Talk:Solar radiation modification

No Aluminum?

How does this article not mention Aluminum even once? Alumina is probably THE major ingredient of proposed Solar Radiation Management. There has been no question that Aluminum is considered an efficient and cheap sunlight-reflecting substance for a potential SRM injection program. There should also be a paragraph covering the specific human health effects of breathing Aluminum, and the Sulphur substances, and the others. The human health risks from inhaling those substances are well known...just look at the CDC.GOV, NIH.GOV, websites. As an example, inhaling Aluminum dust will possibly increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and dementia of the Alzheimer's type. The discussion of these many great and earth-beneficial SRM proposals for putting various substances into the atmosphere should be accompanied by a few words about the commonly known inhalation risks. Gtoman (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed 1010

Google Books allowed me to view material in Appendix Q of the 1992 report, which clearly shows the value is 10¹⁰ kg, not 1010, which seems slight for geoengineering. - MaxEnt (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

3.7 watts/m^2

Also, it's a bit bush league to bandy about the 3.7 watts per square meter number without putting it into the context of the insolation level presumed to equate to the climate stability of the last century or so. The insolation article cites 250 watts/square meter, but doesn't make it clear if this is the old CO2 number or the new CO2 number, or even if it's a directly comparable number. Would a doubling of CO2 amount to about a 1.5% increase in solar capture? That's an impressive feat for 1:2500 change in atmospheric composition. - MaxEnt (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And it is really necessary to say that everything is "insufficient" to offset the 3.7 W/m^2? The article would read better if a brief explanation of how albedo relates to the effect of greenhouse gases, what total change to albedo would be required, and then list the possible techniques & their effectiveness. Only a dummy would assume that an SRM system would employ only one technique; therefore, give the reader the ability to see how much of each technique would be needed to reach a given goal. 69.174.87.108 (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Solar radiation management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214164046/http://infohost.nmt.edu/~chem/wingenter/Wingenter_PeECE_III_GRL_2007.pdf to http://infohost.nmt.edu/~chem/wingenter/Wingenter_PeECE_III_GRL_2007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081121133842/http://www.carbonplanet.com/downloads/Climate_Effects_of_Forests_Full.pdf to http://www.carbonplanet.com/downloads/Climate_Effects_of_Forests_Full.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Solar radiation management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024114948/http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0627-planktos.html to http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0627-planktos.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120729204936/http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm to http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716111831/http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/files/Latham_Nature_1990.pdf to http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/files/Latham_Nature_1990.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229065716/http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/files/cloud_albedo_onepage_handout.pdf to http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/files/cloud_albedo_onepage_handout.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716111854/http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/files/cloud_albedo_atmos_sci_lett_2002.pdf to http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/files/cloud_albedo_atmos_sci_lett_2002.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206034752/http://www.global-warming-geo-engineering.org/Albedo-Enhancement/Surface-Albedo-Enhancement/ag21.html to http://www.global-warming-geo-engineering.org/Albedo-Enhancement/Surface-Albedo-Enhancement/ag21.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417153949/http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=370 to http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=370

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Rename article to: Solar geoengineering

• https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/
• https://www.carbonbrief.org/halving-global-warming-with-solar-geoengineering-could-offset-tropical-storm-risk

Seems like a more common term for solar radiation management, any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurrayScience (talk • contribs) 12:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge and reduce lead and Purpose section

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Maximal apologies for editing without discussing! MurrayScience kindly pointed out that I should discuss changes here before publishing.

The lead has a few imprecisions (e.g. "SRM can prevent the climate change associated with global warming"). And I think the purpose section drags on a bit and has many repetitions/imprecisions.

I propose to delete the purpose section and replace the lead with the following:

Solar radiation management (SRM), or solar geoengineering, is a type of climate engineering in which sunlight (solar radiation) is reflected back to space to reduce impacts from global warming. The most discussed methods are stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. SRM can theoretically be deployed and become fully active within months and would have a relatively low financial cost. There are many physical risks and uncertainties associated with solar geoengineering including termination shock, ozone loss, and ecosystem impacts. Geopolitical risks also arise as any deployment will affect the whole planet.

After the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Luzon Island, Philippines) on 15 June 1991, the stratospheric aerosol cloud reflected enough solar radiation to cause up to a degree of cooling in global-mean surface temperature for the following year, but with different impacts depending on the location and season. In climate models, solar geoengineering can reduce the global mean surface temperature. A 2% reduction in absorbed solar radiation would approximately be enough to balance the radiative forcing from doubling preindustrial CO₂ concentrations . It is however important to note that while cancelling the radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gases can bring the global mean temperature back to preindustrial levels, the geoengineered climate would be different from the preindustrial one in ways that remain understudied (such as changes in precipitation patterns, stratospheric ozone concentrations, and excess carbon dioxide in the ecosystem).

It was also found that reducing the warming from greenhouse gases by half with stratospheric aerosol injection would moderate global warming impacts everywhere on the planet. However, there would be other climate and ecosystem impacts which remain understudied. The climate outcome of solar geoengineering depends entirely on the method, time, and location used to reflect solar radiation. The most optimistic scenario is one where solar geoengineering serves as a temporary response while greenhouse gas emissions are cut and carbon dioxide is removed. --Mhenryclimate (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC).

A few questions: 1. what's the issue of saying SRM can prevent the climate change associated with global warming? If SRM eliminates radiative forcing then the average temperature stays constant (or goes back to its pre-industrial average), and the climate change associated with global warming is averted. 2. Relatively low financial cost, should be clarified, relative to what? 3. Why use "theoretically" deployed? I think the summary that the geopolitical risks arise because deployment 'affects the whole planet' is rather vague. There are uncertainties with how solar geoengineering would be governed, see the first sentence of that section: "Climate engineering poses several challenges in the context of governance because of issues of power and jurisdiction". 4. I don't think the lead should tell the story of Mount Pinatubo, that's very specific, and it's already in the lead of Stratospheric aerosol injection. 5. The 2% reduction line is from a 2013! paper, we should not have original research in the lead, that's way too specific, and at the very least the figure of 2% should be verified form the paper with a quote from the paper that would go in the citation. 6. There are uncertainties about changes in the precipitation patterns, stratospheric ozone concentrations, etc. And these might be entirely specific to stratospheric aerosol injection with sulfur dioxide, rather than other forms such as thinning cirrus clouds. We want the lead to make statements that are true about solar geoengineering in general, rather than just one method. 7. The lead should be approachable to a layman/laywomen and thus should not include technical words such as 'radiative forcing', notice that the one technical term albedo has an explanation (reflectivity) next to it. 8. The 'most optimistic scenario' is rather vague, who thinks this is optimistic? (That's an opinion not an encyclopedia-type fact.) 9. Where in the wiki page does it say that SRM depends entirely on the 'method, time and location'?

In general, the way leads are edited in Wikipedia is not through complete re-writes. It shouldn't be surprising that a lead is difficult to edit, this is because it goes through years of crafting and perfection. My suggestion is this: copy and paste the lead into this talk page, then make incremental changes to the lead as it is, adding or subtracting sentences with justifications. That's generally how leads are changed. In general, a lead should summarize information that's already covered in the article, rather than introduce new specific information that's not in the article. It should be as conservative as possible in the sense that all statements in the lead should be extremely well verified and discussed in much greater detail in the article below.

Also, if you would like to see the latest development in solar geoengineering, please see this report (from last week) from the National Academy of Sciences (https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/developing-a-research-agenda-and-research-governance-approaches-for-climate-intervention-strategies-that-reflect-sunlight-to-cool-earth). You can download the full report for free, I highly recommend it. You can also see this new york times article on it (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/climate/geoengineering-sunlight.html) and this Guardian article on it (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/25/top-us-scientists-back-100m-geoengineering-research-proposal).

On another note, I think the 'Purpose' section is a combination of two things: The general methodology of solar geoengineering, and the developments of solar geoengineering. The developments section would have the Andrew Yang thing, the statements by the royal society and Harvard, the recent report form the National academy of sciences (that I just linked to), and this Harvard field experiement (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/geoengineers-inch-closer-sun-dimming-balloon-test). So I would split up the purpose section into those two sections. As before, if you would like to work on this, please develop in the talk page as these are big changes. MurrayScience (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will go for the step-by-step edits of the lead.
A few responses:

1. The climate is not just a function of TOA radiation balance, so cancelling the global-mean radiative forcing from CO2 by reducing insolation will not restore the preindustrial climate. There will for example be differences in precipitation patterns and seasons and side-effects from the SRM technique used (ozone, cloud changes, etc for SAI for example). I think it is misleading to suggest we can just cancel the effects of global warming and is not how it is talked about in the literature.
2. The reference 1 is to a paper that talks about that (I can add it properly using the cite tool but can't seem to do that in the talk page). Again, not straightforward to say it's cheap, but yes, just saying relatively cheap is vague!
3. Agree.
4. Agree.
5. That's a very uncontroversial figure, I just referenced the GeoMIP G1 paper. I think it's worth giving a sense of proportion as to how much solar radiation needs to be reflected in the lead.
6. Well, it's complicated because most of the research in solar geoengineering is actually on stratospheric aerosol injection. So I think it makes sense to have most of the discussion on that, including risks and so on. Otherwise, we could have quite a short solar geoengineering page, and a more in-depth discussion on the stratospheric aerosol injection page, but I'd worry that nobody visits the SAI page as it may seem niche.
7,8. Agree

Thanks I am generally following the recent literature on the topic, hence my desire to contribute.

Splitting the 'Purpose' section sounds good, I think it's a weak section. Methods section could go through 1. SAI 2. MCB 3. cirrus cloud thinning as per the NAS report. Development section: the various reports and SCOPEX. (Not fussed on the Yang thing, would be a bit too USA-centric.) --Mhenryclimate (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Responding to your points:

1. I agree, that makes sense, though I think the difference between the solar geoengineered climate and the pre-industrial climate (assuming they have the same mean temperature) is a function of which method is used. Thus, if we're to make a statement like 'the ozone is affected', we need to make that 'ozone loss has been shown to be a potential risk with stratospheric aerosol injection of sulfur dioxide', for example. (As it may not be a risk with something like calcium carbonate.) It's important not to make general statements which apply to some methods but not others, with the wrong implication that they apply to all methods. But yes in general I agree with your point.

5. The first paragraph in the 'purpose' section discusses this. Let me know what you think. Might be a bit detailed for a lead, but it can work possibly. Also the 2% goes with doubling CO2, and we're a long ways from doubling CO2 concentration, that's kind of a worst case scenario.

6. Yes but SAI may not win out in the end. We can't assume it's the default/only SRM method. Any statements that apply to SAI need to be specified as such. Under 'view history' you can see the pageviews of the SAI page and this page. It actually gets more (https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Stratospheric_aerosol_injection%7CSolar_geoengineering).

I made a sandbox here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MurrayScience/Solar_geoengineering) feel free to develop edits there, should be much easier.

I love your ideas for a 'Methods' section. And I'm glad you agree that we could split the Purpose section into a 'Development' section and perhaps the rest can go into the intro of the 'Methods' section. I also think 'Methods' should go before 'advantages', and 'limitations and risks'. I think the Yang thing is important because it's an example of SRM in politics, and the US is a major/important country obviously. If you can find examples from the EU, China, Russia, India, etc. I would be happy to include that. It's just all I found.

Also please check out the national academy of sciences links I sent, I think it's rather important, probably gives a wide-ranging and unbiased review of the methods (which is exactly what we want on Wikipedia), and play be a big role in the Development section. :)

It's great to have someone else working on this article. I think it can be improved a lot. As I said, if you would like to work in the sandbox I linked to, that's a perfectly legitimate way to prepare an article as long as it's clearly linked in the talk page, and it should be easier to work there. MurrayScience (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Replace first image

The first image is from SPICE which is no longer an active project. I like the visualization on page 2 of this. Or this one. I am aware there may be copyright issues though... --Mhenryclimate (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I like those images, but it's very difficult to get images onto Wikipedia. If you can then great, but it's complicated. One way to do it is to make your own, but that's a lot of work and you may not be a graphic designer. I think the point that it was made under SPICE is relatively mute, it shows solar geoengineering and that's what matters. On the other hand, I like those sources in general, so if you would like to work on including information from those sources in the article, that would be great. In general, when you include a source you can add a quote tag. These are VERY helpful when verifying the statement. So please have quotes from sources you cite, which verify the statement you make with that source. Here's an example (you can click 'edit' this section to see the citation how the quote works in the citation):

Solar geoengineering's low cost means that a single nation could conduct it unilaterally. MurrayScience (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

(If you hover over the blue citation number thing, you can see the quote.) Isn't that wonderful? I think so. MurrayScience (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That is pretty neat! Mhenryclimate (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

References

New section : How SRM interacts with other climate change responses.

I propose to write a new section on the "knapkin diagram" which describes how SRM fits with emission cuts and CO2 removal in terms of climate response.

Here is an example of the diagram. I still need to figure out which images I am allowed to use on wikipedia...

Draft text as follows:

This figure plots climate impacts as a function of time. Climate impacts (such as sea level rise, heat waves, changes in precipitation…) are roughly proportional to the global mean surface temperature change. If we do not manage to reach net zero emissions (”business as usual” in red), these climate impacts will rise continuously. If we cut emissions aggressively, the climate impacts will only stop growing when we reach net zero emissions, and they will stay high for as long as CO2 concentrations (not emissions!) are high. Hence, we need CO2 removal (green) to bring climate impacts back down. However, those are slow and expensive for now. Solar geoengineering, is then considered as a way to moderate the impacts of warming while we remove excess CO2 (blue).

--Mhenryclimate (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I love the napkin diagram but please link sources about it. (The paragraph needs to have good sources obviously.) It's best to avoid using words like 'we' or 'we need to'. But in general, I like the idea. It is hard to get images on Wikipedia, so if you would like to make that plot on your own you could upload it to Wikipedia. MurrayScience (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Re-organizing Limitations and Risks section

Keith makes a useful distinction in understanding the risks involved in SRM. There is a fair bit of literature on each of these, but let me know what you think of this structure.

• Physical risks of wise use (Ozone loss, acid rain, monsoon failure, ocean acidification, less rain, air pollution from particulates, impacts on agriculture, solar power generation, predictability of weather)
• Risk of misuse (Climate wars, more inequality)
• Moral hazard (Does research into SRM increase the probability that it will be deployed? How will it affect our resolve to cut emissions?)
• End of nature (more philosophical point on how we as humans would be consciously manipulating nature on a global scale. Analogy with nitrogen cycle could be mentioned here).

--Mhenryclimate (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but it's important that the physical risks are tied to the methods that would produce them. For example, would calcium carbonate lead to ozone loss? What's the certainty about this? Rather than just general statements like 'solar geoengineering can cause ozone loss'. In what situations? In summary, go for specificity. And refer to the article as it is, many of this information is already in the article, so incremental changes can be made to those sections if information should be added or rephrased. MurrayScience (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Rename SRM tags to solar geoengineering?

It seems like SRM is an out-dated reference to solar geoengineering. I propose we replace all the 'SRM' abbreviations in the article with 'solar geoengineering'. Any thoughts? MurrayScience (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Agree! Mhenryclimate (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll do it on my computer in the next couple of days. MurrayScience (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead changes

Replace: However, SRM has been shown in climate models to be capable of reducing global average temperatures to pre-industrial levels, therefore SRM can prevent the climate change associated with global warming.[4].

With "In climate models, solar geoengineering can reduce the global mean surface temperature with varying regional impacts on temperature and precipitation (Visioni et al. 2021). It was also found that reducing the warming from greenhouse gases by half with stratospheric aerosol injection would moderate global warming impacts almost everywhere on the planet (Irvine and Keith 2020)."

I can add the citations properly later with the cite button (Can't do it here?) and the Visioni paper covers both SAI and turning down the sun experiments. --Mhenryclimate (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

How about this: Solar geoengineering has been shown in climate models to be capable of reducing global average temperatures, for example to pre-industrial levels, though with varying regional impacts on temperature and precipitation (Visioni et al. 2021). Nonetheless, it was shown that reducing the warming from greenhouse gases by half with stratospheric aerosol injection would moderate global warming impacts almost everywhere on the planet (Irvine and Keith 2020).

Can you please copy and paste the quotes from these articles that we would use in the citation? I wanted to mention the pre industrial average because that’s what’s shown in the figure of the current citation (yellow line for SRM). And yes editing a talk page is different, if you would like we could make a sandbox and work there. MurrayScience (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If a sandbox is like a draft, then yes, that'd be great. I can then make all the changes that I think should happen, and we could discuss them there. Cheers. Mhenryclimate (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Reversing climate change

Hi everyone. Currently the first sentence says solar geoengineering would "limit or reverse human-caused climate change." I am really uneasy about the term "reverse". The word suggests that we can keep emitting, bring on climate havoc, and then use solar geoengineering to wind back the clock. What sources suggest that it can be used to reverse climate change? Is this a majority or a minority point of view? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've taken out the "reverse" part now as I thought this should be uncontroversial. Even the word "to limit" is perhaps a bit unclear? Maybe we should have a definitions section for this article where we list the main definition (plus alternative definitions if they exist) of the term solar geoengineering? EMsmile (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The word "reverse" appears a second time in the article here: This technique can give more than 3.7 W/m² of globally averaged negative forcing, which is sufficient to reverse the warming effect of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Is that wording valid? EMsmile (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Edits made by User:InformationToKnowledge

InformationToKnowledge, in April, editors RCraig09, Femke and EMsmile, discussed with you the idea of editing incrementally. Unfortunately, you appear to still be making massive edits to Solar geoengineering, as recent as 2 July. It makes it virtually impossible to tell what exactly you are doing. This is particularly problematic if you edit summary with "A pro-space sunshade editor appears to have distorted the article", which indicates you're not just changing grammar or style. Also, in the edit summary you write "Plus, more corrections of duplicated references." which you could have done in a separate edit. You also appear to have broken a ref in the article, near "Solar geoengineering methods include:". Wikipedia is a collaborative project, please edit incrementally and/or in a single section at a time. Finally, remember WP:OWN. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:5603:2E05:BD9:C421 (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@InformationToKnowledge: I agree with 'C421. Your giant edits are impossible for others to understand or review, and some of your edit comments are misleading. Please stop. These are issues related to violations of WP:OWNership of article, which can cause your editing privileges to be limited. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I am finding the work that InformationToKnowledge is doing very valuable and constructive but I do agree with the other two people here that incremental editing is preferable. In addition, my advice to InformationToKnowledge is to use the talk pages more and to explain on the talk pages any bigger changes that might be planned or that have been executed. This helps for people who are watching this page. And I wouldn't say "please stop", I would say "please carry on but make those small changes to your editing routines". Your work will be valued and appreciated even more then! EMsmile (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. The issue is that the ideal of collaboration needs a certain baseline level of community activity to function - the kind of baseline which tends to be absent for far too many articles. WikiProject is stretched far too thin, and only relatively few articles (mostly to do with mitigation, from my impressions) have been continually kept up to date across their length. While those are important, the imbalance means many other articles had >50-70% of their content written 10-15 years ago, and this just seems to be accepted as a given.

Leaving comments on talk pages is a fine idea in principle, but in my experience, they often get ignored and it just slows things down. When hundreds of people view these pages every day and can get at times receive very wrong impression from what is said on the page, this is hardly an idle concern. For the record, I did mention that I intend to be reorganizing this article in the near future on the WikiProject talk page right here, on June 29th, several days before the July 2 edits that are now discussed here. Maybe I could have been clearer, but nobody asked for clarification in all the time in between. Indeed, several posts I made about the subject went completely uncommented on. (Most recently, this one.)

I find it dismaying that User:RCraig09 can apparently spot a comment criticizing me and swoop in after just 20 minutes, yet ignore the proposals/requests for comment I make for days or even months. For that matter, that series of edits of May 23 (the ones which my edit responded to) was also not previewed either on the talk page or on the WikiProject - yet nobody seems to have taken an issue with that, or with the very clear balance/due weight shortcomings those edits had introduced. That is, not until I had time to look at the page again, over a month later. (How can leaving pages alone for weeks or months, trusting the process not to introduce any issues, square with accusations of WP:OWN?) Similarly, I would like to know which one of my edit summaries had been "misleading". And I must (once again) say that being incremental is easier when the articles have a stable, coherent, logical structure that does not need changes, rather than when whole (sub)headings are better off reorganized.

In all, I understand that one can have concerns about the manner in which edits are done and I have been trying to incorporate this feedback - see the recent revision history of Holocene extinction, for instance. At the same time, can we, collectively, have a little more focus on what the articles we have are telling to our readers, in addition to how they are edited (or even how they are written - readability is important, but I would think completeness and being up-to-date comes first)? This here in particular is an article about a highly contentious topic, which is also not going to fade from the public view any time soon (if anything, the opposite is happening). What is written here is likely to impact real-world decision-making, potentially incuding some very large decisions. I don't want to WP:OWN the responsibility which comes with this and its sister articles, yet somehow, I seem to be the only regular editor who sees it this way, and appears willing to consider the message(s) sent out by the entire article. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I share your frustration. I have that time and time again myself where I wonder "where is everyone?", "am I talking to myself here?", e.g. recently with my work at carbon footprint. Nevertheless, this is the harsh reality of Wikipedia editing. You probably find dozens of editors busy with trivia type articles (movies and so on) for every one editor who is working on climate change topics...

Nevertheless my advice would still be to leave comments (even if they are just short and even if nobody reacts) on the article talk page, not at the WikiProject talk page (or let's say: mainly at the article talk page, less often at the WikiProject CC talk page). Because then if anyone has any doubts or confusion about any big edits you have made, they can quickly read on the article's talk page your reasoning for making the big change. Compare with how I have been writing on the talk page of carbon footprint. I just carry on there, even if I don't get any replies. Sometimes replies only come months or years later or not at all. Still, I think it's a worthwhile thing to do (and it doesn't need to slow you down as you can write on the talk page just after having made your edits). EMsmile (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the impacts of WP articles on real-world decisions: burying readers with techy details is one of the least effective ways to motivate action.

I "swooped in" because 'C421 wrote my username in his post. You should not be "dismayed" when other editors don't respond to your requests for comment: many of your edits are so massive, almost no one would want to spend the time dealing with them. Related: your edits include large numbers of tiny technical details that only tiny numbers of readers of a layman's encyclopedia will be willing to plough through (example: Extinction risk from climate change has 246 instances of "%" which indicate an unmatched level of techy detail, e.g. textualizing confidence ranges). It is no excuse that editing incrementally and providing honest edit comments "slows things down"; the edit comment for this edit is an example of editorializing without explaining the large number of unrelated changes within the edit. Importantly: WP:OWN has to do with editors taking control of articles, not "own"ing the real-world implications of an article. You are far from the only editor who cares about such implications. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I think that the tone of any (constructive) criticism is also important, RCraig09. I find your tone quite often a bit aggressive, at least towards people where you might have formed an opinion that you don't like their style (like myself or InformationToKnowledge). I have learned to live with it and generally have a thick skin. But your comment above where you said "Please stop" and the hint that "which can cause your editing privileges to be limited" really can be disheartening for another editor, especially one who has only been editing since October last year and only has made 500 edits. User InformationToKnowledge is no longer a newbie and I know they can fight for themselves here. Still, if you use the same communication styles towards newbies or people who venture into this CC area from other areas, this could scare people off. Let's try to be nice and friendly to each other and always assume good faith. And I think we should regularly dish out some praise for other people's editing efforts, too, not only criticism. EMsmile (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I just want to note that the bar chart you attached comes from a meta-analysis about field interventions. Its relevance to the point you are trying to make is rather dubious. Most of the techniques it lists aren't even materially possible for Wikipedia (how does an encyclopedia provide rewards or commitment?) and "Appeals" is technically possible, yet explicitly prohibited by WP:NPOV It's entirely possible that from that meta-analysis' POV, all of Wikipedia would be in that first "Facts" category, regardless of how it's written - and that is acceptable, in the sense that it's unrealistic to expect an article (of any kind) to directly compete with a rebate.

Extinction risk article is the most extreme example you could have chosen. It has a scope which lends itself to such details in a way most other articles do not, and many other articles I edited remain a lot more sparing with percentages or numbers. Regardless, I would question the idea that numbers and percentages are inherently ineffective without stronger evidence. We are, after all, talking about a subject where certain numbers (2 and 1.5) and dates (2050 and 2030) have taken on massive significance in the activist movement specifically. A decade earlier, a percentage (99%, or rather 1%) had taken on even greater significance as a rallying cry of another protest movement. Arguably, the most stereotypical layman isn't going to click on an article about impending extinctions in the first place, no matter how it's written. But for those who are prepared to take that plunge, I believe that article will offer a lot. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

POV tag added

I've just added the POV tag to the article. It seems to me that some bias has been introduced which is leveled towards those that are opposed to SRM. Especially the section on "politics" seems to be unbalanced. For example, I have just removed this paragraph which was completely unsourced: Opposition to SRM research has largely come from opponents of emerging technologies, green environmental groups, and some academics, mostly from the social science and humanities but counting a few climate scientists. Each of these constituencies includes substantial socialist shares, which call also for a global redistribution of power and wealth. Their leading arguments are that SRM research would lessen cuts to greenhouse gas emissions (and consequently prevent desired socio-economic transformations), that SRM would be impossible to govern, that it would be too risky, and that it would necessarily be unjust.. Especially that mention of "socialist shares" seems to me very opinionated. The last sentence is also repetitive of what is included earlier in the article.

There was a large chunk of new text added here on 10 March 2024 by User:TERSEYES. Some of that text seems WP:OR to me and very poorly sourced.

In general, this article seems to be heavily reliant on content by the US National Academy of Science. This should be balanced better with content from the IPCC AR 6 report. EMsmile (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this article.

The first sentence by me that you removed introduces the following paragraphs, which provide the sources for opponents of emerging technologies (ETC Group), green environmental groups (Heinrich Boell Foundation), and some academics (the Non-use Agreement effort). I find this sentence to be useful and have returned it. On the other hand, I agree that the other two sentences can be removed. However, the article should state that a key stated motivation of opponents of SRM research is that potential lessened cuts to greenhouse gas emissions would prevent desired socio-economic transformations. I have thus added such a phrase in the subsection Lessened mitigation.

The article relies on the 2021 US National Academies report because IPCC AR6 included just a couple dozen pages on SRM whereas the National Academies report is more than 300 pages. A more recent scientific report dedicated to SRM is UNEP's One Atmosphere, although it too is relatively short. TERSEYES (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi TERSEYES, thanks for your reply. Sorry for the delay, I was on holidays. I've just removed the following content because I could see no source-text integrity here: "This has generally been called a potential "moral hazard", although risk compensation may be a more accurate term. This concern causes many environmental groups and campaigners to be reluctant to advocate or discuss SRM. They and others often emphasize that dramatic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions would also bring co-benefits including socio-economic transformations to sustainability and redistributive equity and that consideration of SRM could prevent these outcomes.".

The source given is some sort of blog post from 2011? Surely we can use more reliable and up to date references if we think this kind of statement is important and there are sources for it. With a better source where there more text-source integrity, this content or similar content could go back in but not without a source. The text that follows also has no source for this statement directly (perhaps indirectly but that's not sufficient).

The sentence that follows has far too many refs. This is called WP:OVERCITE. I mean this sentence "However, several public opinion surveys and focus groups have found evidence of either assertion of a desire to increase emission cuts in the face of SRM, or of no effect." It has seven refs. Better would be to use a secondary source for this kind of statement rather than lots of primary sources.

With regards to the US National Academies report, it may sound impressive but at the end of the day it is just the opinion of lots of scientists from just one country (and there is a good chance it's not overly balanced, given the polarised debate about climate change in the US, political interference, strength of fossil fuel lobby etc.). I think the IPCC report which had global participation is more important here. If they included only a short segment on SRM then there is likely a good reason for it, namely that its role for climate change mitigation is likely tiny (if any). So I think overall, we should follow the reasoning and weighting of the IPCC report more than the US National Academies report.

Pinging User:InformationToKnowledge: I know you have worked on this article in the past. What is your view on it now? Do you agree with me that it has WP:POV issues and comes across as biased? EMsmile (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

So, I am just going to make one comment for now, and it is that I think you are misinterperting the position of the AR6, apparently without having read the relevant section. Yes, in WG2, it is given simply a "Cross-Working Group Box" that's only a few pages, rather than a whole chapter or a "Cross-chapter paper". You know what else also gets the same kind of "Cross-Working Group Box" of about equal size in that chapter? Economic impacts of climate change, and we certainly don't say that topic has a tiny role! (Though, that article could likely do with significant condensing and perhaps removal of less-supported material.)

Now, I agree that this article has substantial issues, but sadly so do a lot of others related to our project. The way the final sections are written isn't really WP:NPOV, sure, but neither is having a very large "Limitations and risks" section and only a much shorter and vaguely written "Evidence of effectiveness and impacts" before it, as opposed to something like "Benefits". Granted, nearly each paragraph on "risk" is self-contradictory with a cacophony of directly opposing sources (or sources cited in a way that seems to place them in direct opposition). That arguably improves NPOV, but definitely brings down article approachability and quality. I don't know when or how I can resume dealing with the issues here again. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, AR6 emphasises the high agreement in the literature that "SRM cannot be the main policy response" to GW, and can be "at best" (my emphases) a supplement to emission reductions. To my read that’s not much different from EMsmile's "likely tiny (if any)" role. That said, I largely agree with you. Safer types of SRM are already being deployed. AFAIK, few insiders see even a snowballs chance of IPCCs net zero dream being achieved in the next few decades, instead viewing the mass deploy of SAI as close to inevitable. (Perhaps only a Fusion break through to power mass CDR can realistically prevent that.) As even the UN recently admit , the tech is "being discussed at the highest level". As to the unsightly POV tag, it's unwarranted in my view. Editor TERSEYES's work since March 2024 has on balance improved the article, though equally EMsmile was right to remove the WP:OR suggestion that opposition to SRM reasearch is largely driven by socialists, and to advise that sweeping statements are generally best supported by wp:secondary sources. It's a shame you don't see yourself doing major work here in the near future I2K, though on the other hand this topic should become easier to work on as it rises up the agenda and attracts more coverage in high tier sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

To me, there is a vast gulf between saying that something is "not the main policy response" or a "supplement" and calling it "tiny". So, it should be appropriate to complement the relatively sparse text of AR6 with other reports, although AR6 should certainly take precedence in any potential disagreements between texts. (Unless there is a credible case to make the other report is using newer data or the like.)

At the same time, while I know that pro-SRM voices have become more high-profile lately, I am yet to hear anyone, insider or otherwise, explain how they think SRM is going to either a) consistently navigate the U.S. budget appropriations process (imagine the SRM fleet getting grounded in a shutdown every few years - and that's assuming the program does not killed due to relatively few lawmakers in the first place) and/or b) get deployed and not end up as a massive source of geopolitical leverage for whoever is putting in the work (i.e. can you imagine the implications for South China Sea and Taiwan Strait tensions if PRC is the primary contributor to SRM?) Until we have anything resembling clarity on this, I would hold off on calling it "close to inevitable".

Lastly, this article is definitely important to work on, but so are a lot of other things. At least, the people checking out this and related articles are generally already reasonably well-aware of both climate change and its severity. Meanwhile, this recent discussion had unintentionally revealed that too many of our articles on past climate events have been badly inaccurate, treating rapid regional changes as if they were global changes, and making the ongoing heating seem much less significant by comparison. I have been able to more-or-less fix the lead of the Bølling–Allerød Interstadial and most recently Younger Dryas, but it seems there is still a lot more work to do on related articles, and I doubt I'll get to turn back to this article until at least that's done. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to both of your for these very informative replies! I need to dive deeper into the IPCC reports and other publications to see if I can help improve the article further and remove any subtle bias or imbalance. For now, I have removed the POV tag that I had placed at the top and have instead added the "unbalanced section" tags, as a less serious tag which makes it perhaps clearer where there problem areas lie (this is better, right?). I am also going to try and reach out to other experts who are more into the topic, and who can help with making this an objective, well-balanced article. EMsmile (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I thank @EMsmile for her attention to this article. I agree that the article needs some updating to rely more on scholarly articles, authoritative reports, and secondary sources. I'll try to put some time into this in the near future, but I am a mere hobbyist, not a professional editor.

I am curious what she sees as unbalanced in the two sections.

I am struck by her dismissal of the 2021 US National Academies report, which she belittles as "just the opinion of lots of scientists from just one country" and speculates that "there is a good chance it's not overly balanced, given the polarised debate about climate change in the US, political interference, strength of fossil fuel lobby etc." The committee was balanced and I have seen no evidence, or even heard accusations of, political interference by the fossil fuel lobby or others. Also, the fact that the IPCC dedicated only a couple dozen pages to SRM could be due to many reasons. We could speculate what these reasons are but they have no bearing on this Wikipedia article.

On to the substance of EMsmile's recent edits, and my reactions

1. She changed the title of the section 'Politics' to 'Critique'. I disagree. The section is about who supports and opposes SRM research, and why, as well as a few relevant developments in this area. The section 'Limitations and risks' offers reason for critique.

I've started a new section on this topic below for further discussion. EMsmile (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

2. Her concern with the sentence 'several public opinion surveys and focus groups have found evidence of either a desire to increase emission cuts in the face of SRM, or of no effect.'' (moved to Public attitudes) is that it had too many references. Since this sentence is about evidence that is contrary to widely held beliefs, it warrants thorough citation. I can look for a secondary source that summarizes this evidence.

I think as per WP:OVERCITE we are not meant to cite 10 publications for a sentence that says “there are many surveys on XX” but just pick out the key surveys. Even better would be to cite just one ref that says “there are many surveys on XX”, like a meta-analysis. EMsmile (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

If there are this many citations (and no meta-analysis), it's best to avoid being lazy and write a proper paragraph on what they all actually found. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, this could end up being WP:OR, so one would have be careful with the wording of such a "summary paragraph". But either way, I think one should carefully select the most reliable sources (2 or 3 should be enough?), and not trying to give this more weight/emphasis by listing 7 refs, all primary sources (?). Apart from this, this sentence is also difficult to understand: Several public opinion surveys and focus groups have found evidence of either assertion of a desire to increase emission cuts in the face of SRM, or of no effect. EMsmile (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

3. She removed from the 'Lessened mitigation' subsection: 'This concern causes many environmental groups and campaigners to be reluctant to advocate or discuss SRM. They and others often emphasize that dramatic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions would also bring co-benefits including socio-economic transformations to sustainability and redistributive equity and that consideration of SRM could prevent these outcomes.' This is relevant but to Politics section, where I have moved it to.

I have to think further about this. Needs checking how well the source-text integrity matches. And also, it seems we would be creating overlap with the section on 'Lessened mitigation'. I think this will need some re-arranging. EMsmile (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

4. She removed from the Politics section, 'There is no meaningful advocacy for the use of SRM. (However, a small start-up business, Make Sunsets, sells "cooling credits" to launch balloons with helium and sulfur dioxide.[110] Many advocates of SRM research have condemned this undertaking.) The most salient political issues thus regard research.' This is true and relevant.

I've started a new section on this topic below for further discussion. EMsmile (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

TERSEYES (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much EMsmile! Great to have the POV tag removed. Yup, I'd agree the section tag is less off putting, much better choice when it's unclear a major POV dispute exists. Let me offer a bit of back ground for your consultation with experts. While UN are sceptical at executive level, SAI has been discussed @ UN by mid rankers for some years now. A program under UN auspices should allay most geopolitical concerns. The US would only be expected to pay at most $5 billion /year to achieve 1 °C global cooling with SAI, far lower than the $2 trillion /yr or more the US would likely initially need to pay to achieve similar with emissions reductions & CDR.

There's essentially 3 broad classes of opposition to SRM, not including minor sub factions like neo-luddites. 1) The IPPC & those who share their concerns. Which are largely that SRM could mask the underlying emissions problem and expose the world to a new set of hard to quantify risks, including termination shock and unevenly distributed -ve side effects. 2) The socialist tendency, who see SRM as a unacceptable distraction from the need for massive emissions reductions, which they think will also usher in a golden post capitalist age. ( "Another world is possible" ). Editor TERSEYES is correct this is a significant faction, but not IMO a clearly dominant one. 3) The spiritual faction. Folk who think man's despoliation of nature has gone far enough, & dont wish to see further attempts to technologically dominate her. While accepting that Spirit & Matter are symbiotic, they believe it's spirit that ultimately holds the high ground. That if the spiritual is continually disrespected, she/he will if necessary respond with more & more extreme weather events. Failing those, with great regret, shrug us off the planet. It's mostly indigenous people who have been fronting this view. E.g. the Sámi as mentioned in the article. Or in the book We Will Be Jaguars, published just 3 days back by Nemonte Nenquimo, who's been in the Time 100 most influential people in the world list. Similar beliefs were entirely mainstream among the Western elite to about the 15th century - they came from a several millennia old tradition that arose out of Egypt, Asia, Israel and the wider Levant. I believe the good UN secretary general has some sympathy with this line of thinking.

Important to note that while IPPC are generally against widescale SRM implementation for now, they & their fellow travellers are not against more SRM research. The other two factions are generally against both. Interestingly, when the UN met @ Nairobi back in Feb 2024, Umbrella Group (essentially global North minus EU) wanted to convene an expert group just to assess SRM but this was easily blocked by global South, with several parties wanting a total halt on even further discussion and research!

I was at UN HQ last summer, Manhattan was absolutely sweltering. As per this Nature article, the anomalous extra heat in 2023 may have been due to the UN undertaking massive reverse-SAI! In 2020 the UN's IMO passed regulations requiring global shipping to switch from high (~3.5%) sulphur content fuels to those with only 0.5%. This substantially reduced sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere - according to the paper, leading to an extra ~ +0.2 W/m² radiative forcing, which could lead to a doubling (or more) of the warming rate in the 2020s compared with the rate since 1980. As one might expect, IPCC scientists have been largely ignoring this factor in their recent papers. Perhaps they dont want to draw attention to how cheap & effective SRM could be.

So a lot going on in SRM space, I2K is probably right to be sceptical about its inevitability. Looking forward to seeing how yourself, editor TERSEYES & others improve the article! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Renaming the section on "politics"

I have renamed the section that was called "politics". I think "politics" does not capture what's in this section. My first thought was to change it to "critique" but that's not good either. I am proposing now "Discussion on research". TERSEYES above said "The section is about who supports and opposes SRM research, and why, as well as a few relevant developments in this area.". "Politics" is not the same as “who supports and opposes research”. Politics would be about political processes and decisions. Other options for this section title could be “Advocates and opponents” or “Stakeholders”. EMsmile (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Objecting to unsourced content about advocacy

I had removed this content but TERSEYES put it back in so let's discuss it: There is no meaningful advocacy for the use of SRM. (However, a small start-up business, Make Sunsets, sells "cooling credits" to launch balloons with helium and sulfur dioxide. Many advocates of SRM research have condemned this undertaking.) The most salient political issues thus regard research.. There are no refs provided that substantiate the claims of "no meaningful advocacy", "many condemned this", "most salient political issues thus regard research". I don't think it's worth mentioning this one particular start-up so prominently here in a high level article, using their own website as a source. It seems to me not WÜ:DUE, unless we perhaps move it to a section called "Examples of pilot projects" or something like that. - For now, I'll add the "citation needed" tags. EMsmile (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)