Tag: Science

Categories
Science

November 12,1976 – “Greenhouse Effects due to Man-Made Perturbations of Trace Gases” in Science

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, November 12th, 1976, an article appears in the journal Science.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that more and more articles were getting published in especially Science more than Nature, because there was a proper research effort going on in the United States. And that was not the case in the United Kingdom.

What we learn is long before 1981 when Hansen got wrapped over the knuckles for telling the truth to a journalist, Walter Sullivan at the New York Times, Hansen was telling it like it was. It’s almost 50 years later now. And things have only gotten so much worse. 

What happened next. We were warned. We knew. Not enough of us could look into the abyss and also figure out how to do responsible citizenship in sustainable ways. And here we are.

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 12, 1999 – John Howard and mates say “nope” to renewables

November 12, 2012 – Greenpeace smeared by Queensland extractors, of course

Categories
Science United States of America

May 6, 1977 – Bert Bolin article in Science about increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations owing to forestry and agriculture

Forty seven years ago, on this day, May 6th, 1977, Swedish scientist Bert Bolin sounded a warning about other sources (besides burning oil, coal and gas) leading to more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Source – https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.196.4290.613?casa_token=uAeo-ORaYTsAAAAA:IXMCd01f0aXX1KI_4E-_7x6PZC5_KW3MFgSHKAmDJ9wrZz1GMxc_o0Ga0glPcnCvHTBjvTYBpVnn

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bolin had been looking at carbon dioxide buildup and its consequences since the late 50s. There were concerns about food production; these had been voiced publicly by Henry Kissinger in 1974. And other work was ongoing about that. What Bolin was doing here was pointing out how deforestation and agriculture might be contributing to CO2 build up alongside the vast increases in fossil fuel burning for energy production.

 What we learn is Bolin was a mensch and that people reading science knew what was going on.

What happened next? Bolin ended up as the first chair of the IPCC and lived long enough to see the Nobel Prize and died shortly after that in 2007.

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 6, 1997 – The so-called “Cooler Heads” coalition created

May 6, 2004 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard meets business, to kill renewables

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Uncategorized

October 26, 2001 – BioEnergy Carbon Capture and Storage mooted

Twenty two years ago, on this day, October 26, 2001, BECCS put in an early appearance, in a letter to the American publication Science.

“We provided this information in an IIASA interim report, which never received much attention, but laid a foundation for the forthcoming Science letter. However, in retrospect, these early scenarios were the cradle of the types of scenarios we now see underpinning the Paris Climate Agreement. With these scenarios at hand, we had more confidence and submitted our letter to Science, which was published on October 26th, 2001.” https://climatestrategies.org/twenty-years-of-beccs-a-short-retrospection/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The IPCC was putting together a special report on CCS. There was a workshop within it including the stuff about bio energy, carbon capture and storage, which is where you would basically plant trees, burn them and capture, or dump the trees in the deep ocean. In essence.

What I think we can learn from this

BECCS had a long history longer than I thought, and crucially, IIASA is a midwife again. And so these technologies have long histories. It takes a long time to get anything off the ground. And if you do want to get it off the ground or in this case under the ground you could do worse than IIASA.

What happened next

By 2013-14 BECCS was becoming part of the narrative. It has stayed there. There are all sorts of fantasies we will tell ourselves and each other, soothing stories of salvation

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

 February 2, 1996 – denialist sprays #climate science with his bullshit

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, February 2, 1996, denialist idiot Fred Singer wrote to the journal Science…

“Then Fred Singer launched an attack. In a letter to Science on February 2, 1996, four months before formal release of the Working Group 1 Report, Singer presented a litany of complaints.”

Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 205

and

In a letter to Science magazine (February 2, 1996) S. Fred Singer charged that the most recent IPCC assessment “presents selected facts and omits important information.”

Gelbspan, R. (1998)  Page 227

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The denialists – both those who were lying for money and those who were lying to themselves, also for money – were fighting a rearguard action against inconvenient reality. The second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change synthesis report was being released. It said that there was already a discernible impact from human activities on the climate. This was anathema to the denialists, because it would then lead to pressure for real regulation. 

By now, of course, the Berlin mandate (agreed at COP1 in Berlin in 1995) was underway, meaning that rich nations were being compelled to negotiate an agreement on emissions cuts. 

What I think we can learn from this

In order to avoid outcomes they don’t like, denialists will attack scientists and smear them. This is more widely recognized now.. One form of these attacks is now known as the Serengeti Strategy, a term coined by Michael Mann, a climate scientist who would be attacked from 1998 for his “hockey stick”.

What happened next

The attacks on scientists continued and culminated in 2009, with the theft of emails from the UEA server. The selective release and cherry-picking of the emails were part of a largely successful effort to sow doubt and confusion in the minds of people who might otherwise have mattered, or who may have done things that mattered.

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

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

October 24, 1967 – editor of Science warns about C02 build-up

On this day, October 24  in 1967, folks at a Public Health conference in Miami Beach… got to hear a warning about climate change, from Philip Abelson Abelson was a big fish, the editor of Science. His list of man-made environmental threats was mostly “local” stuff- DDT, smog etc. But then there is this.

“Each year, tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere and the amount is increasing. As a result, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is growing. By the year 2000, an increase of 25 per cent is probable.(7) Such a change would not have much direct effect on human beings, but it might have substantial indirect effects. Many geophysicists believe that such an increase would affect the world’s temperature by what is called a greenhouse effect. The extra carbon dioxide would slow heat loss from the earth, resulting in warmer climates and possibly the melting of polar ice. “

Abelson paper was presented before a Special Session of the American Public Health Association at the Ninety-Fifth Annual Meeting in Miami Beach, Fla., October 24, 1967.  https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.58.11.2043

(7)  Restoring the Quality of Our Environment. Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel. President’s Advisory Committee. Washington, D. C.: The White House (Nov.), 1965, p. 120. 

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 319.39ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

People were beginning to clock to all the different ways we were screwing ourselves. Abelson’s speech was a summary of the state of the art, and included the Revelle warning in the PSAC publication of two years previously.

Why this matters. 

It is via events like this that news percolated out…

What happened next?

By late 1968, various scientific work was more seriously underway, and led to the crucial July 1970 Study of Man’s Influence on Climate workshop in Williamstown, Massachusetts.