I decided to do a bit of a close read of one particular part of a 1965 report sent to Lyndon Johnson, on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Because I hate myself, you see.
climatefiles.com/climate-change…
climatefiles.com/climate-change…
They acknowledge that at that point, firm predictions were hard. Okay. But also, this ⬇️.
[mashes calculator furiously]
[checks current CO2 concentration]
Ah, well, shit.
[mashes calculator furiously]
[checks current CO2 concentration]
Ah, well, shit.
They knew, in 1965, that the 1885-1940 increase in CO2 likely led to half a degree C of warming. Which uh, maybe should have raised a few more alarm bells?
It would take 4,000 years to melt the Antarctic ice sheet. But a 25% increase in CO2 concentration (see previous “ah well shit” tweet) could reduce that to 400 years. Also we’re past that 25% mark. So.
Is 40 feet per century bad
“Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment.”
Okay yes but what’s the cutoff for “unwittingly” can we at least say that past 1965 it was wittingly.
Okay yes but what’s the cutoff for “unwittingly” can we at least say that past 1965 it was wittingly.
At that time, all recoverable fossil fuels could increase by TWO HUNDRED PERCENT from then level of 320 ppm. We have found WAY MORE fossil fuels that we now consider recoverable since 1965.
Oh they also had some early geoengineering ideas. Yay.
They suggested changing the planet's albedo by dumping buoyant, reflective particles in the ocean for $500 million/year (~$4 billion today, so, around what solar radiation management is generally pegged at).
They suggested changing the planet's albedo by dumping buoyant, reflective particles in the ocean for $500 million/year (~$4 billion today, so, around what solar radiation management is generally pegged at).
Conclusion time:
“The climatic changes that may be produced by the increased CO2 content could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.”
YOU DON’T SAY.
“The climatic changes that may be produced by the increased CO2 content could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.”
YOU DON’T SAY.
Well, that was fun. Some of the best scientists in the country told the president a full 54 years ago that burning fossil fuels indiscriminately was going to wreck our collective shit, and, well, [gestures around].
Oh, also: this report was put together by the President’s Science Advisory Committee, or PSAC, which was later replaced by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, or PCAST.
You will be SHOCKED to learn that the current president does not even HAVE a PCAST.
You will be SHOCKED to learn that the current president does not even HAVE a PCAST.
If you enjoyed/were enraged by this one, check out my earlier reading of a 1983 EPA report which, uh, also maybe suggested we should have dealt with this whole thing a bit sooner:
Since you’re here, I would love it if you would sign up for this newsletter, where I write about science and policy and infuriating things once a week or so. Next one will be on the 2009 UN climate meeting and the not-so-great decade that followed it.
gravityisgone.substack.com
gravityisgone.substack.com
Ok ONE MORE THING: President Johnson REQUESTED this report from his PSAC. This is in LBJ's intro/request letter. Just try and picture something like this coming from the White House today:
Whew, as @Conch_Out has pointed out, Trump finally DID appoint a PCAST! Last month! 3 years into his term! And it includes 7 people so far! Including execs from Bank of America, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, HP, and Dow Chemicals! Sorry I was behind on this!
aip.org/fyi/2019/trump…
aip.org/fyi/2019/trump…
