In August 1912 a small New Zealand newspaper noted a link between rising global coal use and a shift in Earth’s temperature. This brief bulletin has grown into a familiar fragment in the history of climate science. It’s often shared online as an early note about warming, though it was actually a reprint from a New South Wales mining magazine from years earlier.
Why did it take so long for warnings like this to provoke action? The answer lies in a mix of scientific uncertainty, shifting political priorities, and the strong role of fossil fuels in everyday life. Eunice Foote, a pioneering American scientist and advocate for women’s rights, is now recognized for demonstrating the greenhouse effect in 1856, with John Tyndall in Britain following shortly after. Early experiments showed that carbon dioxide and water vapor trap heat, establishing a fundamental link between greenhouse gases and Earth’s temperature more than a century ago.
Forty years later, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius made early calculations about how much the planet would warm if CO2 levels doubled. At that time, atmospheric CO2 hovered around 295 parts per million. Today measurements show levels near 421 parts per million, reflecting a rise well over 40 percent since the pre-industrial era.
The historical note about Arrhenius sits alongside a caption about Eunice Foote, who is often cited as a key figure in greenhouse theory. Arrhenius’s estimations suggested a warming effect from doubled CO2, though he did not predict the full pace of modern warming. He also considered the possibility of an ice age driven by shifting climate, a concern that tempered his optimism as much as it guided his scientific curiosity.
Arrhenius calculated that doubling CO2 could yield a temperature increase, a figure that modern science typically places higher because of the climate system’s complex feedbacks. In Arrhenius’s era, industrial coal was expanding rapidly, shaping economies and daily life. He understood that fossil fuel use would matter for climate, even if the scientific tools of his time limited the precision of his forecasts.
As the 20th century unfolded, the 1912 New Zealand quote sits alongside a broader lineage of climate inquiry. It emerged from a four-page report in Popular Mechanics that drew on Arrhenius and subsequent work, illustrating how ideas travel and become part of public discourse. Yet during that period the connection between CO2 and warming was not universally accepted, and skepticism persisted within scientific and political circles.
World events also shaped the story. The First World War and the rise of oil altered technological trajectories, advancing fossil-fuel industries while delaying attention to climate implications. The notion that human activities could influence the entire planet did not gain traction in policy discussions for many years as energy needs and strategic concerns dominated public life.
In the 1930s the question of human influence on climate resurfaced with new force. British engineer Guy Callendar collected global weather records and identified a warming trend linked to rising atmospheric CO2, though he downplayed the role of CO2 relative to water vapor. Like earlier estimates, his projections tended to understate the speed of warming expected in the ensuing decades, yet his work sparked ongoing scientific debate and interest.
As the late 1930s gave way to global conflict, scientific work paused for a time and the focus shifted toward rebuilding. Callendar’s early expeditions and findings faded from the forefront, yet they helped keep the conversation alive for later generations of researchers.
By 1957 the International Geophysical Year marked a turning point with widescale monitoring of the Earth’s atmosphere and ongoing observations of greenhouse gas rise due to human activity. Petroleum interests and policymakers began to grapple with the real consequences of fossil fuel use. In the ensuing decades the public conversation evolved slowly, while some political actors questioned the science or framed climate action as a political risk rather than a shared necessity.
The Montreal Protocol, aimed at protecting the ozone layer, became a symbol of coordinated international action. It inspired climate advocates to ask whether similar measures could tackle global warming. Yet phasing out a class of chemicals proved easier than restructuring the global energy system, which still relies heavily on fossil fuels for transportation, power, and industry.
Climate skepticism gained a foothold in certain political circles, often amplified by media that sought balance. That approach helped delay decisive actions even as climate impacts—heat waves, heavy rainfall, and other extremes—grew more frequent and severe. The effort to align science, policy, and public opinion continued to face opposition funded by fossil fuel interests and other vested concerns.
By 2005 international efforts moved forward with the Kyoto Protocol, reinforcing the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The road to progress remained contested, with intense debate, policy pushback, and ongoing advocacy from scientists and citizens alike. Still, the trajectory toward greater awareness and more ambitious climate policy has strengthened in the years since, reflecting a growing consensus about the scale of the challenge and the urgency of action.
The best time to act was long ago. The next best time is now. Climate science and social movements have become louder and more united, calling for robust, meaningful steps to reduce emissions and adapt to a warming world. The core scientific message endures: human activities have altered the atmosphere and are changing the climate. Public opinion has shifted in favor of climate action, and policy momentum follows this trend, supported by researchers and communities around the world.
As societies reflect on this history, the purpose remains clear: keep the conversation alive and push for the changes needed to protect the planet for future generations. This ongoing story continues to be studied and discussed in academic settings and by informed citizens who seek practical, evidence-based solutions.
Notes: The core content reflects a synthesis of historical climate science developments and their influence on modern understanding. Citations for further reading are attributed to reputable sources in the scientific community.