Have we really let it get this bad?

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Yes. We could have. We failed to.

In 1965, Johnson received a scientific report from his advisors on polution, an appendix dealt specifically with carbon dioxide.

…

CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS

Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment. Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels that slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 million years. The CO₂ produced by this combustion is being injected into the atmosphere; about half of it remains there. The estimated recoverable reserves of fossil fuels are sufficient to produce nearly a 200% increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.

By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO₂ will be close to 25 %. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate, and will almost certainly cause significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the stratosphere. At present it is impossible to predict these effects quantitatively, but recent advances in mathematical modelling of the atmosphere, using large computers, may allow useful predictions within the next 2 or 3 years.

Such predictions will need to be checked by careful measurements: a series of precise measurements of the CO₂ content in the atmosphere should continue to be made by the U.S. Weather Bureau and its collaborators, at least for the next several decades; studies of the oceanic and biological processes by which CO₂ is removed from and added to the atmosphere should be broadened and intensified; temperatures at different heights in the stratosphere should be monitored on a worldwide basis.

The climatic changes that may be produced by the increased CO₂ content could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings. The possibilities of deliberately bringing about countervailing climatic changes therefore need to be thoroughly explored. A change in the radiation balance in the opposite direction to that which might result from the increase of atmospheric CO₂ could be produced by raising the albedo, or reflectivity, of the earth. Such a change in albedo could be brought about, for example by spreading very small reflecting particles over large oceanic areas. The particles should be sufficiently buoyant so that they will remain close to the sea surface and they should have a high reflectivity, so that even a partial covering of the surface would be adequate to produce a marked change in the amount of reflected sunlight. Rough estimates indicate that enough particles partially to cover a square niile could be produced for perhaps one hundred dollars. Thus a 1 % change in reflectivity might be brought about for about 500 million dollars a year, particularly if the reflecting particles were spread in low latitudes, where the incoming radiation is concentrated. Considering the extraordinary economic and human importance of climate, costs of this magnitude do not seem excessive. An early development of the needed technology might have other uses, for example in inhibiting the formation of hurricanes in tropical oceanic areas.

According to Manabe and Strickler (1964) the absorption and re-radiation of infrared by high cirrus clouds (above five miles) tends to heat the atmosphere near the earth's surface. Under some circumstances, injection of condensation or freezing nuclei will cause cirrus clouds to form at high altitudes. This potential method of bringing about climatic changes needs to be investigated as a possible tool for modifying atmospheric circulation in ways which might counteract the effects of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

…

In the six decades since that report was written, the science has improved. In the 70’s public schools taught about the dangers of the “Greenhouse Effect.” It wasn’t controversial. It was science. In those days, we respected science. Ronald Reagan changed that. He told us: "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do…"

He created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to give governments the power to control the science.

https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/01/ipcc_beginnings/

…

In October 1985, the UN sponsored an international meeting of scientists on climate change in Villach, Austria. Its conclusion: Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases could cause an historic rise in global temperature. This was the first international scientific consensus on climate change and an important turning point, but the key question was, "Could this scientific concern be directed toward leveraging government action worldwide"?

…

US support was probably critical to IPCC’s establishment. And why did the US government support it? Assistant Undersecretary of State Bill Nitze wrote to me a few years later saying that our group’s activities played a significant role. Among other motivations, the US government saw the creation of the IPCC as a way to prevent the activism stimulated by my colleagues and me from controlling the policy agenda.

…

In 2000, George W. Bush ran as a climate skeptic, however, to his credit, he formed a “Cabinet-level working group” who actually turned to the National Academy of Sciences for advice. On June 11th, he gave an address.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html

President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change

11:10 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I've just met with senior members of my administration who are working to develop an effective and science-based approach to addressing the important issues of global climate change.

This is an issue that I know is very important to the nations of Europe, which I will be visiting for the first time as President. The earth's well-being is also an issue important to America. And it's an issue that should be important to every nation in every part of our world.

The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world.

…

My Cabinet-level working group has met regularly for the last 10 weeks to review the most recent, most accurate, and most comprehensive science. They have heard from scientists offering a wide spectrum of views. They have reviewed the facts, and they have listened to many theories and suppositions. The working group asked the highly-respected National Academy of Sciences to provide us the most up-to-date information about what is known and about what is not known on the science of climate change.

…

Ironically, exactly 3 months later, he was surprised by a terrorist attack…


The chances to intervene have been numerous.