Having been at the Woods Hole meeting, I am well aware that the oceanographic community is interested in legitimate OIF ³patch² experiments and they were quite vexed by proprietary companies planning to go forward with commercialization plans.
On 9/26/10 12:09 PM, "Dan Whaley" <[email protected]> wrote: > You stipulate this James, however, how do you reconcile this with the fact > that for the last two years, the LC has been working to draft a Risk > Management Framework for OIF so that field experiments that meet the criteria > of "legitimate scientific research" might actually continue-- specifically in > order to decrease our "ignorance of the subject"! This is being done in a > regulatory body which includes many people that are extremely wary of this > concept, and yet on the balance they have agreed to move forward. The vote to > move forward with the language that provides for "legitimate scientific > research" was unanimous between all contracting parties. > > Many people contributed to the thinking, the scientific basis, and the > environmental impact analysis of why this made sense, and why it would not be > a threat to the marine environment, the preservation of which is the mandate > of this body. > > Do you not believe that it is possible to assess the specific impact of > specific experiments at specific scales in such a way as to make a > determination of their safety? > > Many thoughtful people disagree with you. Perhaps a more detailed, scientific > rationale as to why this is the case would be more helpful. I'd like to > understand your thinking. > > D > > > On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:45 AM, James R. Fleming <[email protected]> wrote: >> Our ignorance of a subject is a justification for not doing field >> experiments. Do what you like behind closed doors. >> >> >> >> On 9/26/10 10:59 AM, "Stephen Salter" <[email protected] >> <http://[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>> Hi All >>> >>> It is good to have the correct attributions to wise statements but the main >>> point of my reply to James was the attempt to get comments and help for >>> small experiments which he had said could not be done. It is odd to say >>> that our ignorance of a subject is a justification for NOT doing research on >>> it. >>> >>> Stephen >>> >>> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design >>> Institute for Energy Systems >>> School of Engineering >>> Mayfield Road >>> University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL >>> Scotland >>> Tel +44 131 650 5704 >>> Mobile 07795 203 195 >>> www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs> >>> <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs> > >>> >>> On 25/09/2010 22:17, James R. Fleming wrote: >>>> Re: [geo] Fleming in Slate magazine (also others articles) Colleagues: >>>> >>>> >>>> Stephen Salter wrote: Ken has pointed out that we are already carrying out >>>> an dangerous planetary test which we do not understand. Lowell says that >>>> we started it thousands of years ago. >>>> >>>> I believe the proper attribution for these ideas are not Caldeira and Wood >>>> but a combination of Glbert Plass and Roger Revelle and Hans Suess for the >>>> first and William Ruddiman for the second. >>>> >>>> >>>>> "If at the end of this century, measurements show that the carbon dioxide >>>>> content of the atmosphere has risen appreciably and at the same time the >>>>> temperature has continued to rise throughout the world, it will be firmly >>>>> established that carbon dioxide is an important factor in causing climatic >>>>> change² -- Gilbert Plass (1956). >>>>> >>>>> "Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment >>>>> of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in >>>>> the future. Within a few centuries we are returning to the atmosphere and >>>>> oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored in sedimentary rocks over >>>>> hundreds of millions of years. This experiment, if adequately documented, >>>>> may yield a far-reaching insight into the processes determining weather >>>>> and climate² -- REvelle and Suess (1957). >>>>> >>>>> ³The hypothesis (Ruddiman, 2003 >>>>> <http://courses.eas.ualberta.ca/eas457/Ruddiman2003.pdf> >>>>> <http://courses.eas.ualberta.ca/eas457/Ruddiman2003.pdf%3E> ) that early >>>>> agriculture caused large enough emissions of greenhouse gases millennia >>>>> ago to offset a natural climatic cooling remains controversial² -- >>>>> Ruddiman. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Also, there is no doubt that clouds can be brightened (by ships tracks, >>>> etc.), but is this a climate test? Do you know that in 1947 Kathleen >>>> Blodget at General Electric told Irving Langmiur that intervening in a >>>> cloud was something much different than ³controlling the weather?² Seems >>>> to have fallen on Langmuir¹s deaf ears. >>>> >>>> Jim Fleming -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "geoengineering" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>>> <http://[email protected]> . >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> [email protected] >>>> <http://[email protected]> . >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>>> >>> >>> >>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>> >>> -- 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.
