Tag: New Scientist

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
Carbon Capture and Storage

November 2, 2006 – “RIP C02” says New Scientist

Seventeen years ago, on this day, November 2, 2006, the New Scientist

MANY countries would love to bury the problem of rising carbon dioxide levels and forget about it. Soon they will be able to do just that, hiding CO2 away in caverns, aquifers and porous rocks beneath the seabed.

The London Convention governing burial of material in the sea was amended on 2 November, making it legal to bury CO2 in natural structures under the oceans. Twenty-nine countries ratified it, including the UK, China and Australia.

Anon (2006) R.I.P. CO2. New Scientist, November 18, Pg. 6

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was certain people and organsiations had been pushing for carbon sequestration technologies, carbon capture and storage. 

Wth the storage, there had been early suggestions that you simply have the CO2 into the very deep oceans, and it will then liquefy and sink. That was maybe not such a good idea. The fallback came up of saline aquifers and so forth. But the law still needed to be changed at an international level. And this was the moment that that happened.. 

What I think we can learn from this is that if there are laws in the way they can be changed. I think it was Rockefeller, who said, “I paid lawyers to tell me how to get something done, not that it’s against the law” words to that effect. Laws are there not to protect the “environment” or poor people, they are there to put a nice gloss on what the rich are doing. And to chain the poor. They make the laws to chain us well. 

What happened next

CCS did not happen next. Has not happened yet. Yet

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
International Geophysical Year United States of America

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

Sixty six years ago, on this day, April 4, 1957, the then-new popular science publication ran a story on the issue of carbon dioxide build-up, in the context of the imminent “International Geophysical Year”, which was to start in July…

New Scientist piece on c02 buildup

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Since Gilbert Plass’s statements in May 1953, the carbon dioxide theory of climate change (as propounded by Guy Callendar) was one of several competing theories. There were not, yet, however, super-accurate measures of atmospheric C02. Thanks to Roger Revelle and Charles David Keeling, that would soon change…

What I think we can learn from this

There has been popular knowledge of carbon dioxide build-up for a very long time.  It might therefore be the case that the “Information deficit” model of campaigning is at best misguided.

What happened next

The data from the International Geophysical Year, and Keeling’s meticulous measures at Mauna Loa, would show that yes, atmospheric carbon dioxide was definitely rising. Whether that was a distant small problem or a more immediate big problem, that would take some hashing out…

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
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

 January 13, 2021 – New Scientist reports on types of intelligence required to deal with #climate change    

Two years ago, on this day, January 13, 2021, Robert J Sternberg, an American academic who has been studying intelligence for decades, argues in a New Scientist article that, well

“We’ve got intelligence all wrong – and that’s endangering our future”

IMAGINE a world in which admission to the top universities – to Oxford or Cambridge, or to Harvard or Yale – were limited to people who were very tall. Very soon, tall people would conclude that it is the natural order of things for the taller to succeed and the shorter to fail.

This is the world we live in. Not with taller and smaller people (although taller people often are at an advantage). But there is one measure by which, in many places, we tend to decide who has access to the best opportunities and a seat at the top decision-making tables: what we call intelligence. After all, someone blessed with intelligence has, by definition, what it takes – don’t they?

We have things exactly the wrong way round. The lesson of research by myself and many others over decades is that, through historical accident, we have developed a conception of intelligence that is narrow, questionably scientific, self-serving and ultimately self-defeating.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24933174-700-weve-got-intelligence-all-wrong-and-thats-endangering-our-future/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 415.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 418. .

What I think we can learn from this

Robert Sternberg has produced so much useful work (on love, on creativity/intelligence).

The game is rigged, and those rigging it want to keep the game as it is. Basically, a bunch of extractivist violent arrogant planet-killers think they are God’s gift, because they made God in their image.  And here we are.

What happened next

We keep relying on our “intelligence” to get us out of this.

Meanwhile, are our brains gonna fry? https://undark.org/2022/12/22/why-climate-science-shouldnt-forget-to-factor-in-brain-health/

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

References

Sternberg. R. (2018)  “Why Real-World Problems Go Unresolved and What We Can Do about It: Inferences from a Limited-Resource Model of Successful Intelligence”

https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/6/3/44
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…

Categories
United Kingdom

October 8, 1959 – Shell says “nothing to see here” on carbon dioxide build-up

On this day, October 8 in 1959, an article appeared in New Scientist (then a pretty new publication)  by Dr M.A. Matthews, employed by Shell. It cast doubt on idea of carbon dioxide increase having any effect on climate

1959 Shell “The Earth’s Carbon Cycle” Article

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 313.33ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm – but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – The International Geophysical Year had focussed on many things, including the atmosphere. Academic articles were beginning to appear looking at carbon dioxide build-up.  Already through the 1950s various scientists had begun to speculate…