I agree with Glenn about this experiment:
“But tampering with the environment is risky, they say, so any experiments must be carried out responsibly and transparently, with the involvement of the scientific community and proper governance.”
I’m inclined to agree, but I’d be more inclined if climate scientists had demonstrated more professional responsibility themselves.
No kidding.
So cannon balls were a climate science experiment? Ship of the line ahoy!
Looks like Italy has found six geologists responsible for their behavior as scientists. Maybe climate scientists are next.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/22/14611225-scientists-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-for-failing-to-predict-italy-quake?lite
Scientists found guilty of manslaughter for failing to predict Italy quake
When scientists start pretending to be oracles whose job is to predict our fate, it’s not surprising that villagers would lynch them when they screw up.
Did you know future crop yields can be determined as accurately as a climatologist’s prediction by sacrificing him, cutting him open, and reading his entrails?
I don’t think the scientists/environmentalists aren’t accounting for scale. They loaded one hundred tons on one fishing boat. Then sailed out into a very large body of water and scattered it. This reminds me of the Gulf Oil spill. In that case the scientists had to reconcile the fact that the oil even in the large quantities that were released was dissipating. Their biggest fear is that a sound sequestering theory will work even on a small scale and will be a win, win for the environment and the fishing grounds.
Engineering Baaaad!!! Hair Shirt Good
Just 100 tons? Sunken ships leach more than that. Heck, the Titanic alone must do more than that. (Let alone Truk lagoon, “iron bottom” sound etc”)
No, any actual risk was infinitesimal. Their real fear was real world experimental DATA that was outside their ability to control. Unlike computer model output from unseen source code.
I have always wondered about this myself. Instead of scrapping U.S. Navy ships, sandblast them then sink them in areas requiring iron fertilization. The other nutrients well up from the ocean floor. Why not put 15,000 tons of iron on the ocean floor? In multiple places?
It looks like a poorly-designed experiment to me. There are already algae blooms, and correlation isn’t causation. The bloom supposedly caused by the experiment could have been caused by any number of other factors; the iron could have had an effect, but how much of the bloom can be attributed to the iron, and how much to other factors such as geothermal vents?
The ocean is full of minerals. With volcanos adding their bits we are just ants.
If society allows people to pollute Mother Earth’s blessed amniotic sac with iron, how long before people pollute it with dihydrogen monoxide?! It’s a slippery slope!