> I now use generic "climate engineering", but note that this > is the same as what is often called "geoengineering". The > person at Asilomar who pointed out that "geoengineering" is > difficult to translate also told me that part of the problem > is that an obvious translation would fail to distinguish the > word from geological engineering. "Climate engineering" has no > translation problem.
I agree. I adopted "climate engineering" when I translated the geoengineering concept in Japanese. "Geoengineering" is indeed quite confusing when one tries to translate it into other languages (at least in the case of Japanese and Chinese). Masa (CRIEPI, Japan) On Apr 1, 5:35 am, Tom Wigley <[email protected]> wrote: > Oliver, > > I think it depends on the audience -- and whether terms are > defined in the text. > > I now use generic "climate engineering", but note that this > is the same as what is often called "geoengineering". The > person at Asilomar who pointed out that "geoengineering" is > difficult to translate also told me that part of the problem > is that an obvious translation would fail to distinguish the > word from geological engineering. "Climate engineering" has no > translation problem. > > Re SRM, I always define first what this means. Then I use "SRM" > as a very convenient abbreviation. > > I'm going to stick with this (and with CDR). > > Tom. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Oliver Morton 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.
