Talk:Climate engineering/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 20:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Editors may feel free to overwrite the resulting Geoengineering redirect with a broad concept article, but please mind the incoming links. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Geoengineering → Climate engineering – The article is specifically about geoengineering for climate Bhny (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support for precision. --Article editor (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

*Support (see below) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Naming this page climate control would be more accurate. Geoengineering is not synonymous with climate control efforts. ~~~~
• Oppose for reasons of WP:COMMONNAME. If you look up "climate engineering" vs. "geoengineering" on google scholar, the picture is clear, that in the scientific literature (orders of magnitudes more hits of scientific papers (about climate)), geoengineering is the common term used for this topic. While i agree that the former is too encompassing, it is the correct term to use if we go by the scientific literature... --Kim D. Petersen 14:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Kim, and Re-propose the compromise Geoengineering (climate) I find Kim's reasons for opposing persuasive but I also agree that the current title is too all-encompassing, given the climate-scope of this article. So how about what I proposed in an earlier thread, Geoengineering (climate)? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that Bhny (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support either to Climate engineering or Geoengineering (climate) per previous section comments and the above. I would think the Google scholar evidence is good, but reflects the recent (last 25 yr ±) emphasis based in part on promotion (WP influence? surely not) by various interests. However, geoengineering has a rather long history methinks as an application of geological principles to engineering problems/topics. Vsmith (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Agree with Bhny about the long history. Professional organizations and university programs have been using the term in a broader sense. If this page is renamed Climate engineering or Geoengineering (climate), we could add a new page titled Geoengineering that could describe the field’s broader scope and history. (The earlier unsigned support vote for accuracy was mine--still figuring this out!).--LinguisticEngineer (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment Climate engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a separate article, and created in 2003, until it was pointed here -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Add new Geoengineering talk page

Can we add a Talk page to the new page, Geoengineering? Clicking Talk on that page brings one back here.--LinguisticEngineer (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

First sentence

The opening, "Climate engineering, or geoengineering,... " implies that these terms mean the same thing, but they do not. When the title is changed, I propose that the phrase "or geoengineering" be removed from this first sentence. The rest of the text could also be edited to make the difference of these terms clear. The term "geoengineering" is often used as shorthand for "geoengineering the climate," a phrase that makes it clearer that this is one of many applications of geoengineering methods or principles.--LinguisticEngineer (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As Kim D. Petersen says above, it's the common name for this topic, more common than "climate engineering". Maybe the opening could be ""Climate engineering, an application of geoengineering, ...". Though that is a bit clumsy, and we should go by common name. Bhny (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Fix applied. Not ideal but pending above discussion... Vsmith (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

How about opening with "Climate engineering, or geoengineering the climate, is ..."? --Nigelj (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that this change has missed the mark and will confuse a lot of people. "Geoengineering", when used as a shorthand for "geological engineering", AFAIK is not really related to the use of the term to mean the "deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of reducing global warming". That is to say, I don't think that climate engineering is regarded as a form of geological engineering by people in either field. I would propose that the name of the new page be changed to "geological engineering", which is really the full term, and this page be reverted to "geoengineering". Outside of the field of geological engineering itself, I believe the term is more widely understood to refer to climate change interventions.Belfrey (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to undo recent move/rename

This page was recently renamed "Climate engineering", and the title of "Geoengineering" was assigned to a new article, which is about geological or geotechnical engineering. Although geological/geotechnical engineers do use the term "geoengineer" as a shorthand, the full terms would be more appropriate as article titles. An article already exists for one of these fields: Geotechnical engineering. It appears that even some who work in those fields find the distinction between geological engineering and geotechnical engineering somewhat ill-defined (see for example Engineering Geologists vs Geological Engineers vs Geotechnical Engineers), so the new page may be redundant in any case. They often seem to be used interchangeably; see for example the journal Geological and Geotechnical Engineering, Geological/Geotechnical Engineering (a PDF on careers in those fields from The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy), etc.

The term "climate engineering" is not incorrect and is perhaps more precise. However, in common usage, including within the scientific literature, the term "geoengineering" is more often used to refer to large-scale efforts to reduce the effects of global warming. That is what most people will be looking for when they search on the term. It is not a sub-discipline of geological/geotechnical engineering, just an unfortunate case of the same term being coined for two (or three) distinct fields.

I propose that this page be returned to its original name, and the new page be either renamed "Geological engineering", or be removed as redundant to the geotechnical engineering article (perhaps an explanation of the distinction, if any exists, could be added to that article). Perhaps a disambiguation page would be called for. Belfrey (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Since "geoengineering" has multiple meanings, lets turn Geoengineering into a simple navigational disambig page with no article text, so people can readily find the article that focus on their particular interest easily. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That was my suggestion recently on talk:geoengineering, so I'd agree - and the current stub there is rather lacking and unsourced. The term geoengineering has been rather heavily used and "hyped" over the last decade, in part by active promoters of various schemes. Check the history of the climate engineering article - as it was rather heavily edited a while back by a self proclaimed "advocate" of the various schemes. Vsmith (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that the vast majority of people who search for the term "geoengineering" will be looking for the climate topic, and "geological engineering" is really the full term for the other discipline, I'd suggest just using a hatnote on this page, linking to the latter. But I can live with the disambiguation page option if that's the consensus. This could be renamed to "Geoengineering (climate)" or some such.Belfrey (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer the move undone William M. Connolley (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, undo. Climate Engineering should redirect to geoengineering, and the current geoengineering page should be renamed geotechnical engineering. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"65 million years of climate change"

I have seen this picture (here under "Justification") pop up in several articles now, without much context in the surrounding part of the article. In this case it looks to me like some anti-science propaganda? The picture itself is sound, but without proper context I would consider it misinformation to a layperson. --Sarefo (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed strategies

Crushing olivine hasn't been mentioned. Perhaps it's not that effective, but worthy of mentioning nonetheless. See

• http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/22/another-nutty-geoengineering-idea-olivine-dust/
• http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/22/geoengineering-oceans-olivine
• http://www.greensand.nl/content/user/1/files/%2B%2BArticle%20Olaf-Poppe%20op%20Hangx%20en%20Spiers.pdf
• http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/olivineagainstclimatechange23.pdf

KVDP (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference

The reference data don't match the link:

{{cite report |url=http://psych.cf.ac.uk/understandingrisk/docs/spice.pdf | author=United States [[Government Accountability Office]] (GAO) | year=2011 |month=July |title=Climate Engineering: Technical Status, Future Directions, and Potential Responses |number=GAO-11-71 |publisher=Center for Science, Technology, and Engineering |format=PDF |page=3 |accessdate=2011-12-01}}

http://psych.cf.ac.uk/understandingrisk/docs/spice.pdf actually gives us Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative Workshops".

I wasn't sure of the best way to fix it - I couldn't find the actual report from the Government Accountability Office (which is what I was looking for in the first place). The report that's actually linked looks like good value, though. --Chriswaterguy talk 23:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

CIA Sponsored Programs

It is my understanding that the National Academies Project and associated CIA research came as an extension of previous work done on the issue of global-cooling and their recognization of a threat to national security. If the CIA wants to modify the environment for national security in preventing global warming, is it logical to assume they did the same when they recognized global cooling as a threat? I remember writing a school science paper on global cooling in 1988. It was a thing.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, not done (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Climate engineering → Geoengineering – Propose reverting previous page name change for reasons of WP:COMMONNAME. This page was previously (and more appropriately) named "Geoengineering." In July 2013, it was changed to the current title, and the previous title was assigned to an alternative meaning, synonymous with geological engineering. Technically, that is one correct usage; use of the term "geoengineering" has been used as a shorthand for geological engineering, geophysical engineering, and/or geotechnical engineering. (Note that the the former two terms redirect to the page for the latter; the distinction between them is somewhat ill-defined. See for example Engineering Geologists vs Geological Engineers vs Geotechnical Engineers.) However, in recent decades the term has come to be much more widely used to refer to the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the Earths' climate system to mitigate the effects of climate change, in accordance with the original page title. A Google Scholar search will show that the term is generally used in the scientific literature to refer to climate change intervention. Additionally, nearly every Wikipedia page that links to the term "Geoengineering" does so in reference to climate change intervention (see the What Links Here page). Currently, all of these links lead readers to a page that is about an entirely different topic than what is expected - and is unreferenced, incomplete, and redundant besides.

As seen in the archived discussion, the previous renaming was proposed by LinguisticEngineer, who apparently believed that climate engineering is "one of many applications of geoengineering methods or principles," and that geoengineering was the "broader" term for a field which included climate engineering in addition to geological/geotechnical engineering, etc. LinguisticEngineer was mistaken; that's not just a broader usage, it's an entirely different one. As far as I can find, none of the definitions of (or university programs focused on) geological engineering, geophysical engineering, or geotechnical engineering include the studies of climate science or climate intervention. And with apologies to people in geological engineering fields, their use of that term as a shorthand has been superseded by its usage in reference to proposed climate change mitigation techniques. Belfrey (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons given last July. See the talk section just prior to the official move request (note new user LinguisticEngineer was not the editor who proposed the move). Vsmith (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies Vsmith, I missed your original proposal when I was looking back through. Still, I believe I have addressed your previous reasoning in my proposal to revert, do you have any response? My main point is that "geoengineering" in the sense of climate intervention is not a subcategory or application of geological engineering, as the changes imply; it's a separate coinage of the term, and a meaning that is now much more widely used, both in the scientific literature and among the general public, than its alternate meaning as a shorthand for geological engineering.Belfrey (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I had started a discussion topic rather than a formal move request, just wanted to see what others thought. User:Bhny made the move request. Also, I am aware of the recent usage related to climate science - when I was in college and working the term was quite unambiguous as geological engineering. But that was quite a while ago. May be worth noting that two users with climate science interests who also edit around here opposed the move and a third one after the fact and that is understandable. Also, a self professed environmental campaigner (based on their userpage comments) objected after the move. And I would expect those to want the previous name returned. In my view climate engineering is the most descriptive and sensible name for the article -- but am aware that the term may have been hijacked over the last couple of decades to focus on climate rather than rock. Enough rambling, Vsmith (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood, and frankly I agree with you that the current usage of the term to mean climate change intervention is somewhat unfortunate and imprecise, because it was a term already in use by a different field. But the fact remains that this usage is now much more common, and it's what's meant in nearly all cases where other pages are linking to the "geoengineering" page. I think it's a case where it makes sense to reference the term as it is generally used, understood, and searched for, rather than how it should be. I'd be fine with a disambiguation page, though.Belfrey (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with consensus here. The original move was more about separating two different meanings into two articles. Obviously "climate engineering" is a less ambiguous name but we have to go with the common name and that may require a disambig page. Bhny (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Editing disagreement over soot particles

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Should this article and the accompanying Solar radiation management include the peer-reviewed suggestion that conventionally injecting firestorm soot into the atmosphere to create minor "nuclear winter" effects is a means to engineer the climate?178.167.254.22 (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC) As can be seen in the talk page discussion below, the other editors seem to be taking the move of ignoring this unresolved issue, and not responding. So I first requested a WP:3O on this but never got one, making it a total waste of time, so I've now gone to the WP:RFC. Which hopefully will be less of a waste of time. Start with bullet and bold please and opine away. °Support as proposer. I support the inclusion in this article and the corresponding Solar radiation management of the most recently deleted text, on this peer reviewed - inject firestorm soot into the stratosphere, to create minor "nuclear winter" effects - proposal. However I am naturally open to compromise edits that retains the same information. 178.167.254.22 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Qualified support As in my comment hereinafter, there is nothing fundamentally silly about the idea of soot injection. The silly part is the invocation of firestorms and nuclear winters. Remove any suggestion of their being relevant, and include the stratospheric carbon particle idea in good health, say I. I don't really like it, but worse ideas have been treated seriously. Reword and re-include.JonRichfield (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Filing editors response to JonRichfield, I appreciate your involvement friend! I also understand part of your point of view, with compromising and removing the suggestion of "firestorms", as the scientists don't explicitly explain how the "nuclear winter" effect works. However in saying that, I cannot understand the antipathy towards mentioning "nuclear winter" effects. As that is, verbatim, what the peer reviewed papers by Paul Crutzen etc state - "release soot particles to create minor "nuclear winter" conditions". So could you clarify why you feel like the "invocation of...nuclear winters" is silly? When that is what the scientists themselves have invoked? Thanks again for the response, but I'm really failing to understand why so many editors have stood in the way, and expressed a dislike at the idea of summarizing what the scientists have proposed - which I had thought, was our job here as editors, to summarize peer-reviewed proposals.178.167.149.15 (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC) The fundamental problem is that this article is about climate engineering, not about amateur ideas of how to use disastrous means of achieving conceivably desirable effects. By way of analogy, think of mosquito pest control. Various people observed that hitting them with sledgehammers or shooting them with 12-bore shotguns can be effective. Naturally a huge flame war erupts, as each camp accuses the other of stupidity, destructiveness, and inefficiency, and each camp cites studies that conclude that no one ever has found a mosquito killed by one or the other of those methods. Now what is wrong with that? The fact is that the flame war does not deal with pest control problems, but instead with an irrelevant selection of items that kill pests (which is far from the same thing. Trust me; I am professionally skilled in the field!) What is wrong from the point of of an article dealing with engineering is that it confuses a measure that can have a certain effect with an application that is effective, efficient, economical, and modest in its adverse consequences, which are the sorts of things that real engineers aim for. Ignoring mosquitoes, nuclear winters for climate engineering fall down on all counts and so do firestorms; they are not without interest in their respective contexts, which is why each has its own articles, but like with the shotguns and hammers for mosquitoes, their effect is well under 1% directed at the target, their hit rate is hopelessly inefficient, the cost in damage, wasted material and effort is ridiculous, and the adverse consequences dwarf the adverse consequences of the very problems for which people are seeking solution. Sure the storms and bombs inject particles into the high atmosphere; sure they might have an effect on the climate, though it is not clear what the effect will be, and outcome could be very hard to control. Bombs are expensive, especially in terms of how many bombs it would take, whereas one could start a firestorm of sorts with a match, but it does not follow that the match represents the cost of the storm. (Ask them In say, Dresden, Tokyo or Hamburg or parts of Australia if you want something more recent!) In both approaches, the cost of the resources would be negligible in comparison with the cost in terms of wasted resources. You say that "scientists have been proposing" nuclear winters and firestorms for climate engineering? I find that hard to swallow; if they were real scientists, they must still have been in the remote pre-engineering phase of remarking that "Hmmm... theoretically a sledgehammer could swat a mosquito" and long before the phase in which they might discuss whether research programmes for investigating possible designs for more efficient and economical swatters deserved consideration. From the point of view of this article, the subject under discussion is Climate engineering, remember?, NOT nuclear winters, NOT firestorms, which have their own articles. Because there are strong reasons to suspect that certain modes of stratospheric particle injection could cause cooling in certain regions, we would be justified in considering means of achieving such injection, but it does not follow that every dramatic method that might cause some incidental injection would be worth even a moment's consideration; in much the same way we do not consider the sledgehammer or shotgun, even though it might kill the odd mosquito. There are plenty of means of injection of massive quantities of particles by realistic means at a minute fraction of the cost and under sensitive control. I bet you could think of some cheap, harmless and effective means yourself. Whether to discuss the details of the choice of mode in this article is an open question, but to discuss non-engineering modes of action in a notionally engineering article would indeed be "silly". Is that the substance of what you wanted to know? If not, please explain what I missed. JonRichfield (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC) OH, and for heavens sake stop confusing either nuclear winter (which is a specific (notional and as yet unobserved) effect that refers to nuclear war) with carbon (or other particle) injection. Similarly, stop confusing firestorms with that function, whether inside or outside of nuclear war. You could more rationally invoke skydiving (think of a few ways if you can). And stick to one (relevant) concept at a time. This article deals with climate engineering. It says so in just those words at the top. Nuclear war might affect the climate or it might not, but in either case nuclear war is not climate engineering. Firestorms might affect the climate or they might not, but in either case they are not climate engineering. Am I getting through? JonRichfield (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC) We dropped mentioning firestorms, as I openly acknowledge neither of the 2 papers specifically mention them, even though firestorms have been irrefutably shown to affect the climate, as you can read about and find the refs on, in the "nuclear winter" article. However, as the scientists; Paul Crutzen, and the Feichter & Leisner team, both respectively have written that a climate engineering proposal is to - "release soot particles to create minor "nuclear winter" conditions" and in the Climate engineering paper by the latter team "On pg 87 it states - "Besides sulfur injections some other chemical species have been proposed for injection into the stratosphere. For instance the injection of soot particles...has been studied in "nuclear winter" scenarios... Without infringing on their exact wording, and using the 2 papers only as references, I proposed we should include in the article the following text. Right after the related section, communicating that a proposal is to inject sulfates to create conventional volcanic winters - "Besides sulfur injections, soot lifted to the stratosphere to create minor "nuclear winter" conditions, by conventional means"(has also been proposed). Unfortunately you aren't happy with this proposed sentence? Calling this is a "silly" summary, but I honestly fail to see how it is "silly", as it is practically verbatim what both papers say! Now, of course I did read through your extensive use of analogies in your paragraphs above, about the dangers of it being not as efficient, or too effective, or causing unintended consequences etc. All valid concerns sure. However, like you initially said when you entered this talk page, "worse ideas have been treated seriously" and it is a proposal found in climate engineering papers. Although, if the proposed sentence is not to your liking because it mentions "nuclear winter", I'm wondering if the reason is, that you may have fallen into the typical belief pattern that "nuclear winter" effects are only a modeled result of nuclear war? Are you? When really a war isn't necessary, one easily communicated example is that a massive "nuclear winter", is suggested to have resulted after the asteroid that "killed the dinosaurs" struck earth. Did you really read the article nuclear winter? It's all right there, that "nuclear winter" effects don't actually require nuclear devices, the inputs into the climate models are just firestorms, the climate models don't care who, or what, caused them. 178.167.187.167 (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC) I have long been thoroughly aware of the relevance of nuclear winter and firestorms to climatic effects. My objections to "nuclear winter" and "firestorm" are based on: This is an article on climate engineering, not on generalised mechanisms in climate mechanics. The moment you mention fire or nukes, you create mares' nests. Not only do the terms "nuclear winter" and "firestorm" refer to specific examples of a generalised mechanism, but they are not applicable to the problem being addressed and they both carry baggage that would spook most members of the public interested in rational discussion. To use the terms in this article would be irresponsible. The fact that the authors you wish to cite insist on misapplying the terms for drastically inappropriate reasons counts against their credibility, and does not imply that we must follow their example and share their lack of credibility, whether we cite them or not. The sources that you cite may put "nuclear winter" into scare quotes, but this does not mitigate the inappropriateness of the term, even as an analogy. They shirked the duty of authors to find appropriate terms, such as "particle umbrella effect (or winter, if you prefer)". "Nuclear" explicitly refers to a certain class of energy release that is no part of our engineering interest here. The reason for the baggage that the terms carry is that their side effects not only are undesirable, but irrelevant to the intended effect, which is controllable injection of atmospheric particles. The relevance of nukes and killer fires to the discussion is nil; the relevant part is their effects; we have no reason to mention mechanisms that never would be used in practice, and that, to coin a climatological metaphor, would cloud the issue. By way of analogy, in discussing traffic engineering, we do not discuss it in terms of "locomotion by millions of detonations to produce toxic emissions through incomplete combustion", even though that is the main mechanism we employ in locomotion. We don't get round the problem by speaking of "explosive toxic transport", but "internal combustion". WP has reasonable articles on "nuclear winter" and "firestorm"; they even mention particle injection effects, but not climate engineering, simply because it is not directly relevant to their topics. In this article we are only concerned with the merits or demerits of particle injection, and of notionally practical means of particle injection. Those means do not include NW and FS, neither of which injects particles into the stratosphere at even a thousandth of a percent of efficiency, let alone harmlessly or flexibly (Have you transported any good firestorms lately? Nuclear or otherwise? Or controlled their duration and intensity irrespective of weather, or the physical and chemical nature of their particles?) Rival methods, of which there are several, could easily and safely achieve more like 50% delivery and tight control without significant residues or risks to lives or property. If you feel that no one could possibly understand particle injection without reference to how it happens in nature, then use a material example, such as volcanic explosions or tornadoes. At least no one would think that we are nuts enough to propose them as engineering solutions, unless they are so dumb that they couldn't understand the concept of particle shading anyway. JonRichfield (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Beginning of archived talk page discussion I've noticed that the following well referenced sentence in this article has been removed a few times due to 2 editors both describing it as "silly", despite it being supported by numerous references which they seemingly have ignored. Therefore, as they failed to give a rational reason why this well referenced sentence should be excluded in this article, I put it back in. Until such time that the magnitude of the firestorm-soot effect is debunked, then clearly it should stay in. Moreover the whole "silly" argument is rather ironic considering some of the other more outlandish, expensive and highly impractical "climate engineering" proposals in this article, which have been given far more weight than a single sentence. Here's the sole sentence with its refs: soot from 100 forest firestorms, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.148.81 (talk • contribs) References Is soot a reflective aerosol? Vsmith (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC) No, but it is a shading aerosol, do you therefore suggest the sentence be put beside the sun shade sentence instead? Or simply that - "...reflective aerosols" should read reflective and shading aerosols. I'll do that now. 178.167.148.81 (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC) The comment starting this is a bit weird. What the anon means is taht the's reverting back in his own text; he's not some disinterested spectator. As to the substance: the idea that anyone (anyone respectable I mean) has suggested using wildfires for climate engineering is, indeed, silly. We have a section entitled "Solar radiation management" (my bold) and our anon is pushing into this the absurd "soot from 100 forest firestorms". This is stupidity at worst and SYN at stretching-it-really-but-just-about-believeable best. Possibly the aim of the anon is to make wiki look ridiculous; who knows. What "supports" this drivel? The first link gets us Forest fire experts have conjectured and nuclear winter investigators have theorized that extreme fire storms could inject smoke and other emissions into the lowermost stratosphere. Confirmation of this phenomenon has now been realized with the discovery of forest fire smoke in the stratosphere and the link between these smokes (and subsequently other biomass burning emissions) and extreme pyrocumulonimbus (pyroCb) storms. Since the discovery of stratospheric smoke in 1998, research into the pyroCb phenomenon has revealed that such occurrences are surprisingly frequent, they occur in both boreal and austral hemispheres, they cause hemispheric temperature perturbations, and they typically have impacted remote sensing data in unexpected ways that call for a new look at old archives. In this paper we will discuss the pyroCb discovery, its noteworthy eruptive manifestations, the impact on stratospheric aerosols, and correlation with stratospheric warming/tropospheric cooling. In addition we will revisit historical cases of aerosol layers in the stratosphere, originally ascribed to volcanoes, from a pyroCb perspective. Which is, of course, absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "Solar radiation management". Having to deal with this kind of utter stupidity is why so people like Boris are no longer amongst us William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Insults, Innuendo, a conspiracy claim about motivations and a comparison to some guy called "boris"? What a maelstrom of profound confusion, I really have trouble seeing exactly what you're talking about Connolley? About the only clear argument worth responding to in your filibustering diatribe is your proposition that -the idea that anyone (anyone respectable I mean) has suggested using wildfires for climate engineering is, indeed, silly - when in reality, both Paul Crutzen(a Nobel prize winner) and others have written in peer-reviewed publications that putting soot into the stratosphere/creating "nuclear winter" effects is a climate engineering possibility. Are you intentionally over-looking these references that supports this? I have attached references to both papers that explicitly state this, both in the article edits and here on this talk page, yet you seem to have not read them at all. Instead you copy-pasted the entire abstract from the first reference/"link" I added, in what appears to be a bizarre attempt to support your proposition, when if you really want to know my motivations on this, I simply put that reference first-in-line to convey to readers what the underlying mechanism for this idea is. About the only quibble you seem to really have here is that the order of references should start with Paul Crutzen's paper and the other explicitly climate engineering reference, as readers like yourself are more interested in appeals to authority. Be that as it may, your seemingly tiny quibble about the ordering of the references is still really no grounds for removing the entire sentence. Our job on wikipedia is to summarize the peer-reviewed substance on the matter, which on this article should be the peer-reviewed means to preform climate engineering, not necessarily actual climate engineering proposals supported by people. You seem to disagree with this? Perhaps you're under the pretense that this article is titled - Climate engineering proposals supported by people? Here's the 2 references again, and contrary to your 2nd on topic argument -> [this has] absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "Solar radiation management", In case you aren't aware Albedo is directly linked to Solar radiation management. Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma? Paul J. Crutzen - "release soot particles to create minor "nuclear winter" conditions" & Climate engineering: A critical review of approaches to modify the global energy balance.J. Feichter, T. Leisner. pg 87 178.167.148.81 (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC) I'm beginning to think you're not even capable of reading what you're refing. Crutzen is suggesting climate engineering by releasing "soot particles". That's not in dispute. But neither he, nor anyone else even slightly sane, is suggesting doing this by wildfires. Which is what your ridiculous WP:SYN is pushing William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC) To start with, I'm glad you are acknowledging that soot particles in the stratosphere is a modeled climate engineering mechanism, however, you seem fine with this article not discussing them at all, which is concerning. Moreover, the quoted - "Release soot particles to create minor nuclear winter conditions" - doesn't mention anything about getting those particles up there by say, airplane, but it suggests putting soot, that is identical in properties to the species of soot generated in the winter climate models, which is firestorm generated soot, into the stratosphere. So are you really arguing that Crutzen was saying that instead of allowing the firestorm generated soot to naturally reach the stratosphere, we should instead put the firestorms into enormous glass jars to collect the soot, and then disperse it out the back of say, an airplane? I think not. Moreover the primary soot generating material burnt in the nuclear winter models is wood - not specifically from "wildfires" as you have suggested, but forest firestorms, and wood in city firestorms. But if this really was the only issue you have with the sentence & references I provided, then a simple re-wording of the sentence from "soot from firestorms" - to - "soot lifted to the stratosphere, to create a conventional nuclear winter" would completely satisfy your misgivings, would it not? I wonder why you didn't simply propose this alteration earlier? It does however seem pretty pedantic and not to mention misleading, as the soot in the "nuclear winter" models is solely created by firestorms. So the soot is intrinsically linked to firestorms, but there is nothing intrinsically "nuclear" about the soot in the models at all. Regardless, as the 2nd explicit climate engineering reference I attached, has, right bang smack in the middle of a discussion to engineer the climate by more popular means - Climate engineering: A critical review of approaches to modify the global energy balance.J. Feichter, T. Leisner. on pg 87 it states - "Besides sulfur injections some other chemical species have been proposed for injection into the stratosphere. For instance the injection of soot particles as a consequence of a nuclear conflict has been studied in "nuclear winter" scenarios... - This 2nd ref not only supports that it has been proposed by others, but that the injection of soot particles would be done in an identical manner to that modeled in the "nuclear winter" models! Not simply dropping the stuff out the back of a plane. The two authors are obviously aware that creating a firestorm/"nuclear" winter is a legitimate line of inquiry, as right after the quoted section they discuss why this proposal isn't entirely great because the soot would also reduce stratospheric ozone. They do not have your reaction and say anything to the effect that: this would be insane, because it would require nuclear explosions etc! As the nuclear winter models all analyze soot being injected into the stratosphere by firestorms. The climate models don't actually model anything "nuclear", a fact that these two authors are clearly aware of, given their later dry analysis of the proposal. 178.167.148.81 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC) I've removed the anon nonsense from Solar radiation management as well William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I've reinserted the well referenced proposal, into both articles. I think you may be suffering from confirmation bias, as you approached this from the beginning as "it as silly" but have consistently failed in your attempts to prove it is "silly"/"nonsense". 31.200.174.135 (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Connolly, I see you have yet again failed to engage here on the talk page and instead gone off and reverted a revised edit of mine that was attempting to be mindful of your alleged concerns. I also noticed in your revert edit summary, that you have called this updated good faith edit of mine - "trash". Seen as you are acting irrationally and not engaging here on the talk page to explain yourself, you have given me no other option but to request for outside opinion on the matter. The recent edit that you removed from this climate engineering article can be found here on this page's edit history, while the following was the edit on Solar radiation management that you also reverted - Besides the injection of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere, the injection of other chemical species such as the release of a particular type of soot particle, to create minor "nuclear winter" conditions has been proposed by Paul Crutzen and others. According to the threshold/minor "nuclear winter" computer models, if 1 to 5 Teragrams of firestorm generated soot, is injected into the low stratosphere it is modeled, through the anti-greenhouse effect, to heat the stratosphere but cool the lower troposphere and produce (1.25 degrees C) cooling for two to three years, after 10 years, average global temperatures would still be (0.5 degree C) lower than before the soot injection. Comment Even without supporting citations, given that the mechanism is undebatable and that many other far more ridiculous methods have been mooted and seriously documented, hooting "silly" at it is no justification for deletion. We could of course demand that any proposed method to be included should already have attracted government or at least multinational corporate finance, but that would be "silly" too, wouldn't it? The silliest aspect of this proposal is linking it with firestorms. Injection of carbon microparticles into the high stratosphere could be achieved in many better ways, some of which would be very un-silly indeed. We are in no way limited to launching the material on the backs of flying reindeer or forest firestorms. Whether it would indeed be practical, or if so, competitive with alternative schemes, is a different question, but if we are listing mechanisms or measures of notional merit on the basis of established physical chemical or biological principles, rather than the various hysterical subjunctives decrying them, then to justify their removal, we need something better than crying "silly" like in "And now for something completely different". JonRichfield (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Support mention of injecting soot into the atmosphere. Oppose mention that this soot should be generated by firestorms or forest fires, and oppose mention of intention to cause a nuclear winter. Maproom (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Agreed, and even to mention nuclear winter in this article as being related to the engineering principle is crazy. You might do better to mention locust swarms for their well-documented effect of blotting out the sun. JonRichfield (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC) References The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes to lead

IPCC

I've revised the lead section. The previous revision stated:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that geoengineering options for climate change "remained largely speculative and unproven".[9] The costs, benefits, and risks of many geoengineering approaches to climate change are not well understood.[10][11] However, in the 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the IPCC concluded that "Modelling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification."[12][dead link]"

The opening "however" in the third sentence above is misleading. AR5 is absolutely clear in stating that many geoengineering options are poorly understood and may have adverse side-effects (e.g., see FAQ 7.3, p.632). In other words, AR5 is entirely consistent with second sentence, "The costs, benefits, and risks of many geoengineering approaches to climate change are not well understood".

I've removed the third sentence. In my view, this sentence does not accurately reflect the information presented in the cited source. For reference, I have looked at sections on geoengineering in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (p.27), the Technical Summary (p.98), and Chapters 6 and 7 [1].

Trims

I've moved this text from the lead to the section on "evaluation of geoengineering":

"In October 2011, a Bipartisan Policy Center panel issued a report urging immediate researching and testing in case "the climate system reaches a 'tipping point' and swift remedial action is required".[22] The National Academy of Sciences is running 21-month project which will study how humans might influence weather patterns, assess dangers and investigate possible national security implications of geoengineering attempts. The project will be funded by the CIA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and NASA.[23]"

I do not think that the above information is sufficiently important to be included in the lead. The are more authoritative sources than the Bipartian Policy Center. These other sources are not explicitly referred to in the lead - for example, the IPCC, US National Research Council, and American Meteorological Society.

Lopsided

I've tagged this sentence:

"As a rule of thumb it would appear that the scale of risks and costs of each climate engineering option appear to be somewhat inverse: The lower the costs, the greater the risks."

I've looked at reports by the Royal Society of the UK, US National Research Council, and the IPCC. These sources all show that the costs, risks and benefits of geoengineering vary between different techniques.

Enescot (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As stated, the statement is pretty clearly not supported by the literature. There are proposals on the table that are both affordable and relatively low-risk; in general, however, those proposals are unlikely to have a large impact on the trajectory of the climate system. Perhaps this would be best handled by a rephrasing of the claim in question. It's true that the costs, risks, and benefits of various climate engineering techniques vary, but there's a definite overall trend visible in most evaluations of those relative merits. Specifically, those approaches which are most likely to have a relatively large impact relatively quickly are also likely to be monetarily expensive, ethically problematic, scientifically risky, or some combination of the three. There's a general consensus that quick and safe approaches are not likely to have a large impact, and that approaches likely to have a large impact are rarely cheap and/or risk free. I'd suggest rephrasing the "rule of thumb" to better reflect the consensus in the literature; "costs" and "risks" are both pretty ambiguous in this statement. It's more accurate to say that programs that the magnitude of the change effected by a climate engineering proposal is, in general, inversely proportional to the ease of implementing that proposal. That seems to cover the economic, technological, political, and ethical difficulties associated with more radical proposals. In addition to the reports cited (RS, USNRC, and IPCC) see, e.g., [2], [3], and [4].

RealityApologist (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Disambiguation with regard to geoengineering

I was brought to this Wikipedia article on climate engineering by a "see also" link from the Wikipedia article on Geoengineering. What brought me to the geoengineering article was a news article covering climate engineering techniques that it referred to as geoengineering techniques. I have no problem with this article being called climate engineering, but the very first line says that it is sometimes called geoengineering even as a notice above the article states that climate engineering should not be confused with geoengineering. That battle has already been lost in the court of public opinion, so the best way to address this issue is with a full and clear disambiguation link on the various topics referred to as geoengineering. // Internet Esquire (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Request move

Climate engineering → Climate intervention – Per Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration (2015) ISBN 978-0-309-30529-7 and Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth (2015) ISBN 978-0-309-31482-4 from https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

108.73.113.130 (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISE because the article is about (deliberate) "climate engineering", not indeliberate climate interventions. Also oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as per Google Ngram. Khestwol (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Closed as request made by a block evading sock. Vsmith (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Updated Information

The former text describing the National Academy of Sciences study was outdated (discussing information from 2013 and 2014). I updated the text so the Wikipedia page could display the most current information. The information I used came directly from the National Academy of Sciences websites.

The original text stated:

"The Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts project of the National Academy of Sciences funded by United States agencies, including NOAA, NASA, and the CIA,[28] commenced in March 2013, is expected to issue a report in fall 2014.

'An ad hoc committee will conduct a technical evaluation of a limited number of proposed geoengineering techniques, including examples of both solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques, and comment generally on the potential impacts of deploying these technologies, including possible environmental, economic, and national security concerns. The study will:

1. Evaluate what is currently known about the science of several (3-4) selected example techniques, including potential risks and consequences (both intended and unintended), such as impacts, or lack thereof, on ocean acidification,

2. Describe what is known about the viability for implementation of the proposed techniques including technological and cost considerations,

3. Briefly explain other geoengineering technologies that have been proposed (beyond the selected examples), and

4. Identify future research needed to provide a credible scientific underpinning for future discussions.

The study will also discuss historical examples of related technologies (e.g., cloud seeding and other weather modification) for lessons that might be learned about societal reactions, examine what international agreements exist which may be relevant to the experimental testing or deployment of geoengineering technologies, and briefly explore potential societal and ethical considerations related to geoengineering. This study is intended to provide a careful, clear scientific foundation that informs ethical, legal, and political discussions surrounding geoengineering.

The project has support from the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. intelligence community, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The approximate start date for the project is March 2013; a report is expected be issued in fall 2014.'"

The new text states:

"The National Academy of Sciences conducted a study and released two reports in 2015: "Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration" and "Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth." When releasing these reports, the National Academy of Sciences stated: 'Climate intervention is no substitute for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and adaptation efforts aimed at reducing the negative consequences of climate change. However, as our planet enters a period of changing climate never before experienced in recorded human history, interest is growing in the potential for deliberate intervention in the climate system to counter climate change. This study assesses the potential impacts, benefits, and costs of two different proposed classes of climate intervention: (1) carbon dioxide removal and (2) albedo modification (reflecting sunlight). Carbon dioxide removal strategies address a key driver of climate change, but research is needed to fully assess if any of these technologies could be appropriate for large-scale deployment. Albedo modification strategies could rapidly cool the planet’s surface but pose envi­ronmental and other risks that are not well understood and therefore should not be deployed at climate-altering scales; more research is needed to determine if albedo modification approaches could be viable in the future.' This study was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. intelligence community, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Department of Energy."

Environment0123 (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Environment0123

References

Missing Citation

I removed the following statement under the header, "Control and Predictability Problems," because I am not sure that this has been proved in the literature.

"Performance of the systems may become ineffective, unpredictable or unstable as a result of external events, such as volcanic eruptions, phytoplankton blooms, El Niño, solar flares, etc., potentially leading to profound and unpredictable disruption to the climate system."

If anyone knows of a citation for this statement, please feel free to add it back to the Wikipedia page. Environment0123 (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Environment0123

Solar radiation management versus carbon dioxide removal

This page considers both solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. These two groups of proposed technologies are each climate engineering but are very different. This creates a number of problems on this page. For example, the sections on Control and Predictability Problems, and on Side Effects, are each mainly about SRM. Having a section on Costs is difficult (and unhelpful) given that costs for the two classes are very different. Passages such as "No known large-scale climate engineering projects have taken place to date" are difficult for the reader to parse given that "climate engineering" as usually defined includes stratospheric aerosol injection, ocean fertilization, and afforestation.

I propose to significantly shorten the passages in the Climate engineering page that are difficult to generalize across SRM and CDR, and to direct the reader to the appropriate sections on the SRM and CDR pages. Jesse L Reynolds (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. As an illustration, the section on Governance previously made no distinction between CDR and SRM, whereas the substantial differences between these technology families mean that the governance problems they entail are very different--the free rider problem versus the free driver problem. I edited this section to underline this critical point, which could be made even more effectively by addressing the bulk of governance issues on two separate pages.Joshuahorton533 (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Joshua Horton

Pumping water unto antarctica

In New Scientist, May 2016, the idea of pumping water unto antartica has been mentioned. In the magazine, the approach was said to be feasible, which is questioned at https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/sea-level-rise-too-big-to-be-pumped-away

Perhaps the idea can nonetheless be either linked or described here, since it's one of the few approaches that can actually be done controllably (few side-effects expected). Here were the figures in new scientist: sea rise is 3mm per year; to pump this amount of water, 90 pumps are needed, the size being equal to those currently protecting New Orleans. Seawater needs to be sent 700 km from shore. Energy requirements for this are 1275 gigawatts. To produce this much power, 850 000 windturbines of 1,5 megawatt need to be constructed on antarctica. The whole endeavor would buy us 100 years time. KVDP (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Earth-centric POV

Is it too early to point out that the methods being explored to save the Earth's atmosphere today are more or less in the same field as terraforming, and will share many aspects with efforts to create and sustain atmospheres in or on other worlds in the future. 220.221.138.209 (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Iron Salt Aerosol method

The ISA method

Pls check this nature identical patented process and its holistic spectrum of efficacy for relevance of integration into the article.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/esd-8-1-2017-metrics.html

--Dankedaniel (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Climate engineering. 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/20121016101517/http://climateresponsefund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=81 to http://climateresponsefund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=81

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) 12:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)