Tag: Nature

Categories
Geoeingeering

August 23, 1989 – Space Mirrors proposed to combat global warming. I am not making this up.

Thirty five years ago, on this day, August 23rd, 1989,

WASHINGTON — Gigantic orbiting mirrors may offer a solution – albeit a very costly one — to Earth’s anticipated woes with global warming if pollution control efforts fail, a Swiss scientist said Wednesday.

In a letter published in the British journal Nature, Walter Seifritz said he thinks it is unlikely humans will do much in the near future to reduce pollution that threatens to boost the planet’s temperature.

Carbon dioxide and other gases generated by fuel consumption and burning of tropical forests warm Earth’s atmosphere by trapping solar heat like a greenhouse.

Many scientists predict if current pollution trends continue, Earth’s temperature could rise 4 to 9 degrees over the next 70 years. Such an increase would cause a marked rise in sea levels and dramatic climate changes.

If efforts to cut emission of so-called greenhouse gases fail and serious global warming occurs, Seifritz contends ‘a remote but feasible possiblity’ would be to lower temperatures by artificially blocking the amount of sunlight reaching Earth.

‘To compensate for a temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Kelvin (4.5 degrees Farenheit), the solar radiation must be reduced by about 3.5 percent. The task could be done by satellites bearing large, lightweight mirrors,’ wrote the professor from Switzerland’s Schurrer Institute.

Kolberg, R. 1989. Mammoth mirrors could offset global warming. UPI, 23 August.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone had been banging on about climate change for a year. And now, the techno-fetishists were getting in on the act, with the idea of space mirrors as part of the whole solar radiation management gimmick. 

What we learn is that rather than look inside and examine our actual problems, we are far keener on looking outside and listening to people who point to “this thing of darkness we acknowledge is someone else’s” (That’s a riff on Prospero in The Tempest, btw). And technofixes are a really good example of that. Press bro would not be surprised. 

What happened next, we still don’t have any space mirrors. We didn’t do anything to reduce the trajectory of emissions. And we are beginning to boil, metaphorically speaking.

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: 

August 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

August 23, 1856 – Eunice Foote identifies carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas

August 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

August 23, 1971 – the Powell Memorandum

Categories
United States of America

May 8, 1980 – Nature article “CO2 could increase global tensions.” Exxon discussed underneath. Delicious ironies abound.

Forty four years ago, on this day, May 8th, 1980, there was an ironic juxtaposition in the British science journal Nature…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the synfuels battle had just happened. And Americans, political leaders had been warned about the geopolitical consequences of CO2. Other people were saying the same stuff. 

What we learn is that CO2 was a really live issue in the late 70s, early 80s. People knew what was coming, they couldn’t say exactly when. And history is full of these delicious little moments, I guess.

What happened next, Exxon gave up on renewables and being vaguely responsible and all the rest of it and switched to denial very effectively. American politicians continued to be aware of CO2. There were congressional hearings, Senate hearings and then after 1985 it really picked up steam. 

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 8, 1972 – “Teach-in for Survival” in London

May 8, 1992 – UNFCCC text agreed. World basically doomed.

May 8, 2013 – we pass 400 parts per million. Trouble ahead.

May 8, 2015 – denialist denies in delusional denialist newspaper

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

February 19, 1971 – Nature editorial on “The Great Greenhouse Scare”

Fifty three years ago, on this day, February 19th, 1971, John Maddox, ditor of the British Science Journal covers himself in glory on the topic of climate change.

19 Feb 1971 The Great Greenhouse Scare editorial by John Maddox NATURE VOL. 229 FEBRUARY 19 1971 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that more and more people were talking about carbon dioxide buildup. Maddox would presumably have known that there was going to be a Study of Man’s Impact on Climate in Sweden. He knew that the Alkali Inspectorate had come out with a report in the August of 1970. So this was another salvo and Maddox by this time was writing a book called The Doomsday Syndrome. 

What we can learn is that smart, elite, hardworking people can be fundamentally wrong. They can also dig their heels into the ground and keep being wrong, because the ego leads them to believe that they must be right. 

What happened next, Maddox published his book. As late as July 1988. Maddox was being a douche on the subject. See  “jumping the greenhouse gun.”  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.

Also on this day: 

 February 19, 2003 – “CCS to be studied by IPCC”

Feb 19, 2011 – defunding the IPCC

Categories
United Kingdom

January 18, 1964 – Nature mentions atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up

Sixty years ago, on this day, January 18th, 1964, Nature published an article about the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) meeting in September 1963, at which Peter Ritchie-Calder (yes, him again!) had spoken about CO2 build-up,

 “Discharge of combustion products into the atmosphere had increased its content of carbon dioxide by 10 per cent in a century. The ‘green house effect’ could be expected to increase average mean temperature by 3·6° C in the next 4Q-50 years. This would radically affect the extent of glaciers and ice-caps with resultant rise in sea- and river-levels and increasing precipitation. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by 1963 people like Ritchie Calder were speaking publicly about CO2 buildup. It was no secret among the scientific elite in the United Kingdom. And well. You know, Nature was covering it. This is probably before John Maddox came along as editor.

What we learn is that there’s an entire history of admissions about CO2 build up. It’s not a secret, it’s not considered outlandish. It’s just one of those things. This is also two years after Mariner had gone to Venus and captured a lot of information. 

What happened next? It would be 1967 before the CO2 issue really received a boost with the BBC programme Challenge and so forth. 

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 18, 1993 – Australian unions and greenies launch first “Green Jobs” campaign

January 18, 1993 – Job’s not a good un. “Green Jobs in Industry Plan” achieves … nothing. #auspol

Categories
United Kingdom

July 9, 1987 – “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse” warns Broecker

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 9, 1987, oceanographer and all-round smart guy Wally Broecker warned of “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse?” in the journal Nature.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Context

Broecker wrote the first article (ish) – see also 1961 AMS/NYAS solar variation meeting to use the term “global warming”.  He had been trying to educate politicians (including Paul Tsongas) for a long time.

What we learn

The 1988 ‘explosion’ of concern was preceded by lots of patient work.


What next

A year minus two days later,  the editor of Nature, John Maddox, inadvertently revealed that he didn’t read what was published in his own journal. Or if he did, he was incapable of understanding it.

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom

July 7, 1988 – foolish “Jumping the greenhouse gun” editorial in Nature.

On this day in 1988, the editor of Nature, John Maddox kept going with his general harrumphing and ignorance of what the science was actually saying, with his “jumping the greenhouse gun” editorial. It drew responses from scientists Kenneth Hare and Kenneth Mellanby

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Maddox had been being aggressively wrong about climate change for a long time (1971 – on ABC television, for instance. And earlier.).

What I think we can learn from this

Old white men who have been in jobs a long time paint themselves into a corner and can’t find ways to back down gracefully, by saying the simple words “I was wrong.”

What happened next

Hare and Mellanby replied in Nature a couple of weeks later.

Also – for fans of obscure Meatloaf…

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 Kingdom

January 5, 1973 –  An academic article about the Arctic emerges from the Met Office

Fifty years ago, on this day, January 5 1973, the UK Meteorological Office published one of its first articles about climate change.

‘Response of a General Circulation Model of the Atmosphere to Removal of the Arctic Ice-Cap,’’ 

https://www.nature.com/articles/241039b0

This did not emerge from nowhere. As Janet Martin-Nielson (2018: 229) writes

“After nine years of development, the 5-level GCM was finally published in 1972 in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. 18 In the same year, Gilchrist, Corby, and Newson released their results on climate and sea-surface temperature anomalies, and Newson published his work on the climatic impacts of Arctic sea ice melt in Nature.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 328.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 417. .

The context was that scientists through the 50s and 60s were getting interested in long-term climatic change, and some of them had proper computers to play with (the whole Charney, von Neumann, Phillips thing is beyond this site, but you could check out Paul Edwards’ book “A Vast Machine” if you really like.)

What I think we can learn from this

This stuff is complex. Smart people have had to expend a lot of mental effort to get a grip. The rest of us get to stand on each others’ shoulders and toes.

What happened next

The models got better. The politicians were warned. The politicians did not lead. Nor were they forced by social movements to lead. And here we are.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Edwards, P. 2010. A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. MIT Press.

Martin-Nielson, J. 2018. Computing the Climate: When Models Became Political. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences (2018) 48 (2): 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2018.48.2.223

Categories
United Kingdom

December 1, 1976 – Met Office boss still saying carbon dioxide build-up a non-issue

On this day, December 1st,  in 1976, the Director-General of the Meteorological Office, John Mason, gave a speech to the Royal Society of Arts. It was reported in Nature by John Gribbin, under the headline “Man’s influence not yet felt by climate”

“THE message conveyed by Professor B. J. Mason, Director-General of the UK Meteorological Office, in a recent lecture was- don’t panic. The theme of Mason’s lecture (given to the Royal Society of Arts on December I) was “Man’s Influence on Weather and Climate”, and his conclusion was that -the climatic system is so robust, and contains so much ·inherent stability through the presence of negative feedback mechanisms, that man has still a long way to go before his influence becomes great enough to cause serious disruption to the natural climatic system.”

John Gribbin, “Man’s Influence Not yet Felt by Climate.” Nature 264: 608

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was xxxppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was that through the mid-70s many scientists (including but not limited to those pesky young Americans with better computers than the Brits) had started saying “whoah, this build up of carbon dioxide, this might become a serious thing.” As had Europeans (including Hermann Flohn). As had the WMO, as reported in the Times earlier that year – June 22, 1976 – Times reports “World’s temperature likely to rise”

And Mason? Mason didn’t buy it, hadn’t bought it and continued not to buy it, including at the First World Climate Conference, in Geneva in February 1979…

Why this matters. 

You can imagine an alternative world, where gatekeepers like Mason were able to see the nose on their faces, and the actual response to climate change began early enough to do something substantive.  If you smoke some serious weed, that is…

What happened next?

Mason fought a rearguard action against climate research, but lost. November 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

The whole process culminated in a 1980 report and a briefing to Margaret Thatcher, who dismissed it all with an incredulous “you want me to worry about the weather?”

Categories
Ignored Warnings United Kingdom

September 1,1972 – “Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse Effect” published in Nature

On this day, 1st September 1972, the British meteorologist J.S. Sawyer had a paper “Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse” Effect” in Nature..

Sawyer, in four pages, summarised what was known and what could be reasonably expected in the short-term (up to the year 2000).

In September 2007, 35 years later, the Australian meteorologist Neville Nicholls had a letter in the same journal, argued  that  “Sawyer’s prediction of a reversal of this trend, and of the correct magnitude of the warming, is perhaps the most remarkable long-range forecast ever made.”

On this day the atmospheric CO2 level was 324.84 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters

It is unfair to blame politicians for not having acted in 1972. But they could/should have started paying attention then. By the late 1970s there really was enough certainty among scientists for real action to begin  (to be clear, real action has still not – 40 years on from that putative deadline – begun. Oh well).

What happened next?

Sawyer kept working. 

As Agar (2015) notes   “In 1974, the Met Office had marked an expanding interest in climate by starting a working party on world climatology, ‘with specific emphasis on climatic change’, under J.S. Sawyer, the Met Office’s director of research.”

Sawyer was asked by the Cabinet Office in 1976 for his opinion of American climate scientist Reid Bryson (see All  Our Yesterdays post about that here).

Categories
Antarctica

Jan 26, 1978: “West Antarctic ice sheet and C02 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster” article in Nature…

On January 26 1978, a paper was published in the journal Nature, about the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet due to rising climate emissions. This paper, pithily titled “West Antarctic ice sheet and C02 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster” was written by John Mercer. You can read more about Mercer (who was a bit of a character) and the fact that he’d been researching and thinking about this since (deep breath) 1968, here…

In the 1978 paper Mercer pointed out 

“A disquieting thought is that if the present highly simplified climatic models are even approximately correct, this deglaciation may be part of the price that must be paid in order to buy enough time for industrial civilisation to make the changeover from fossil fuels to other sources of energy”

Why this matters. The sea level rise, among other things. We’re toast.

What happened next? Well, we’re not there yet. But we will be soon (a while in human lifespan terms, an eyeblink geologically speaking…) And the East Antarctic Ice Sheet? Not looking too clever either…