Hi Fester,

Its not that the world suffers from a food shortage, its more a case of a distribution problem. A crises where half a billion go hungry due to localised droughts, floods, wars, climatic conditions, affordability issues, logistical issues etc. World food production has been increasing at a steady rate for the past 200 years, but still millions starve. Any increase in production may not see a decrease in starvation levels, which have grown by 40 million in the past 5 years.

Hi Paul,

Yes, I agree that food production on land is more than sufficient to prevent hunger, but over fishing is creating a hungry ocean.

https://oceana.org/reports/hungry-oceans-what-happens-when-prey-gone-0/

John

"The unresolved question is whether observations at limited scale can justify confidence about outcomes when magnitude, duration, or spatial extent change."

That is why you do experiments. By their nature the outcome is not certain, which is why you start small. If that approach were taken with wind and solar Australia's power grid would not have been such a mess.

"If the effects are inherently chaotic, then claims about influencing rainfall in useful ways become weaker, not stronger."

True, but an effect could still be determined. Determining an effect on marine life would have far less randomness to deal with.

Yes Fester, I agree that over fishing is a major problem, although commercial fish farms may help. I know my Fijian "family" has suffered greatly as fish stocks are depleted by illegal foreign fishing boats in local waters. The Fijian navy have little effect, as it is badly under resourced. That's an area Australia and NZ can offer assistance with more high speed patrol boats, and well trained locals to man them. People tell me that at one time they were able to sell the excess (after family was taken care of) from their small catch, using the cash to buy much needed staples, not no more.

That's fine, Fester, and I don't think we're far apart on the narrow point.

Small, controlled experiments to understand marine ecological responses are uncontroversial and already occur under existing frameworks. But that's a much more limited claim than the original suggestion about influencing rainfall, preventing disasters, or materially helping farmers, which depend on effects being scalable, directional, and decision-relevant despite atmospheric chaos.

Once the discussion is confined to "can we observe an effect on marine life at small scale?", the argument for broader climatic or hydrological outcomes simply isn't being made anymore.

At that point, it's a question of basic research scope, not a suppressed solution or a blocked pathway to large-scale benefit.

Hi Fester,
This is above my pay grade,
But how do we create something (more water) from nothing?

I do watch some videos from time to time on efforts to slow down desertification and revegetate and rejuvenate them.
Here's one I watched a day or so back.
http://youtu.be/77VTMpc6gLc

Hi Paul,

That is sad when local communities suffer because of commercial fishing. With agriculture there is no question that the nutrients need to be returned if land is to remain productive. Yes, nutrients do return to the oceans, but could the process be more effective? That is where research could be useful.

John,

I think that people tend to greatly overestimating the harm from experiments while being oblivious to the great harm from things like pumping raw sewage into oceans.

Hi AC,

I enjoyed your video. As ttbn observed, nearly all speculation, scientific or otherwise, is horseshit, but the tiny fraction that wasn't has left humanity with an immense and valuable legacy. I enjoy natural history, like this vid about early earth with 1000 foot tidal tsunamis every three hours and 1000+ kmh winds. No wonder geologists are often unimpressed with global warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygdO1WRkVmI