Tag: Scientific American

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

December 23, 2010 – Can Australia afford CCS?

Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 23rd, 2010,

The world needs it, but strict budgets have forced Australia to scale back or cancel plans to advance the technology

BRISBANE, Australia — Environmental groups sounded the alarm when the government of the northeastern state of Queensland announced it would stop funding a zero-emissions power plant.

In those circles, rumors had been floating for weeks before the Dec. 19 decision that Queensland’s budget deficit-conscious premier and the coal companies were ready to pull the plug on the $4 billion ZeroGen plant.

Kirkland, J. 2010. Can Australia Afford Carbon Capture and Storage for Coal? Climatewire, December 23.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that from about 2004 Australian governments (federal and Queensland) had been bringing up CCS as a climate solution (god forbid we reduce emissions by, you know, leaving the coal and oil and gas in the ground and forging ahead with renewables).

The specific context was that for the the hype was hitting fever pitch.

What I think we can learn from this is that hype cycles are a thing.

What happened next – the plug got pulled on “Zerogen” days later. A separate failure of a CCS project, Gorgon, continues (failure at capturing and storing carbon – less of a failure at mitigation deterrence).

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: 

December 23, 1973 – Solar Patent issued

December 23, 2003 – Vestas opens Tasmanian wind turbine factory

December 23, 2009 – Kevin Rudd told to call double-dissolution #climate election… (spoiler – he didn’t)

Categories
United States of America

September 13, 1856 – the game’s a Foote

One hundred and sixty nine years ago, on this day, September 13th, 1856,

Her article sparked interest and praise, notably in the 13 September issue of Scientific American magazine, in an article titled ‘Scientific ladies – experiments with condensed gases’: ‘Some have not only entertained, but expressed the mean idea, that women do not possess the strength of mind necessary for scientific investigation […] the experiments of Mrs Foote afford abundant evidence of the ability of woman to investigate any subject with originality and precision.’ https://www.chemistryworld.com/culture/eunice-foote-the-mother-of-climate-change/4011315.article#/

And

Scientific American 1856: Scientific Ladies - Experiments with Condensed Gases. | Hill Heat

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 285ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the 19th century was kinda exciting for “science” (new word, only just taking over from “natural philosophy”).

The specific context was Eunice Foote was a campaigner for women’s suffrage, and a scientist.  

What I think we can learn from this – we could have done better as a species, but, well, here we are…

What happened next

Foote’s work specifically on climate was forgotten, but then rediscovered by retired petroleum geologist Ray Sorenson. In January 2011, in the American Association of Petroleum Geologists‘ on-line journal Search and Discovery he had this article.-: “Eunice Foote’s Pioneering Research On CO2 And Climate Warming“

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: 

September 13, 1661 – Fumifugium! – All Our Yesterdays

September 13, 1976 – US news broadcast on ozone and climate.

September 13, 1984 – unsettling Seattle workshop on sea level rise – All Our Yesterdays

September 13, 1992/1994- Scientists traduced, ignored

Categories
United States of America

July 1, 1959 – Gilbert Plass article on climate change published in Scientific American

Sixty six years ago, on this day, July 1st, 1959, Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass has an article in Scientific American about … carbon dioxide build-up.

During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year [as of 2025 it’s about 40 billion tons]. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. Grain fields and pastures store much smaller quantities of carbon dioxide than the forests they replace, and the cultivation of the soil permits the vast quantities of carbon dioxide produced by bacteria to escape into the air.

And 

We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half-century. Since we now can measure the sun’s energy output independent of the distorting influence of the atmosphere, we shall see whether the earth’s temperature trend correlates with measured fluctuations in solar radiation. If volcanic dust is the more important factor, then we may observe the earth’s temperature following fluctuations in the number of large volcanic eruptions. But if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long-term temperature records will rise continuously as long as man consumes the earth’s reserves of fossil fuels.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 315ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the idea that carbon dioxide build-up would heat the earth can be dated back to the 1890s (it’s slightly more complex than that, but this will do for now), from work by Svante Arrhenius, the Swedish scientist who later won a Nobel Prize (for other work).

But Arrhenius’ proposal had been shot down, thanks to arrogance about knowing how carbon dioxide operates in the stratosphere, and Guy Callendar’s 1938 lecture to the Royal Meteorological Society hadn’t changed that.

The specific context was that Plass had been banging on about carbon dioxide build-up since May 1953, and had had various articles published in specialist journals and also in more “Popular” ones like American Scientist and Scientific American.

What I think we can learn from this is that UK elites will have been well-informed. Scientific American was advertised and sold in the UK…

What happened next – Plass was present at a couple more meetings – e.g. New York in January 1961 and again in March 1963, but wasn’t particularly “into” climate – it wasn’t his thing.

And the carbon dioxide kept accumulating, obvs.