by 2001 the IPCC Third Assessment Report was coming out. T
What I think we can learn from this is that we should remember is that scientists have to cope with the fact that journalists will either misunderstand the research because it’s complex and new,, or they will overstate it and “sex up the dossier” in search of a bigger, bolder headline, and then the scientist catches it in the neck for what the journalist wrote. You also get the need for the media system to just go to extremes. And the examples I’d use from 1988 are Steven Schneider being disinvited because he wasn’t alarmist enough. And also a hack said to Robyn Williams of the ABC Science Show “oh, now we’ll need the backlash.”
What happened next
That trouble ahead! We kept burning fossil fuels, and CO2 kept accumulating in the atmosphere. And, you know, the rest,
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:
January 23, 1957 – New Zealand scientist warns about consequences of carbon dioxide build-up
January 23, 1992 – denialist bullshit in the Fin
January 23, 1995 – The Larsen B starts to break up with us.. (Ice, Ice, baby)