Tag: Royal Society

Categories
Sea level rise United Kingdom

March 11, 1959 – Warmer Arctic Raising World’s Sea Level…

Sixty five years ago, on this day, March 11th, 1959, in the aftermath of the International Geophysical Year…

A general warming up of Arctic waters and a receding of glaciers means that the average sea level of the world is rising. In the South of England this rise will be 6in in the next 100 years. This will necessitate, said Dr. D.C. Martin, assistant secretary of the Royal Society, higher sea walls to protect highly populated industrial areas below the level of ordinary spring tides. He was speaking at the Royal Society of Arts in London yesterday on “Some achievements of the International Geophysical Year.”

March 11 1959 – Smith,A. (1959) Warmer Arctic Raising World’s Sea Level. Telegraph and Morning Post, March 12, p.15

p.415-6 – Martin did NOT link it explicitly to c02 buildup

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 316ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the International Geophysical Year, which lasted 18 months, had ended in December 1958, three months earlier. There were masses of data to be crunched. It seemed fairly clear that the world was indeed warming, which had been noted for a few decades really, and that therefore, a certain amount of polar ice would indeed melt. This was accepted without necessarily being ascribed to carbon dioxide. This is an important point. At that point people saw other contenders for the causative agent for this warming –  orbital wobbles the activity of the Sun, something else.  DC Martin had been up to his neck in the BBC television programme The Restless Sphere. (Interesting guy. Further action, look at the Royal Society archives for that period.) 

What I think we can learn from this

Symptoms and causes are not self-evident. You shouldn’t mistake acceptance of the existence of symptoms as a consensus around what only later is revealed to be the accurate diagnosis.

What happened next The Royal Society got more involved in the meteorology stuff. especially by the end of the 1960s.

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: 

March 11, 1969 – NASA explains need to monitor C02 build-up to politicians

March 11, 1989 – warm words at The Hague, where the climate criminals should be sent…

Categories
United Kingdom

June 9, 1955 – Royal Society misses the point (tbf, easily done)

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, June 9, 1955, the finest brains (sic) in the UK met to chew on atmospheric research. Didn’t spot the elephant in the room (it was small, to be fair!)

It is appropriate, in view of the forthcoming intensification of atmospheric research during the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58, to examine the present state of research in such a subject as radiative balance in the atmosphere, and a one-day discussion meeting on this subject was held in London at the Royal Society on June 9. In such a short period it was clearly out of the question to attempt any comprehensive survey, and attention was concentrated instead on subjects in which research is being actively pursued. 

Nature 1 October 1955

Meteorological Magazine

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the International Geophysical Year was coming. There had already been a bunch of articles in the media speculating on carbon dioxide buildup. And having three years after the London smog, and the year before the Clean Air Act was passed, the quality of air was still very high on the agenda as it should be, as it still really needs to be.

What I think we can learn from this

Carbon Dioxide build up was NOT on the agenda. Not because these people were stupid, complacent, careless or anything else. Just wasn’t on their radar yet. Not enough evidence etc built up. Only Callendar, some newspaper articles and comments by Plass.

What happened next

The International Geophysical Year happened next…

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
Denial United Kingdom United States of America

September 4, 2006 – Royal Society to Exxon: “Knock it off with the funding to #climate deniers”

On this day, September 4 2006, the Royal Society (venerable Science outfit, 360ish years old) asked the American oil company Exxon to knock it off with the climate denial support.

https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2006/royal-society-exxonmobil/

On this day the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 379.04 ppm Now it is 420ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

Exxon had been/has been an enormous source of climate denial, despite their own scientists saying in the 1970s that yes, indeed, global warming because of the burning of fossil fuels was going to be a serious thing. A bunch of scientists who don’t like hand-to-hand combat coming out and saying “stop right there thank you very much” was a big deal.

What happened next?

Exxon got sneakier about it, is all.

Categories
United Kingdom

July 5, 1989 – Nuclear tries to regain some credibility, latching on to greenhouse

On this day, July 5, in  1989 

“More than 100 British scientists, including two Nobel laureates, have lent their names to an advertising campaign starting this week which says that focusing on nuclear power will worsen global warming by diverting attention from the real causes of the problem. 

“The academics, also including 15 Fellows of the Royal Society, reject claims that more nuclear power stations are the answer to the greenhouse effect, and say the Government should concentrate on “real solutions” to global warming…. 

“The two Nobel laureates taking part in the campaign are Professor Dorothy Hodgkin, emeritus Professor of chemistry at Oxford University, and Professor Maurice Wilkins, emeritus professor of biophysics at London University.”

Brown, P. 1989. Nuclear power is not the answer: scientists. Canberra Times, 5 July, p.1

Why this matters. 

Nuclear – a technology always in search of legitimacy, given its other problems (waste, security, meltdowns etc).. Its advocates had in fact been talking about coal’s nasty little CO2 problem for a long time.

What happened next?

Nuclear kept promising. Still is – see April 2022 Energy Security Strategy.

Categories
Science Scientists

 Feb 7, 1861- 161 years ago, a scientist identifies carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas

On this day, in 1861, Irish scientist John Tyndall read his paper about carbon dioxide at the Royal Society at the annual Bakerian lecture. Tyndall was not, we now know, the first person to point out what he called carbonic acid had greenhouse water warming potential. That honour belongs to Eunice Foote in the United States a few years earlier. There’s an interesting and useful summary of this at the beginning of Alice Bell’s excellent 2021 book “Our Biggest Experiment.” And of course the idea that there must be something, some gas, keeping the planet warmer than it otherwise would be dates back to Fourier in 1824.

Tyndall did the research, reported it. It wasn’t for another 35 years that someone, Svante Arrhenius. said, “this is in fact going to be a thing (but not for centuries, and it will be a good thing.”. He was trying to distract himself from a messy divorce by doing laborious calculations, which your mobile phone could probably do in about three seconds now. 

Why this matters,

We’ve understood the science – this is 19th century physics – for a very long time. Unfortunately, we have not acted. And as I’ve said before, I will say again, that “we” first person plural pronoun is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

[On this question of ‘we’ see this 2018 piece by Genevieve Gunther – h/t Sam]

What happened next

The Tyndall Centre got set up in 2000.