It may be that Jim's book does, indeed, reveal how ideas get tested and often rejected. Having just finished it I'll say it is a compelling read, but my main criticism, besides to wince at the ad hominem and sarcastic asides, is that it lacks analysis. It is compelling science policy advocacy, but I’d appreciate a more analytical, explanatory structure than tragicomedy, and would ask questions like: Why is it that every farfetched, and pretty much even every credible, scheme for controlling the weather and climate that Jim catalogs has been rejected, and is not in use? We’re not managing the exosphere with nuclear bombs (nor, for that matter, digging canals and harbors and extracting natural gas with nuclear explosions), and even the tamer “pathological science” proposals of Langmuir and others have not been implemented. It seems to me this is because they get analyzed, tested, criticized; because we do apply checks on science and technology (and physics plays its hand, too). And collectively we do worry about miss-use, equity, and untoward consequences. As he points out, the revelations that cloud seeding was used in Viet Nam rather quickly helped to squash further development of that technology. This is hardly a history that points to a society willing to do anything, take any risk, to control nature.
Reasoning from analogy is just one approach, but at least it is analytical, and seems pertinent, so let me take up one of Jim’s case studies, Stromfury. In my presentation to the ACC/NAS meeting in June 2009 (where he incorrectly claims to have been the lone voice bringing history and STS themes to bear) I laid out some of the social science literature on social response to weather modification and similar efforts. My paper (on my web site) describes weather mod projects that made explicit attempts to measure social impacts and attitudes, so at least some of the researchers did indeed care to learn about public atttitudes. And I come to a different conclusion about Project Stormfury, which shows how ideas about controlling the weather and climate can be tested, found wanting, and rejected. Stormfury is telling, I think, as the rare case of actual, civilian, in-the-field, research on a scheme that involved potential hemispheric impacts (concerns were raised about seasonal rainfall and reduced poleward eddy energy transport), really the only scheme at this scale of those Jim describes that has actually made it into scientific field trials. And it reveals social checks on science and technology rather than hubris run amuck: complaints about the effects of seeded hurricanes (including hurricanes that were not seeded), led to limits on the experimental area. But Jim didn’t report that, when NOAA scientists sought to shift the experiment to the Pacific, which offered more storms and more room, Japan and China raised concerns and, guess what, the project was canceled (despite the belief even today of some project scientists with whom I’ve spoken that the trials were not conclusive and even that the ice and supercooled water measurements were not definitive). No one has experimented on a hurricane for decades, though their terrible impacts (Andrew, Nargis, Katrina), and credible hypotheses of how they might be weakened, abide. This is hardly historical evidence for arrogance, hubris, and dis-regard for social attitudes and sovereignty of nation-states. I argued at the ACC conference that somewhere between routine cloud seeding (which is widely practiced and, social science studies indicate, accepted) and hurricane modification we found the line past which experimenting on global nature became impermissible. This line emerges in other technologies and I think will emerge again with SRM and probably CDR geo-engineering. My take is that Jim’s catalog of wx/cx control schemes, even though explicitly meant to highlight the craziest schemes and to argue that geo-engineering is “dangerous beyond belief”, actually shows that scientific and policy processes can separate the credible from the incredible, and have applied cautionary tests to geo-engineering. Wexlerian attitudes dominate and Langmuirian schemes have ended up on the ash heap. The history shows that checks on geo-engineering are really quite strong, and we face, as with all controversial but potentially useful technologies, some probability of rejecting research that would have been quite useful, e.g., we find ourselves at Outcome 4, Fig. 6 in the Morgan and Ricke IRGC piece just sent around. I wonder what that probability is. Bill Travis Center for Science and Technology Policy Research University of Colorado at Boulder On Sep 26, 10:52 am, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > ------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
