​We hear a lot about Climate Change today, but it wasn't a hot topic when I was young. Climate was climate, and that was that. So when did climate change become a concern to scientists, to society, or to governments, and when did the United Nations become involved in studying global warming? If you've ever wondered, Joshua Howe's book, "Behind the Curve" provides the answers. The book ​discusses the ​​origins of the international efforts to recognize and address climate change​, from both the historic and scientific perspective​.​ ​

​I found it interesting to learn that some of the ​impetus for climate studies may be found in the Cold War tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. Among many other concerns, nuclear arms among them, were concerns with developing a mastery of space in those early years of satellites and beginnings of space travel. Some military planners and scientists worried about Soviets altering the weather to cause drought and flooding, raise sea level, divert the Gulf Stream, and change temperate climates to frigid. Another fear ​was ​that​ the Soviets might spread colored pigments over polar ice, or pump warm water into the Arctic Ocean, ultimately melting the ice caps leading to flooding American coastal cities ​while creating warm​-water Soviet ports.

As a result, studies about climate, and what affects the climate, began in earnest. And aside from military concerns, other environmental problems with potential to impact the climate were noted. Among them were the development of supersonic transport airplanes (SSTs) due to concerns about their environmental impacts. Industrial emissions and aerosols, and carbon dioxide were also identified as potential contributors to a changing climate. These were not local concerns, but were global, and as such, require​d global initiative​s​ to address. ​A ​1970 Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP) addressed climate as an environmental problem, including CO2 effects, airborne particulates, and SST emissions. ​This ​Group focused on making more and better science​, thinking better science would result in better solutions to the problems​. In 1971, ​the ​International Council of Scientific Unions Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) presented a global scientific research plan to the UN that would use the W​orld Meteorological Organization (W​MO​)​ Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP) to address questions raised by the SCEP report. ​These​ studies ​all ​required international cooperation​​ since expensive satellites, balloon, ships, and computers were needed​. Sharing resources and data enhanced the project​, and to some extent, matched the scientists global research self-interests.​ These early studies and reports became preparatory documents for UN involvement and the UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1972.

​Also around this time, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a member-driven advocacy organization committed to advancing science in the public interest and the largest scientific organization in the world, decided to make climate change the focus of a long-term international initiative. The multi-disciplinary subject of climate represented the sort of long-range scientific effort of international consequence that could command the interest of a wide segment of the association's membership. University climatologists also promoted further research in this area, sometimes competing and sometimes aiding atmospheric modelers at government and quasi-government institutions. ​In 1978, AAAS identified at least 10 Federal agencies involved in climatic research, but had not yet developed a mechanism for dealing with the various international groups, mostly UN agencies, interested in climate change. ​

Mr. Howe then goes on to describe how the UN became a focal group for the various groups studying climate change and causes, leading up to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN-IPCC), and the series of reports issued by the IPCC. He also points out that the recent ideological divide on global warming / climate change is not a new development. President Reagan made ​severe cuts for the budget for climate and environmental studies, and his ​appointment of industry backed anti-environmental department heads prompted protests from scientists concerned about environmental dangers. So even back then in the 1980's, conservative "industry first" proponents and progressive "science first" advocates found themselves on opposite sides of the debate.

One​ sidelight to the story which I found particularly interesting was the discussion on the oft-repeated story of how climate scientists in the 1970's were predicting the coming of the next ice age. That is often used by climate skeptics to reinforce the notion that the science is not settled, and that actions to limit carbon emissions are not warranted at this time. Howe discusses th​is 'myth', and provides ​substantial background on this issue. ​While it is true that there was a small group of climatologists who felt at that time that volcanoes and aerosols, and their cooling effects, would dominate the warming effect of increasing CO2, they ​were in the minority. ​This was an era when satellites were just coming into use, and computer models were in their incipient stages. And soon, the increasingly sophisticated computer models, incorporating variables like humidity, seasonality, and tropospheric and stratospheric behavior, reaffirmed the atmospheric scientists initial conclusions that CO2 was the biggest impact on global temperatures and climate stability. It was shown that some aerosols would have a cooling effect, but other aerosols, depending upon their height, distribution, and longevity, would have a warming effect. ​Reports of the NAS Climate Research Board linked CO2 to warming throughout the mid-1970's, and by 1976 only a few scientists still held to the idea of global cooling.​

"Behind the Curve" doesn't provide much in the way of scientific evidence supporting climate change, but provides the historical background making the point that the scientists seem to have gotten the science right, but the politics wrong. Science arguments alone have failed to carry the day, and there's more work to be done, especially in the political arena, which needs to be done to deal with climate change in an effective way. ​ ​​ ( )