The idea of anthropogenic global climate change in the 20th century

Abstract

People had long speculated that human activities might affect a region's climate. But a developed conjecture that humanity might change the climate of the entire planet first appeared in 1896: a calculation that carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion could gradually warm the globe. Scientists soon rejected the idea. Most people thought it incredible that climate could change globally except on a geological timescale, pushed by forces far stronger than human activity. In midcentury, a few scientists revived the hypothesis of global warming. Meanwhile, the exponential growth of human activity, especially chemical pollution and nuclear armaments, was showing that humanity really could affect the entire atmosphere. Moreover, during the 1960s research suggested that small perturbations might lead to an abrupt change in the climate system. Although nobody expected serious impacts until the distant 21st century, some began to frame global warming not just as a scientific puzzle but as an environmental risk, a security risk, a practical policy question, an international relations issue, and even a moral problem. In the late 1970s a scientific consensus began to take shape, culminating around the end of the century in unanimous agreement among government representatives on essential points, although many uncertainties remained. Meanwhile, increasing media warnings of peril made most of the literate world public aware of the issue, which had deep implications for the human relationship with nature. Skepticism persisted, correlated with aversion to regulation. The majority of the world public were now concerned, but disinclined to take action. 

Climate Change Communication by a Research Institute: Experiences, Successes, and Challenges from a North European Perspective

“…Anthropogenic climate change emerged as one of the key topics of the public environmental agenda in the late 1980s (Weart, 2010). From 2006 onwards, media coverage of climate change faced an upsurge in all countries for which data is available (CSTPR, 2013;Holt & Barkemeyer, 2012;Fig.…”

Coming full circle: the history of loss and damage under the UNFCCC

“…Over three decades later, in 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius maintained that doubling the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere would lead to an increase in temperature of between 5°C and 6°C while a tripling of CO 2 would lead to an increase in temperature of between 7°C and nearly 10°C (Arrhenius, 1896). That same year fellow Swede Arvid Högbom discovered that industrial processes were contributing as much CO 2 to the atmosphere as were natural processes, which over the coming centuries could lead to significant warming (Weart, 2010). This early work was largely ignored until in the 1930s when the study of anthropogenic global warming was revived by English engineer Guy Stewart Callendar.…”

“…Callendar concluded that observed warming in the atmosphere was the result of a 10% increase in the concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere over the preceding century and warned that the warming would continue as the use of fossil fuels increased (Ibid). By the 1970s a scientific consensus was forming based on mounting evidence of the way in which human activities had contributed to a changing climate (Weart, 2010).…”

The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies

“…Despite contrary propaganda in media and politics, most climatologists agree that the environmental crises are indeed anthropogenic (IPCC 2007;Steffen 2010;Weart 2010). It's likely to be a sad story -'Humans in the era of unsustainability kept dipping their greedy hands deeper into the earth's crust, extracting its stores of resources.…”