Reply to DOI:10.1029/EO081i047p00564-01
Reply [to “Comment on ‘Operational oceanography: Shall we dance?’”]
Article first published online: 3 JUN 2011
©2000. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
Volume 81, Issue 47, page 564, 21 November 2000
How to Cite
2000), Reply [to “Comment on ‘Operational oceanography: Shall we dance?’”], Eos Trans. AGU, 81(47), 564–564, doi:10.1029/EO081i047p00564-02.(
- Issue published online: 3 JUN 2011
- Article first published online: 3 JUN 2011
- Cited By
Stan Wilson and Muriel Cole have provided an instructive comment on my original essay (It was interesting to learn that they are performing ballet and not opera, and doing the jitterbug and tango and not the waltz and foxtrot, as could have been feared.)
For example, they revealed that at least 1,317 NOAA employees (i.e., approximately 10% of their total workforce) are “operational oceanographers.” ( I would like to assume that they individually recognize their professional or functional identity) When taken together with Richard Spinrad's declared estimate of 2,800 “operational oceanographers” working for the Navy the United States has (neglecting any that may work for other agencies or the private sector) a minimum of 4,000 “operational oceanographers, ”which I believe the research and academic oceanographers will find surprisingly yet interestingly large.