In comments, Anna V reminded me of something I’ve been looking for for awhile, but forgotten about in the busy work of the surfacestations.org project. With this blog having a worldwide readership now in the thousands, perhaps one of you can help me locate it.
Anna V: Sorry, that is Edward Teller who suggested jets be equipped with gadgets that would release appropriate aerosols to compensated for the warming. If I believed in anthropogenic global warming I would be all for this solution.
REPLY: Anna, thank you for your discourse here. I’d also point out that Dr. Teller may very well single handedly be responsible for the demonization of coal.
Astute readers may recall that Dr. Teller was on the board of the U.S. Atomic Energy commission in the early 70’s. The goal of the agency was peaceful use of atomic energy, i.e. nuclear power plants. Teller was aware that the Soviet Venera 4 probe had penetrated the Venus’ atmosphere in 1967 and showed it was mostly CO2, and that among other factors led to the role of CO2 being figured into the “greenhouse effect”.
In a 1971 paper, James Pollack argued that Venus might once have had oceans like Earth’s It seemed that such a “runaway greenhouse” could have turned the Earth too into a furnace, if the starting conditions had been only a little different.
From Spencer Weart’s Discovery of Global Warming
Teller wanted to push for more nuclear power in the USA, CO2 became a tool to accomplish that. Readers may recall that in the mid to late 1970’s there were a series of magazine ads in major U.S. magazines that had a picture of a lump of coal. The gist of the ad was “coal is dirty, it produces CO2 and soot, harming our atmosphere. Nuclear power is the clean fuel”. If I recall correctly, they were paid for by the Atomic Energy Commission.
So if my memory serves me correctly, it appears the CO2 movement may have been started in part, due to a U.S. Government funded advertising campaign.
I’ve been searching for that ad, and have been combing old magazine sources for it. If anyone can find a copy, I’d be very grateful.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, I saw the error after I sent the comment. The following repeats what you are saying
http://www.tvweather.com/awpage/history_of_the_atmosphere.htm
” 12. Edward Teller expressed that there was some urgency in developing applied nuclear power. He suggested that the atmospheric CO2 build up could result in a runaway greenhouse effect similar to the planet Venus if we did not stop burning fossil fuels. Venus surface temperatures are hundreds of degrees and life as we know it could not exist there.
13. Stephen Schneider picked up Teller’s theme and said that if this run-away greenhouse heating was threatening human existence then we must stop adding CO2 to our atmosphere. This is how a worst-case scenario became the code some would have us live by today.
14. Teller was the national hero who gave us the hydrogen bomb. A problem with Tellers great talent was that neither he nor Stephan Schneider were apparently well versed in biology. ”
I know some current directors of nuclear research who are on the global warming tailcoats. Actually, since I do believe that controlled fusion will be the way to go in 50 years, in the beginning I thought that the global warming hysteria would help in financing the research better. Than I realized that fission reactors have started salivating over the same scenario as in Teller’s time. At present fission is the only viable alternative energy that will allow the west to keep its energy needs fullfilled and stop emmitting CO2.
REPLY: FYI tvweather.com is my very first website and that’s Jim Goodridge and I writing there. The page dates to 2001, and needs updating.
I find the Venus+CO2=runaway greenhouse effect to be incredibly simplistic. Venus isn’t earth, doesn’t have our liquid oceans or H20, and is 1/3 closer to that huge ball of nuclear fire that isn’t variable enough to have any noticeable effect on earth’s changing climate (yeah, right).
By the same reckoning, Mars should be warmer than it is, since it’s also a mostly CO2 atmosphere. Not as thick as Venus, but it’s also 1/3 farther from said big ball of nuclear fire. What’s the common denominator here? All three planets have CO2 (two of them mostly consist of it in their atmospheres), yet all three have drastically different atmospheres
This link is also interesting with alternative solutions instead of CO2 footprinting.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/09/22/16473441.php
Makes one wonder why they are not being pursued and instead a straight jacket is planned for the whole world to constrain CO2. I begin to believe that it is the Malthusian agenda: diminish world population by any means.
Speaking of nuclear power, back in 1994, it was the Clinton administration in general, and specifically Al Gore along with John Kerry in the Senate (how ironic is that?), who worked to end funding of the advanced nuclear reactor program that had nearly completed the experimental phase of development of a new type of fast fission reactor (IFR) with very high fuel “burn-up” rate and fuel recycling within the containment vessal, which would have eliminated most of the waste disposal problems that current thermal (slow) fission reactors have. It was the product of more than a decade of research, and the brainchild of Charles Till. The federal government has spent far more on the still-unused Yucca Mtn. waste “disposal” site than it would have cost to continue IFR R&D to the commercial prototype stage.
Fusion reactors may not have the waste disposal problems, but the reaction itself would be very intensely radioactive, and given the inherent containment difficulties, might be far more prone than current thermal fission reactors to operational radioactive gas leaks, which is their biggest source of radioactivity emissions.
Supposedly, even after all the years of mining and burning, approximately a thousand gigatons of coal remains. Hmm… Where does coal come from? Oh yeah, it comes from fossilized plants. Gee, where did those plants get all that carbon? Did they get it from the atmosphere? Oh, no! How could that possibly be? You mean there was all that CO2 in the atmosphere and the surface conditions were still conducive to abundant plant growth (to say nothing of dinosaurs and giant insects and early mammals)? I must confess, I’m terribly puzzled. ;^)
I am confused as well. From what I have read, per year, the Earth produces around 200 gigatons of CO2 all by itself. Humans around 15 GT. Yet CO2 levels have risen greatly in the past 100 years. Depending on which fanatic you listen to, almost double. Was the natural balance so close that a slight bit more from us folks caused things to get out of hand ?
On the other side of confusion, nuclear power & radioactive waste: As I recall, the Peanut Farmer decided not to build a reprocessing facility, so we have a whole bunch of spent fuel rods in cooling ponds, that no one wants to stuff into Yucca Flats, all because terrorists could swipe the output from the reprocessing facility. It makes nuclear power evil, because of the waste we refuse to do anything about.
As for lumps of coal, I can think of several people who deserve one.
Here’s the lump of coal under the mattress that keeps disturbing my rest.
Leif Svalgaard claims that solar cycles alternate rounded and spiked peaks of TSI. Someone else has shown that cosmic rays correlate with cloudiness and in one solar cycle but not in the next, an alternating effect perhaps caused by the alternating peaks in the solar cycles. The PDO, approximately three solar cycles long, must then have two solar cycles of one type and one of the other. The next PDO would have two of the second type and one of the other. If clouds cool the earth and their absence warms it, then this is a mechanism to explain the alternating cooling and warming trends noted in the last century.
This is simple. Perhaps too simple. But William of Ockham would take a look at it, if only for its simplicity.
=============================
And then there is the little matter of the missing magnetic fields and the lack of planetary magnetosphere for both Venus and Mars.
There is still debate on whether coal and oil are really biotic or abiotic. Of course the debate is much like the GW “debate”, where most believe it’s biotic in origin, and a few dissenters believing otherwise. I supposed it could be both, really. But it would seem like the conditions for biotic oil and coal to be created are rare, as far as I know. I aint no expoit, though.
“By the same reckoning, Mars should be warmer than it is, since it’s also a mostly CO2 atmosphere. Not as thick as Venus, but it’s also 1/3 farther from said big ball of nuclear fire. What’s the common denominator here?”
Venus – Thick, abundant, sulfur dioxide cloud cover – 96.5 % CO2. Way to hot
Mars – No cloud cover – 95.72 % CO2. To darn cold
Earth – Not so thick, not so abundant water based cloud cover – .0004 % CO2. Just right
Could the amount of Cloud Cover be part of the common denominator? I know it is not the amount of CO2.
In a 1971 paper, James Pollack argued that Venus might once have had oceans like Earth’s It seemed that such a “runaway greenhouse” could have turned the Earth too into a furnace, if the starting conditions had been only a little different.
I think I read something recently that showed that because Venus has no magnetic field, that the solar wind stripped the planet of any water it had. So comparing Venus to Earth is like comparing an apple to baseball.
Kim, it’s my understanding that certain types of clouds help keep heat in, other types help reflect heat away from the planet. Not sure which is which. But I’m guessing the types of clouds seeded bu GCR are of the latter type?
Carl Sagan promoted the idea of a runaway Greenhouse effect on Venus. He also promoted the Nuclear Winter idea.
there are about 200,000 active volcano’s under our oceans, fortunately the Co2 that they produce does not exist, as they are under water and that means that it does not count, Co2 is like whiskey I need it to suvive. ( and also branch to add to the whiskey)
REPLY: 200,000 ? That number seems very high. What is your source?
I brought this up, (maybe on ClimateAudit), but the pressure on the surface of Venus is 95 bar according to this Wikipedia article, and suggested that the pressure alone would lead to a substantial increase in temperature.
Never mind that the clouds of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid reflect over 90% of the solar energy hitting the planet and presumably keep a lot of the energy in. Then there’s the 100m/s winds that spread the heat from the day to the night side.
There is a level in Venus’ atmosphere where the pressure is 1 bar and the temperature is remarkably earthlike despite being 95% CO2.
Yes, Venus is a very different planet.
As to ‘who started it’, I remember Maggie Thatcher being blamed for the deed, and her motive was to undermine the Mineworkers union.
Poor old coal. You drive the industrial revolution for a few hundred years, then everyone turns against you.
Wel, not everyone. The Chinese still love you.
Re 04
Since there is any amount of plant fossils in coal, and we can see every stage in the process that turns peat into coal in action today I suggest that anyone who doubts the biotic origin of coal is seriously nuts.
The biotic origin of oil is not quite so obvious, but pretty compelling nevertheless.
kim,
The “rounded” and “peaked” patterns in the solar cycle sound like cosmic ray flux. Are you sure Svalgaard said that of TSI? As for cosmic ray flux, you can see the alternating pattern clearly here:
http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/images/0_Simpson_Space_Missions.GIF
Note, too, that cosmic ray flux is anti-correlated, or just about 180 degrees out of phase, with SSN’s. Since we are at the bottom of a solar cycle, we should just be about peaking in cosmic ray flux. Now, remember the pattern we saw with HP filtering, alternating amplitude between even and odd solar cycles? Well, we’re coming out of an odd numbered solar cycle, and into an even one. If the pattern we found holds true, the rate of warming will be less, because this is an even numbered solar cycle.
That’s just a prediction based on the pattern of even/odd solar cycles. If we are also at the end of a 65-70 year climate cycle, driven by ocean influences, then then we’re not talking a reduction in the rate of warming, but actual cooling.
Basil
Over the last 500 million years, CO2 levels on earth have come down from 7,000 ppm to less than 400 ppm. If a runaway greenhouse was possible on earth, it would happened a long time ago.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide_files/image002.gif
Additionally, Venus is much closer to the sun and has a very slow rotation. Afternoons on Venus are more than 1,000 hours long. I wonder how hot Death Valley would get if the sun stayed up high in the sky for 1,500 hours in a row?
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q50.html
You are all forgetting one small detail. The Earth has a moon which is so large relative to its primary that the Earth-Lunar system is almost a binary planetary system. The Earth we are living on is Earth Mark 2 because Earth Mark 1 was destroyed in a collision with the proto-planet which gave rise to the Earth-Lunar system 4.5 billion years ago. I have a problem with planetary size objects wondering around the Solar system until they eventually impact the Earth Mark 1; perhaps because such theories remind me too much of Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision nonsense.
What I do find plausible is that two planets formed in the Earth’s orbit. Earth Mark 1 and Mars size planet known as Theia, named for the Titan who was mother to the moon goddess Selene. Theia formed at either the Lagrange 4 or Lagrange 5 points of the Earth-Sun system.
Giant impact hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
Lagrangian point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point
Given a planetary impact of this magnitude the Earth-Lunar system would have some very unusual chemistry compared to Venus or Mars. If the iron cores of Earth Mark 1 and Theia did merge during the impact, this might explain the Earth’s strong magnetic field. The Moon also functions as gyroscope to stabilize the Earth and creates tidal action which to this day is critical for life in to oceans. Venus and Mars both lack significant size moons and there is no evidence of cataclysmic impacts.
The Earth-Lunar system is absolutely unique in the solar system.
Mike
Finding the Atomic Energy Commission Ads On Coal In The Early 1970’s
1. What ad agency would the AEC use?
2. What demographic would the AEC focus on?
3. Which magazines and news papers would the fulfill that demographic?
4. Where can we obtain copies of these magazines and news papers?
The one magazine which comes to mind immediately is the National Geographic, which is available at many libraries on a CD-ROM set. To bad I canceled my membership this year after 56 years. NG is nothing but a propaganda rag these days. It was a difficult thing to do because my farther purchased the subscription for me on my tenth birthday and I always thought of him with the arrival of each new issue. For what they have done to science I really hate the environmentalists.
The other strong possibility is the New York Times which is completely searchable online for over the last 150 plus years. In the 1970’s most ad agencies would have been located in New York City I have a subscription through my local library. I will start a search immediately.
Here is the story at John-Daily.com on how Margaret Thatcher started the Global Warming scam in 1979. If the AEC ads can be found we could push the date back 7 or 8 years.
Global Warming: How It All Began
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Mike
REPLY: I looked at Nat Geo a few years back and didn’t see it. I’m thinking Popular Science, Popular Mechanix, other sci/tech mags. They would be interested in convincing tech and policy types back then as the GP really didn’t have much thought on it at the time
Basil,
I so hope you are wrong. I fear that you are correct. Tho I am not a scientists the hypothesis that you and Anthony have put forward makes good reasoning. I do know that here in Alabama we are emerging from a very serious drought. We are coming out of the drought in a serious manner, we had 3 snow events this winter,( they were all very light and short lived but the first since 2000. Being poor old country folk we burn wood for our serious heating and are already collecting for next winter. Our farmers are in a bad state, if they don’t make a good crop this year it may turn into a lot of foreclosures. Not a good thing. My concern is,
1 that if the climate cools and the “normal” crops are weakened and don’t produce as projected what happens.
2 I they remove CO2 from the atmosphere at what level does it begin to serioulsy effect the growth of plants. If to much now food becomes a problem and if more of the grain crop is taken for bio fuels the food problem is exacerbated.(starvation ensues) How much food supply in months is stored for emergency use, and who will decide who is fed?
3 How long before the warmers decide that it is to cold. Will they even notice from their carbon credit protected use of carbon (CO2 producing) fuels.
I just don’t like the way this is shaping up and I wonder how many will suffer because of the way this debate is being moderated. (I use the term loosely) I firmly believe we are in trouble.
Bill
Basil, yes, Leif has corrected me. It is rounded and peaked maxima of cosmic rays. Any idea why one solar cycle has a correlation between clouds and cosmic rays, and the next not, or even if that is true?
Jeff A. I think High clouds are supposed to cool the earth and low ones heat it, but I’m not sure anyone knows for sure. The effect is probably different from night to day also. For sure, we don’t understand clouds. Now, my couplet again, for those who are not thoroughly sick of it.
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
==================================
underwater volcanoes:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12218#comForm
” The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.
The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.”
Also on CO2 from volcanic activity:
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=49496&sn=Detail
“Super volcanoes such as Toba, Yellowstone, and Taupo have been the worst offenders. Just one volcano alone, Milos (Greece), produces 2% of the Earth’s CO2 atmospheric levels from a hot spring the size of a table”, according to Plimer. “
What an interesting read. How have the scientists (some anyway that are in power -government) become so subjective? Was there ever a peer review-debunking or validation of some of this 1950-1970’s articles like Teller, Weart or James Hansen? Or is this work still valid today?
Carl Sagan captivated most young 15-30 via TV, in that era. Listening and talk-back to SPACE seemed then very noble (Sagan’s big sales job). Science Fiction mentality became the snake-oil.
Fission–fusion should be the “today’s debate” concerning energy insead of current AGW solutions.
Biotic or abiotic coal/oil and profuse vegetation growth that would be necessary seem connected. A recent (HIST channel) presentation of the ” Tunguska Event” Siberian explosion in 1908, one of the 160 THERIOES, is the “dirt rock full of carbon fertilizer” asteroid (not an iron meteorite or comet) created the explosion that post vegetation recovery analysis (tree ring) showed significant carbon fertilizing of the area.
And perhaps the notion that Thugs-warlords-kings-dictators all have used in past the same tool-of-control in controlling people – RESOURCES. Control their food, the masses jump into line. Here we are a few months away from a National election, and the current “3” all claim AGW empirical??