Forty six years ago, on this day, July 15, 1977, the New York Times ran a front page story that makes you just groan. Oh, and by the way, coal use is up in the last year..
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the National Academy of Science had been doing a two year investigation into weather and carbon dioxide and was about to release its report. And clearly a journalist at the Times had been given a tip off and was getting a kind of exclusive in first.
From the 50s some scientists had been saying “hey, carbon dioxide is going to be an issue,” and had slowly been able to build an epistemic community as Hart and Victor would have you call it.
What I think we can learn from this
We knew. It was, literally, front page news.
What happened next
In the mid-late 70s it all started to come together. It was then scuppered/slowed successfully between 1981 and 1985. And then with the scientific meeting in September 1985 at Villach, the push begins again.
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.
Seventy years ago, on this day, July 12, 1953, the New York Times carried an article about the changes in the world’s weather (warmer). It mentioned our friend carbon dioxide… (Engel, Leonard, 1953. “The Weather Is Really Changing,” New York Times Magazine, July 12)
It mentions CEP Brooks, and gets info from Harry Wexler of the US Weather Bureau. And near the end, this –
“Another theory, advanced by some meteorologists, attributes at least part of the rise in temperatures to a small but definite increase in the past century in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The air’s content of this product of combustion is important because carbon dioxide has heat-conserving properties, similar to greenhouse glass.
In 1850 the air contained somewhat less than thirty parts of carbon dioxide per 1000 parts off air. In the hundred years since, industrialized, urbanized man has poured unprecedented quantities of carbon dioxide out of home and factory chimneys… As a result, there are now thirty-three parts of the gas per 1,000 in the atmosphere instead of thirty. Calculations by physicists show that this is enough of an increase to make a detectable difference in the temperature at the surface of the earth…”.
By now there are already “alarmists” out there –
“The warming-up process, however, also poses problems…. If the warm-up continues for another several decades, shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap could cause a troublesome rise in ocean levels. The rise would not, as alarmists predict, wipe out all our port cities. But it could be troublesome enough to demonstrate anew that, for all his central heating and air conditioners, climate still makes man more than man makes climate.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 312.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there were clear indications the world was warming up till about, well, 1950. And lots of articles in various places, including Saturday Evening Post. And, of course, two months before this. Gilbert Plass had hit the headlines with his statement about carbon dioxide. So I don’t think he was reported in the New York Times. He was, however, reported in Time, Newsweek, lots of regional publications. So this kind of “think piece” article could be cobbled together and be of interest because everyone was interested in the weather. It’s also in the context of nuclear bombs being set off left, right and centre, and everyone basically worrying about what that might mean.
What I think we can learn from this is that awareness of these issues goes back even in the mainstream press in very early days.
What happened next
More journalistic articles, including a corker from Maclean’s by Norman J Berrilll in 1955, and Plass’s work in 1956, also garnering a lot of press attention and interest.
Engel wrote another piece of special interest in 1958
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 one years ago, on this day, July 8, 1962, mentions the “Glasshouse Effect” in an article by George Kimgle, about the weather and climate – “But Somebody Does Something About It” New York Times Magazine,
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
This article includes a useful summation of the carbon dioxide issue, which by this time was popping up in newspapers everywhere (though not at the same level as it had appeared in the 1950s).
What I think we can learn from this is that people, educated people in 1962 would have been aware of a problem.
What happened next
The following year, the Conservation Foundation held a meeting in New York about carbon dioxide buildup. And within a couple of years, the first book that wasn’t about the weather to mention climate was published – Murray Bookchin’s Crisis in Our Cities.
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 four years ago, on this day, June 10, 1969, the chair of the Atomic Energy Commission gave carbon dioxide build-up as an anti-coal/pro-nuke argument.
“Speaking today before the opening session of the 37th annual convention of the Edison Electric Institute, Glenn T. Seaborg, chairman of the AEC said that
“While tremendous efforts were under way to cut the sulphur content of coal, oil and gas – fossil fuels – there were “no methods known of eliminating carbon dioxide that results from combustion.” ”
The Times goes on to report “Nuclear power adds no pollutants to the atmosphere.”
(Smith 1969)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the nuclear lobby was starting to realise that it could use the alleged low carbon nature of its power stations versus coal. You’d seen Teller to do this in 1957-59. You’d seen an article in the 1964 “Population Resources” book that did the same thing. And I think the editor of the journal Science Philip Abelson had also mentioned climate change as an argument for nuclear in the late 1960s…
Seaborg had already warned about this in 1966 at a commencement address at UC San Diego.
“At the rate we are currently adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere (six billion tons a year), within the next few decades the heat balance of the atmosphere could be altered enough to produce marked changes in the climate–changes which we might have no means of controlling even if by that time we have made great advances in our programs of weather modification.” [wikipedia]
The “nukes will save us from climate” thing goes back longer than a lot of people would think.
What happened next
Nukes didn’t save us from climate.
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
Smith, G. 1969. UTILITIES URGED TO BACK A-POWER. The New York Times; Jun 10, pg. 63
Fifty one years ago, on this day, May 17, 1972, the “Grey Lady” reported some basic facts.
“The continued use of fossil fuels at projected levels will mean a 20 per cent increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere by the year 2000, a leading meteorologist predicted today.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Stockholm climate conference, four years in the making, was about to begin. And there were a significant number – a very small but significant number – of climate scientists and atmospheric scientists looking at carbon dioxide levels and saying “ this could be the problem.” As this site has demonstrated, by 1969/70 lots of people were being exposed to this, both politicians, but also readers of magazines and newspapers.
What I think we can learn from this
Even before the 1972 conference, there was significant awareness and concern.
What happened next
The Stockholm conference did give us the United Nations Environment Program, smaller than hoped for with less power and money. But nonetheless, UNEP was crucial in helping scientists do the research that was needed through the 70s and 80s, or rather, to get them talking to each other, across geographical more than disciplinary boundaries…
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 five years ago, on this day, April 26, 1998, The New York Times runs a story, probably not that different from the one on the 26th of December 1997 in the Washington Post. That, lo and behold, industrial interests, coal miners, auto makers, etc. are going to continue to try to – to use the academic terminology – shit all over climate action. And I think this is front page news but certainly not a surprise.
Anyone who’s paying any attention knows that we live in a plutocracy, not a democracy, and that the ability of powerful cashed up vested interests, to shape policy to prevent policies they don’t like, is enormous. Just because the power is enormous doesn’t mean that they always win all the time. But it means the game is rigged, y’all.
1998 Cushman of NYT breaks story – Cushman, J. 1998. Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty. New York Times, 26 April, p.1
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly pp368.8m. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the US had been at COP-3 Kyoto meeting. I think Al Gore even signed, but it was never going to come to the Senate for ratification. But the danger was that in two years time, if there was a Democrat in the White House, things could somehow change…
What I think we can learn from this
Opponents of action take nothing for granted and are always trying to keep their muscles, their attack muscles fresh, in case they’re needed.
What happened next
Cashed up denialist kept doing their denying.
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 two years ago, on this day, January 30 1961, in a story that would later be used by incoherent denialists, Walter Sullivan, New York Times science reporter, reported that the world was… cooling.,
You see this clip on various denialist websites. You don’t see this below, from the same article.
This was in the context of a symposium in New York, attended by Hermann Flohn and Gilbert Plass, among others…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 317ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .
The context was that global temperatures had been rising over the last 50 plus years (Guy Callendar had been one of many to spot this – his contribution had been to say it was down to carbon dioxide build-up). However, from about 1940, the amount of dust/smog/sulphur had increased the reflectiveness of the atmosphere, meaning some of the sun’s heat didn’t hit the Earth. So temperatures started falling…
What I think we can learn from this
The signal did not properly emerge from the noise until the 1970s (though the reason – smog/suplhur was well understood)
Denialists cherry-pick like mad, then project that onto people who… advocate for 19th century physics.
What happened next
The carbon dioxide kept accumulating. Sullivan kept covering it, forming good relationships with working scientists like Stephen Schneider (they met late 1972) and James Hansen.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 10, 1991, the New York Times ran a story that has become very very familiar.
The earth was warmer in 1990 than in any other year since people began measuring the planet’s surface temperature, separate groups of climatologists in the United States and Britain said yesterday.
A third group, in the United States, reported record temperatures from one to six miles above the earth’s surface. These were recorded from balloons from December 1989 through November 1990.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .
The context was that the US had finally been forced to agree to take part in negotiations for a world climate treaty (what became, in June 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). The denial and delay campaigns were kicking into gear (the so-called ‘Global Climate Coalition’ doing its predatory delay thing). Part of the context for the whole climate awakening was how warm the 1980s had been (mild by today’s standards, of course).
What I think we can learn from this
The “warmest year ever” meme does not, on its own, ‘wake up the sheeple’. If you want to have effective long-term action, you need effective long-term social movement organisations.
Thirty-nine years ago, on this day, January 3, 1984, the New York Times science journalist Walter Sullivan had a story that began with words that could have been written yesterday, more or less…
“A GLOBAL strategy to reduce a potentially dangerous increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has been outlined by engineers and economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University.
“In a report to the National Science Foundation, the specialists propose that the use of fossil fuel, largely responsible for the carbon dioxide increase, can be substantially reduced by greater efficiency in energy production.”
Sullivan had been writing about carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere for the NYT since the early 1960s (having become aware of the issue during his coverage of the 1957-8 International Geophysical Year).
The report’s lead author, David Rose had been quoted in an August 1980 Wall Street Journal article (which we will come to later) as saying that if the CO2 theory were right “that means big trouble.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 344ppm. As of January 2023 it is 417. .
The context was that by the mid-late 1970s, US scientists were able to get funding for decent studies of carbon dioxide build-up, and were even getting some sympathetic hearings from the Jimmy Carter White House. That all ended when Reagan and his goons turned up… In October 1983 two “conflicting” reports about CO build-up had been released. (something AOY will cover later this year).
What I think we can learn from this
We knew. As I have argued here, and elsewhere, ad infitum and nauseam, there is not an information deficit,,but there is a sustained radical social movements deficit.
What happened next
The issue finally was forced onto the agenda in 1988. Reports like the MIT/Stanford one have been written pretty much every year since then. Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gses have climbed almost every year. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have gone up and up and up.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
References
Rose, David J.; Miller, Marvin M.; Agnew and Carson E. (1983) “Global energy futures and CO\2082-induced climate change: report prepared for Division of Policy Research and Analysis, National Science Foundation https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/60493
On this day, December 22 in 1975, the New York Times ran a story “Scientist Warns of Great Floods if Earth’s Heat Rises.”
But carbon dioxide was not in the frame.
Dr Howard Wilcox, who had a book called “Hothouse Earth” argued that – in the words of the NYT-
“man’s output of heat into the atmosphere, if allowed to increase at present energy and industrial growth rates, will raise the earth’s temperature enough to melt the polar ice caps and flood many populous areas of the earth in the next 80 to 180 years.”
That ‘heat’ would be the key driver, was not the case…, as both William Kellogg and Murray Mitchell pointed out – the final paragraphs in the story are these:
Dr. J. Murray Mitchell, Jr.; senior research climatologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration laboratory in Silver Spring, Md. in a telephone interview offered, similar observations:
“I agree with Dr. Wilcox’s concern and his scientific analysis and statistical evidence. But I feel that the more immediate danger will come from the increasing amounts of carbon dioxide that are thrown off into the atmosphere along with the heat that Dr. Wilcox talks about.”
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 331ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
Why this matters
We need to remember that – as per the Landsberg article mentioned a few days ago, carbon dioxide was not the only villain in the picture.
What happened next
Within a couple of years, it was obvious that carbon dioxide was, in fact, the big thing to worry about.
