And a new song, "Moon over Miasma" -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James R. Fleming Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:34 PM To: [email protected]; geoengineering Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Let's stop using the phrase "solar radiation management"
Don't forget the other 12 hours, which will be "starlight reduction." Jim Fleming On 3/31/10 12:00 PM, "Oliver Morton" <[email protected]> wrote: > As I understand it, solar radiation management is a term that Ken > invented at least in part as a joke when folks at NASA Ames expressed > concern at using the term "geoengineering" in the title of a meeting > at Ames. It was deliberately coined to look opaque, dull and > bureacratic, and as a result it does indeed look opaque, dull and > bureaucratic. > > Jargon is much maligned, in that sometimes it is absolutely necessary. > Technical discussions need technical terms for more than just > excluding the laity. But I don't think that, in this case, the term > actually adds anything to our conversations. "Sunshine reduction", > used analgously to the accepted term "carbon dioxide reduction", would > seem to me to do just fine as a replacement. (I can see that it might > be more accurate to say "surface sunlight reduction", but I'm not sure > it's worth bothering. We don't say "atmospheric carbon dioxide > reduction".) > > The best reason for sticking with SRM is that it's a term already out > there and people sort of know what it means. But I'm pretty sure they > will be able to grasp what "sunshine reduction" means pretty easily, > and new entrants to the debate -- of whom we seem to be expecting, and > indeed soliciting, a fair few -- will find the new term more > transparent and easily grasped. After all, in common parlance sunshine > doesn't really count as radiation. Also, terms often used only as > initialisations can be particularly irksome to people using English as > a second or third language. > > To people who might worry that "sunshine reduction" sounds a bit > ominous, I'd say a) only a bit (sales of sunscreen show that people > are already aware that reducing sunshine can be good) and b) that's a > feature, not a bug. Sounding slightly ominous is no bad thing for a > geoengeering technology. > > So is there a good reason for keeping the term SRM, rather than > shifting to the simpler "sunshine reduction"? If not, let's make the > change. > > (I tried to post a shorter version of this last night, but seem to > have failed: apologies if I end up double posting) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
