Tag: Nigel Calder

Categories
United Kingdom

November 20, 1974 – “The Weather Machine” is broadcast

Fifty years ago, on this day, November 20th, 1974,

On Wednesday evening, immediately following The Frost Interview, the BBC broadcast its much heralded, prestige extravaganza The Weather Machine (BBC2, November 20, 9.00 p.m.); the latest in a series of annual productions which began so successfully back in 1970 with Violent Universe. Excellently assisted by the studio commentary of Magnus Magnusson, the modulated narrative tones of Eric Porter and, more importantly, by the availability of a six figure budget, producer Alec Nisbett endeavoured to squeeze into 120 minutes of airspace the fruits of twelve months globetrotting 

Nature 22nd Nov 1974.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Nigel Calder son of Peter Ritchie-Calder had already produced a couple of very popular BBC specials, which were kind of tentpole things that the BBC were quite proud of. And now he was talking about the Weather Machine in the context of a lot of weird weather and competing theories, such as ice age, because of dust, heating, because of waste heat heating, because of carbon dioxide, and so forth. 

What we learn from a close reading of the files at the BBC Written Archive Centre, is that there was a hell of a hoo ha after this, because the Met Office’s John Mason in particular, was basically being a total ass. And Calder and the BBC felt they had to stand up for Calder. It all fizzled out after a couple of years. But it goes towards a further explanation of why Mason was so hostile to the carbon dioxide issue, even though it wasn’t what Calder was pushing. Mason was surely of the opinion “all these bloody amateurs should just leave it to the experts” ignoring, of course, the fact that lots of the people pushing carbon dioxide were more expert than him. But never let the facts get in the way of a good red mist. 

What we learn was that television programmes can cause mayhem. 

What happened next? Mason kept being a douche on climate issues for quite some time, with sadly, great effect, slowing down any UK consensus and activity. I do wonder what people like Herman Bondi thought of Mason over this issue. 

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: 

November 20, 1930 – the Fox is born!! 

November 20, 1973 – “Is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Disintegrating?”

November 20, 1974 – BBC airs “The Weather Machine”

November 20, 2008 – Green capitalism flexes a (weak) BICEP

Categories
Technophilia technosalvationism United Kingdom

October 8, 1964 – Party X and Party Y (techno and eco) – seminal article in New Scientist

Sixty years ago, on this day, October 8th, 1964,

 Nigel Calder’s article in New Scientist on 8 Oct 1964 (at the time of the 1964 general election). Calder’s article expressed dissatisfaction with the similar policies offered by the two main parties, and called for the creation of two very different political parties, X and Y. This seminal article basically espoused two different visions of the future: ‘Party X’ technocratic, ‘Party Y’ ‘ecological’. What is interesting about Calder’ s vision is how much of the vision for ‘Party Y’ was to become part of the early 1970s environmental message.

(Herring, 2001)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 320ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that awareness of environmental problems was growing. Whether it was Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, or the Buchanan report about traffic in cities. And it was clear that there were unmet political needs because both main parties were all about economic growth. And the proposal for a technocrat party and an ecological party as we would never call them was a sensible one. But there are simply too many cross cutting needs and myths. These are not the official lines as people see them, because people think they can have their cake and eat it. And for a certain amount of time you can, but eventually, you look down and you have an empty plate and a face full of food. You no longer have your cake.

What we learn is that these debates about technology “versus” ecology whatever, they go back. Well, they go back earlier than 1964. But they were expressed plainly in New Scientist in 1964.

What happened next? The article was, I’m told, influential in some circles, largely ignored more broadly.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

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

October 8, 1971 – Lord Kennet pushes back against Nature’s “John Maddox” on the greenhouse effect.

October 8, 1978 – The Times runs an “ice caps melting” story

October 8, 1988 – Aussie poet and activist Judith Wright in final speech, warns of environmental problems ahead…

Categories
United Kingdom

November 20, 1974 – BBC airs “The Weather Machine”

On this day, November 20, 1974, the BBC showed a documentary “The Weather Machine”, which makes glancing and largely dismissive mention of carbon dioxide build-up as a cause of the changing weather patterns by then being studied more intently…

“On Wednesday evening, immediately  following The Frost Interview, the BBC broadcast its much heralded, prestige extravaganza The Weather Machine (BBC2, November 20, 9.00 p.m.); the latest in a series of annual productions which began so successfully back in 1970 with Violent Universe. Excellently assisted by the studio commentary of Magnus Magnusson, the modulated narrative tones of Eric Porter and, more importantly, by the availability of a six figure budget, producer Alec Nisbett endeavoured to squeeze into 120 minutes of airspace the fruits of twelve months globetrotting “

Nature 22nd November1974

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 330ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – from the early 1970s, a series of extreme weather events made the weather, well, newsworthy….

Why this matters. 

We should be fair to folks back then- there was a lot of different data and arguments out there. With hindsight it is “obvious” that carbon dioxide was definitely the culprit. Hindsight is famously 20/20…

What happened next?

Through the 1970s climate scientists became more and more convinced of what was going on, what was coming – sooner or later.  They tried to raise the alarm…

Categories
Ignored Warnings Science United States of America

July 22, 1968 – Gordon Macdonald tries to warn about carbon dioxide build-up…

On this day in 1968 Gordon Macdonald’s  chapter on weather and climate modification, under the title “How to Wreck the Environment” (pdf here) appeared  Nigel Calder’s book “Unless Peace Comes a Scientific Forecast of New Weapons” was published 

July 22, 1968 – Viking Adult – ISBN: 978 067 074 1140

A shortened version of the chapter had already appeared in New Scientist in April of the same year

“How to wreck the environment.” New Scientist. 25 April 1968):180- 82;

MacDonald noted 

“There has been much controversy in recent years about conjectured overall effects on the world’s climate of emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from furnaces and engines burning fossil fuels, and some about possible influences of the exhaust from large rockets on the transparency of the upper atmosphere. Carbon dioxide placed in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has produced an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere of a few tenths of a degree Fahrenheit. The water vapour that may be introduced into the stratosphere by the supersonic transport may also result in a similar temperature rise. In principle it would be feasible to introduce material into the upper atmosphere that would absorb either incoming light (thereby cooling the surface) or outgoing heat (thereby warming the surface). In practice, in the rarefied and windswept upper atmosphere, the material would disperse rather quickly, so that military use of such a technique would probably rely upon global rather than local effects”

Why this matters. 

Anyone who had their eyes open knew there was probably trouble ahead. By the late 70s, that trouble was unmistakable. 

What happened next?

Ten years later Macdonald, with Rafe Pomerance, would get the wheels rolling for the Charney report (see Nathaniel Rich’s “Losing Earth”).

By then MacDonald was also appearing on the Macneil Lehrer hour (1978) and so on. There’s a nice oral history interview here– 

Basically, Macdonald is one of the (forgotten) good guys.

See this nice biographical memoir of the man (he died in 2002) by Munk, Oreskes and Muller