Jim-- Really, make up your mind. Now you seem to be saying that OIF patch experiments are "legitimate", but that Climos or perhaps myself in particular have been a hindrance to their moving forward?
Didn't you just get done saying: "Our ignorance of a subject is a justification for not doing field experiments. Do what you like behind closed doors"? I'd think you'd have been happy that scientists planning more field experiments were "vexed" in that process. Do you think that anyone with commercial intentions, past, present or future, in the geoengineering space is a hindrance? Maybe your reasoning extends to include those receiving funding from individuals with commercial ambitions? I think that disqualifies many people here. I also think that for a capital-intensive, engineering-focused very "applied" space like this one, it's not a particularly cogent line of attack. However, I'll tell you for the record quite definitively that Climos is not planning any commercialization, any commercial trials, any proprietary efforts around OIF, now or in the future. My personal intention moving forward is to try to help other pure research efforts that are now contemplated by members of the community. Does that help? Perhaps you can address the question at hand and restrain yourself from thinly veiled personal attacks. Quite surprised at this given our friendly interactions in the past. Dan On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 9:33 AM, James R. Fleming <[email protected]>wrote: > Having been at the Woods Hole meeting, I am well aware that the > oceanographic community is interested in legitimate OIF “patch” 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/%7Eshs> > <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs<http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs>< > 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 > change” -- 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 > climate” -- REvelle and Suess (1957). > > “The 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 controversial” -- 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 “controlling the weather?” Seems to have > fallen on Langmuir’s 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.
