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 removed, unbalanced tags 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)

I ask @EMsmile to explain what she sees as unbalanced in the two sections that she labeled as unbalanced. Otherwise, I propose to remove those labels in a week or so. TERSEYES (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, sorry that I haven't yet continued the work on this article. I am actually in contact with people at the Earth System Governance Project and helping them to get up to speed with Wikipedia editing (disclosure: I get paid for this through a small consultancy project; see my user page where I recently added that info). Once they are onboard, the plan is that they can participate in this discussion in a meaningful way and we can all reach a consensus. In the meantime, with regards to the "unbalanced" tags, I think User:InformationToKnowledge summed up some shortcomings quite well above. I copy that paragraph again below (bolding added by me): "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." This needs to be addressed. EMsmile (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

References

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

Thank you. Per the quote from @InformationToKnowledge, I edited the 'Limitations and risks' section to :

• be shorter, especially reducing the internally opposing statements (but not eliminating them, since some call for a 'However,...')
• remove the 'Distribution of impacts' subsection, since it is addressed in the section's introduction and before that
• cite the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report where possible
• reorder to reflect my subjective perception of how prominent the issues are in SRM conversations

I also changed the name of 'Evidence of effectiveness and impacts' to 'Benefits'.

I hope that this has addressed the concerns that this section is unbalanced. I still do not know how the 'Advocacy for and against SRM research' section is unbalanced.

I note that much of the leadership of Earth System Governance Project, which is paying @EMsmile for editing this article, are the originators of a political campaign against SRM and its research. Of course, this should not influence how your edits are judged by others. TERSEYES (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for an excellent article improvement there TERSEYES. That campaign open letter you link to is way more anti SRM than how I perceive the current IPCC / mainstream science position. While we could cite that sort of perspective, our article as a whole should be considerably more pro SRM if we're to comply with WP:NPOV. (Though still giving plenty of space to the risks, drawbacks & uncertainties of course.)

Still, I'd very much doubt EMsmile would want to push the open letter POV. Hopefully the good ESG scientists have moved on. Back in early 2021 when the letter was published, many were more optimistic on the achievability of substantial emissions reductions. The talk was all about "building back better" after Covid. Huh, even I myself thought it worth spending hundreds of hours of time to research and fully rewrite our Politics of climate change. article. But now we're looking back on 2023 – a year of anomalous extra heating, political insanity and a record break 80-120 million globally displaced people. SRM can take the heat off for orders of magnitude less cost than emissions reductions + CDR. What was once near unthinkable to some of the AR6 authors is now starting to look inevitable and almost even desirable. Additionally, even if ESG scientists haven't evolved with mainstream thinking, I've had the pleasure of collaborating on climate articles with EMsmile for many years now, and she's always been good at complying with Wikipedia policy, with due regard for mainstream science.

This said, would now agree with removing the 'unbalanced' tags unless someone wants to make a source based argument that we're giving or failing to give due weight to any particular perspective. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! I've removed the "unbalanced tags" for now. This has been a very interesting exchange here on the talk page and I am learning a lot. From my limited understanding of SRM and those who are pushing for it / funding some research, is that there may be a pro-polluter bias for some of the actors. This aspect needs to come out clearly in the article, with the appropriate refs. I'm awaiting inputs to the discussion from the people at ESG as they know the literature, current discourse, actors, any hidden agendas etc. way better than I do. I think they'll comment here on the talk page soon. - Getting the balance of all the positions and arguments right, as per WP:DUE is not easy but is important. My role with them is to help them understand and apply Wikipedia policy when editing, and also help with copy editing with regards to clarity of language, making it understandable and relevant for layperson readers. (thank you for your kind words, FeydHuxtable, always a pleasure to work with you on Wikipedia!) EMsmile (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Without a shadow of a doubt, similar to CDR, some SRM advocacy is funded by pro polluters. AR6 didn't mention that from what I could see. But would agree with including this if a good source is found. Though equally, IMO as of 2024 the clear majority of folks who support more SRM research are good faith. Looking forward to seeing how the good ESG scientists see this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Contrary to understandable speculation, there is no advocacy for using SRM besides fringe actors such as Make Sunsets and no known funding or advocacy of SRM research from fossil fuel interests. A moment's investigation of claims that there is such funding or advocacy reveals misrepresentation. For example, an activist group issued a report revealing 'the early, ongoing, and often surprising role of the fossil fuel industry in developing, patenting, and promoting key geoengineering technologies.' However, its evidence relied almost entirely on including carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in geoengineering, as well as a few scattered pro-SRM statements made by opponents of climate action over the last 15 years. In other words, 'big, if true.' And I would agree to include this if a good source is found. TERSEYES (talk) 07:51, 25 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)

'Discussion on research' is not incorrect. Your definition of politics is tautological. Wikipedia defines politics as 'the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.' In my understanding, this includes advocacy organisations taking public stances, forming coalitions, and striving to influence policy-makers, as well as governments adopting policies -- exactly what is discussed in this section. If that isn't political, what is? TERSEYES (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean with "'Discussion on research' is not incorrect" (does the "not" need to be struck out?)? I also don't understand what you mean with "Your definition of politics is tautological" (I didn't propose a definition as such). I think a section heading called "politics" would be ambiguous. We should also keep non-native English speakers in mind (like myself). It's not immediately clear what is meant with "politics". For me, I would expect content on policy processes, or elections, or government officials etc. under "politics" but not the advocacy type work. How about we change the section heading to: "Advocacy for and against SRM research"? I propose to make the section heading clear so that people know exactly what to expect in that section, and editors know exactly which content is meant to go where in the article. EMsmile (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I typed correctly. 'Discussion on research' is not incorrect and, in the interest of compromise, acceptable to me. 'Debate on research' would be more accurate.

You defined politics as 'Politics would be about political processes and decisions.' A tautology is a statement that is inherenly necessarily true, often because it is self-referential. TERSEYES (talk) 08:06, 11 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 WP: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)

I see two issues here that are best handled separately.

First, should the article mention the lack of advocacy for use of SRM? In my experience, many people new to the issue are curious who (maybe the fossil fuel industry) wants to do SRM. In my opinion, this should be mentioned. The trouble is finding a citation for an absence, as you note. This situation strikes me as a trade-off between a more thorough, useful article and strictly complying with Wiki regulations. Is this a case of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue?

Second. should the article mention Make Sunsets? Their work has been scientifically and climatically irrelevant (and I suspect that they will disappear in a couple years) but politically influential. For example, it led to Mexico announcing (and perhaps implementing) a ban on outdoor SRM activities. Because of this, I lean to yes, they should be briefly mentioned. TERSEYES (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Good points, thanks. Is there really a lack of advocacy for use of SRM? At least from reading the Wikipedia article it seems to me that there is at least some advocacy for use of SRM because don't the same organisations who advocate spending money on research of SRM also implicitly advocate using SRM if the research is positive? I mean, why else would you want to do research on SRM if you weren't hoping to also use it one day?

For what it's worth, I've asked Chat GPT: "which actors are advocating the use of solar radiation modification?". It came up with some interesting pointers. Do take a look. It said e.g. "Various actors, including scientists, research institutions, and some policy advocates, are involved in advocating for the research and, in some cases, the potential deployment of SRM." It then gave some examples of scientists (David Keith (physicist), Ken Caldeira) and organisations. It also said "Most of these actors emphasize that advocacy for SRM is primarily about research and understanding the potential risks and benefits rather than immediate deployment. There is a strong consensus among these groups that any consideration of SRM should be accompanied by robust governance frameworks to address ethical, environmental, and geopolitical concerns." - The same/similar results can probably be obtained from a Google search; I just like Chat GPT as an initial quick inspiration/pointer.

Regarding Make Sunsets, my concern is also that the ref provided is so weak (just their own website). And regarding Mexico, do you know of a publication that explains the link between Make Sunsets and any action that the Mexican government has taken? If not, where do you take that knowledge from? (just curious) EMsmile (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There is indeed no meaningful advocacy of the use of SRM. ChatGPT says many things, including hallucinations and others' false claims and it certainly is no source for WP articles. Profs. Keith and Caldera have, as far as I know, never called for the use of SRM. If you can find such a statement, please share it here.

A person can call for SRM research without necessarily calling or 'hoping' for its use (even implicitly) for several reasons. The most common is that not enough is presently known about SRM to have an informed opinion on potential use. Another is scepticism or even opposition to eventual use and a belief that further research will reveal SRM's unacceptable risks.

As for Make Sunsets, I could provide many sources. Here: 'the company has done a number of experiments in Mexico. Last year the Mexican government released a statement saying that they would ban solar geoengineering in their national territory, referencing the activities of Make Sunsets.' And here is the Mexican government's press release, auto-translated: 'Recently in the state of Baja California Sur, the Startup Make Sunsets carried out technical experiments of this type, launching weather balloons with sulfur dioxide, without prior notice and without the consent of the Government of Mexico and the surrounding communities. In the blog of the Make Sunsets website, the company states that it is unaware of the results of the experiment, since the balloons were not monitored or recovered.' TERSEYES (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@EMsmile. Editor TERSEYES is largely on point here, at least if we say "no meaningful public advocacy of the use of SRM". While it would be nice to have a 2ndary source for such a sweeping statement, my view is it's an crucial fact for helping the reader understand the whole topic, and well known enough to those in the field to warrant a skyIsBlue exception.

This said, ChatGPT was also spot on, glad to see you're still using it to augment your already great editing. I know you dont need telling ChatGPT can't be a source for the mainspace, but the hallucinations are not that common. It can be great for illuminating talk page discussion. What ChatGPT actually said was advocating for the research and, in some cases, the potential deployment So examples given could be those advocating for research but not for implementation. I'm also not aware of calls for widescale implementation by good Professor Caldeira, but he's been one of the foremost advocates for more research for over a decade now.

The 'research but dont implement yet' position is the common view across Global North (In as much we can say a common view exists, when a large portion of the public doesn't know about it.) As per AR6 , the public mostly rejects deployment for the foreseeable future but have conditional and reluctant support for research You make a good point on why research SRM "if you weren't hoping to also use it". Here's the thing: Many pro research folk hope they'll never have to use SRM - but they'd like to have the options in case the consequences of GW grow much more severe, and so SRM would in their view become the lesser of two evils.

The argument is that for now, the widescale deployment is not justified by the risks. But if GW advances beyond say 2°C, with increasing numbers of people being struck down by death bulb temperatures fatal even if one has fans (only expensive air-conditioning can reliably protect). With increasing migration and violence on a far greater scale than the horrific conflicts currently underway. With increased risk of tipping points being triggered that could commit the world to > 5°C heading (absent widescale SRM etc). In such circumstances, even most IPPC scientists might see mass deploy of SRM as the lesser of two evils. While the AR6 section is quite small, it discusses almost 100 distinct potential benefits & disbenefits that would depend on the exact way SRM is deployed. They'd like to have more clarity on those benefit & disbenefits, so that if mass SRM does become needed, it can be deployed in the most fair & optimal way possible. Granted, those with a deeper understanding of these matters aren't convinced by the IPCC's line of thinking, but it does make sense from a secular, mainstream science perspective. PS - Great find by TERSEYES with that NPPR source- I'll integrate it into the article. NPR also mentions Stardust Solutions, which has raised over 10x as much funding and employs several scientists, which Sunsets don't. Someone else might want to mention that too (though unlike Sunsets, Stardust doesn't yet seem to have started deployments, so may be less noteworthy in that sense.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. The passage that you added ('professor David Keith stated that in the last year or so, there has been far more engagement with SRM from senior political leaders than was previously the case') is not evidence of advocacy for the use of SRM, public or otherwise. It therefore should not follow 'There is no meaningful public advocacy for the use of SRM' with a 'however'. I have moved this sentence to the following paragraph, which concerns countries' emerging positions on the SRM issue. TERSEYES (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Changed short description

I've just changed the short description to "Artificial reflection of sunlight to mask global warming" because I think it's more accurate. Previously it was: "Reflection of sunlight to reduce global warming". EMsmile (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I propose that the short description and the definition in the first paragraph should align, and should reflect authoritative reports.

IPCC:

a range of radiation modification measures not related to greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation that seek to limit global warming. Most methods involve reducing the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching the surface, but others also act on the longwave radiation budget by reducing optical thickness and cloud lifetime.

UNEP:

a range of approaches not related to GHG emission reduction or removal that seek to limit or reduce global warming.

NASEM:

attempts to moderate warming by increasing the amount of sunlight that the atmosphere reflects back to space or by reducing the trapping of outgoing thermal radiation

I prefer the latter half of NASEM because it says what SRM is, rather than what it is not. As for the verbs, I propose to defer to the IPCC's 'limit'. How about in the first paragraph

a range of approaches [alternative: 'measures'] to limit global warming by increasing the amount of sunlight that the atmosphere reflects back to space or by reducing the trapping of outgoing thermal radiation

and in the short description:

approaches to limit global warming by increasing the reflection of sunlight back to space

I will wait for @EMsmile 's reaction before implementing. TERSEYES (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Good points. This makes me think: Let's add a section called "definition" towards the start of the article where we present those different definitions that you have listed above. I think this is useful to show the readers that there are similar but slightly different definitions out there. One problem I see with your proposed short description is that it is a bit too long, as per this guidance: WP:SDLENGTH. But I can see the possible advantage of using the verb "to limit" instead of "to mask". EMsmile (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

A 'definition' section could indeed be beneficial, especially with respect to the inclusion of cirrus cloud thinning. I would amend your proposal to be something like 'Definition and names', which could also explain SRM (management and modification), climate intervention, (solar) geoengineering, climate engineering. TERSEYES (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I think the short description has become too long now (in comparison with the guidelines). I'll think of shorter options. And yes, we could have a section on "Definition and terminology" but I think if we talk about other topics that have their own Wikipedia articles, like climate engineering, we'd need to be very brief so we don't introduce overlap. EMsmile (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The guidelines about the short description length say "More than 80% of short descriptions use fewer than 40 characters (including spaces)". Looking for shorter options, how about this: "Methods to reflect sunlight and cool Earth." This description is 40 characters long, including spaces. Or this (a bit longer): "Techniques to reflect sunlight to reduce warming of Earth." (for comparison the current version is 90 characters long: "approaches to limit global warming by increasing the reflection of sunlight back to space") EMsmile (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Thanks for the great suggestions so far. I would like to add thoughts!

I agree with @TERSEYES that the short description and the definition in the first paragraph should align and reflect authoritative reports. However, here I would suggest it is derived both from all the IPCC-definitions and wording (bold added):

• "Solar radiation modification refers to the intentional modification of the Earth’s shortwave radiative budget with the aim of reducing warming. Artificial injection of stratospheric aerosols, marine cloud brightening and land surface albedo modification are examples of proposed SRM methods. SRM does not fall within the definitions of mitigation and adaptation" (IPCC, 2012b, p. 2) https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/
• “Solar Radiation Management (SRM) involves large-scale methods that seek to reduce the amount of absorbed solar energy in the climate system." (p. 25-26) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

IMO, there should be an aspect of "intentional," [alternative: "deliberate"] and/or "large-scale," and/or "artificial" in the short description, and first sentence of the article. This would clarify the scale and intent of the proposed methods - and is in line with definitions provided above.

Suggestions for short description, building on @EMsmile's suggestion: "Deliberate and large-scale methods to reflect sunlight and cool Earth". However, 69 characters incl. spaces. Or: "Large-scale methods to reflect sunlight and cool Earth" (54 characters) and would suggest adding the above mentioned terms in first sentence, for example:

Solar radiation modification (SRM), or solar geoengineering, refers to a range of large-scale methods that seek to limit global warming by intentionally increasing the amount of sunlight (solar radiation) that the atmosphere reflects back to space or by reducing the trapping of outgoing thermal radiation. 1HumbleB (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, these are great suggestions. To include in the brainstorming: the short description for climate engineering is currently: "Deliberate and large-scale intervention in Earth's climate system". I think I like your proposal Large-scale methods to reflect sunlight and cool Earth best. And I'll start a new section below about the first sentence of the lead. EMsmile (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for my delayed response @EMsmile. Thank you for your input. Based on our discussion, I have updated the short description to "Large-scale methods to reflect sunlight and cool Earth" for now. 1HumbleB (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Changes section "public attitudes"

Hi,

Thank you all, for your already insightful and great edits to this article. I am planning to get more involved in this article, and other climate-related topics more broadly. I just recently started my Wikipedia journey (exciting!), so I am happy to learn and collaborate with you all.

I have just deleted the last sentence from the "Public Attitudes" section: "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."

IMO it is repetitive, had unclear language, and WP:Citation overkill 1HumbleB (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

1HumbleB (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

First sentence of the lead

As to the first sentence of the lead (which is super important), your proposed sentence is good but I worry that it is too long to be comfortably read by a lay person (?): Solar radiation modification (SRM), or solar geoengineering, refers to a range of large-scale methods that seek to limit global warming by intentionally increasing the amount of sunlight (solar radiation) that the atmosphere reflects back to space or by reducing the trapping of outgoing thermal radiation. The style guide WP:FIRST says "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.".

Here is what chapt-gpt suggested: Solar radiation modification (SRM) refers to a set of geoengineering techniques aimed at reflecting a portion of the Sun's incoming solar radiation back into space to reduce global warming and mitigate the effects of climate change. Mind you, when I compare that with your sentence it is less accurate as it doesn't mention the option of reducing the trapping of outgoing radiation. Maybe this could work: Solar radiation modification (SRM) refers to a set of geoengineering techniques that either reflect some of the Sun's incoming solar radiation back into space, or that reduce the trapping of outgoing thermal radiation. The aim is to reduce global warming and mitigate the effects of climate change. However, the first sentence is maybe still too long and complicated like this? EMsmile (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Re-arranged structure

I've just re-arranged the structure a bit to give it more logical flow. However, I struggle with the overlap between the sections on "potential roles" and "potential benefits". This is overlapping and repetitive. Maybe the two sections should be merged into one? Or maybe we should split it so that one is the main objective of SRM and the other would be ancillary benefits.

Also, I wonder if the section on "technical aspects" should be moved to "proposed methods" or even be a main level heading. Currently it's under "disadvantages and risks". EMsmile (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've now worked on this further and re-arranged it into the following structure of main level headings:

• Context
• Rationale
• Proposed methods
• Technical problem areas
• Research funding
• Risks
• Advocacy for and against SRM research
• Society and culture

I think this works better. I am not sure about the section heading called "Advocacy for and against SRM research" - I know we have changed it previously but it's perhaps still not quite right. EMsmile (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed digressing content (not SRM)

I've removed this content as this is not regarded as SRM, as far as I know. If it needs to be saved, it could maybe be moved to climate engineering:

Ocean and ice changes

Oceanic foams have also been suggested, using microscopic bubbles suspended in the upper layers of the photic zone. A less costly proposal is to simply lengthen and brighten existing ship wakes.

Arctic sea ice formation could be increased by pumping deep cooler water to the surface. Sea ice (and terrestrial) ice can be thickened by increasing albedo with silica spheres. Glaciers flowing into the sea may be stabilized by blocking the flow of warm water to the glacier. Salt water could be pumped out of the ocean and snowed onto the West Antarctic ice sheet.

Vegetation

Reforestation in tropical areas has a cooling effect. Changes to grassland have been proposed to increase albedo. This technique can give 0.64 W/m² of globally averaged negative forcing, which is insufficient to offset the 3.7 W/m² of positive forcing from a doubling of carbon dioxide, but could make a minor contribution. Selecting or genetically modifying commercial crops with high albedo has been suggested. This has the advantage of being relatively simple to implement, with farmers simply switching from one variety to another. Temperate areas may experience a 1 °C cooling as a result of this technique. This technique is an example of bio-geoengineering. This technique can give 0.44 W/m² of globally averaged negative forcing, which is insufficient to offset the 3.7 W/m² of positive forcing from a doubling of carbon dioxide, but could make a minor contribution. EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Text on net zero

I've removed two recently added sentences. These were digressing into other areas and difficult to understand (the second one was overly long). Also using 4 low-quality primary sources at the end of the statements that only vaguely fit is not how it works. I am moving them here the talk page in case further discussion is needed:

+++++++

However, serious challenges to the notion that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the scale needed to achieve net zero goals exist. Additionally, the various climate modelling efforts undertaken to determine the likely trajectory of global average temperatures after net zero concede that, as with the case in all such model studies, their results are only indications based on what are admittedly incomplete data inputs, such that "substantial continued warming for decades or centuries following cessation of emissions is a feature of a minority of the assessed models and thus cannot be ruled out purely on the basis of models." EMsmile (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

As for the suggestion that the additional two sentences represent a "distraction," is there some pressing need to keep the discussion so brief as to allow major areas of dispute to be omitted? Perhaps we can agree that there is a problem of misinformation in general on the subject of global warming affecting all concerned? (A case in point is SRM itself, which has been swept under the rug by the mainstream machine.) So for example, the naive proposal initiated by the IPCC and now taken as the accepted approach by the mainstream, to shoot for net zero dependent on massive and fantastical CDR, as it is presented in this SRM entry, raises a red flag. Why should such a hotly debated CDR strategy be offered to laymen here as given? Shouldn't there be at least minimal effort to qualify the logic of the mainstream proposal by informing readers that the assumption of massive-scale CDR is a great leap of faith? Secondly, perhaps you could explain why the 4 citations are of "low quality"? The academic literature casting serious doubt on the ability to perform the assumed CDR at scale is considerable. The papers cited are typical and include statements on both singular CDR methods and CDR in general, which to me seems quite appropriate. As for the statement on ZEC I will create a revision that is shorter and simpler. RPeel (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello RPeel, I notice that you are new to Wikipedia, so let me extend a warm welcome (actually not technically new but you haven't made many edits yet, so a "newbie" in that sense :-) ). There are some guidelines that you might not be aware of and which might provide some answers to your questions:

• One is WP:DUE which means we have to provide information with due weight. I copy from that policy page: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
• Secondly, we are supposed to rely more on secondary sources than on primary sources, see here: WP:PSTS. This is why I called the sources that you used "lower quality" (certainly lower quality, in the Wikipedia sense, than the IPCC reports).
• Also, we have a policy against adding a high number of refs to one sentence, see WP:Overcite.
• Lastly, this is an encyclopedia where one article fits neatly together with other articles. It means that a single article does not have to explain everything but it needs to refer to, and integrate with, other articles. If you want to add a lot of content about net zero emissions, then I object and say that the reader can find that at net zero emissions. We should keep the SRM article focused on SRM, not on a wider debate (sure we can mention the wider debate if there is one but rather than point the readers to the relevant other article). EMsmile (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I've now merged "context" and "rationale" into one section as I could see that there was overlap developing. Also, "context" could blow out into a really big section if we started to explain here everything there is to know around climate change, net zero emissions and so on. I think we should rather spend time explaining better the proposed methods and the risks involved. EMsmile (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Well thank you for letting me know about these wiki restrictions and rules. You are right, I do not spend much time editing wiki. I've got my focus elsewhere. Specifically on our topic, I'm co-authoring a book on SRM with two others (MIT chemist/physicist and acclaimed post-neoclassical economist) so I'm trying to make sure that the hapless public doesn't continue to get bamboozled. Unfortunately, I think the attitude wiki has toward primary sources is very problematic when it comes to cutting edge science because there is very little secondary source material to draw from. Additionally, those secondary sources are often prone to error or oversimplification particularly if they are led by journalists with little or no science background. Citing Carbon Brief on committed warming is a good example. Its author, Hausfather, although a scientist of sorts, is one of those who loves models, does all his science with a computer, and has been sucked into the commodification of global warming by working for dubious carbon credit efforts of the corporate world that sees our plight as merely another business trend. Thanks again. RPeel (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional explanations. Actually, all the IPCC reports are classed as secondary sources (in Wikipedia sense), so we do have a lot of secondary source material for climate change topics... But I think the key policy here is WP:DUE. Either way, I do agree with you that citing Carbon Brief was not a great choice. For now I've made it like this now: In theory, the target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved through a combination of emission cuts and carbon dioxide removal. However, the feasibility of the required scale of carbon dioxide removal, as well as the most suitable methods for carbon dioxide removal are under debate. and using that journal article as a ref for now: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-020-00080-5.

I think the section that is now "Rationale" needs further work, as it jumps around a bit and is also repetitive. There is probably room for condensing it. But the more important sections, in my opinion, are those that follow, i.e. those on methods, problem areas and risks. The "rationale" is really just the theory but the content further down in the article puts meat to the bones.

Is your book already out and do you have previous publications on the topic of SRM? If you want to cite from them, that is OK but you would have to declare your potential conflict of interest (see WP:COI) for adding content from your own work. EMsmile (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know we don’t know the risk from SRM because there have not been enough experiments- is that right?

And we don’t know the risk of going over a tipping point if there is too much CO2 with or without SRM?

So I am confused why we need the text in green . Chidgk1 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think RPeel's edit was good. Regarding EMSsmile's rationale for removing it:

• The citations given are not "4 low-quality primary sources." At least two are clearly secondary sources. I'm curious how you decided that "Assessing Carbon Capture: Public Policy, Science, and Societal Need", which has "Review Paper" at the top of it, is a primary source. I haven't thoroughly assessed all four citations but from what I can assess in a few minutes, I see many more indicators of suitability than unsuitability as Wikipedia sources. I'd really like to understand your thinking here.
• We do not have a policy against adding a high number of refs to one sentence. WP:Overcite is an essay, not a policy or guideline. If you think a sentence has three more citations than it should have, the solution per WP:PRESERVE is to remove three citations, not to remove the sentence. WP:PRESERVE is policy.
• WP:Due weight is of course policy, but in this case I would argue that in this case it favors ensuring that all significant viewpoints are included. NPOV requires including minority points of view unless they are tiny minority points of view.
• Nowhere does policy state that articles should fit neatly together with other articles and avoid overlap. Overlap between articles is normal.

The text wasn't perfect but it's certainly something we can start with. It would be a shame to lose the part about the trajectory after net zero. I see no reason this article should mention that there is a debate about what methods of CDR are most suitable. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Chidgk1 that the text in green (above) is not actually needed in this article as it digresses into other topic areas. However, it was my compromise proposal as the previous text on this sub-topic was even longer (too long in my opinion). This was the text that had previously been added and which I had objected to: However, serious challenges to the notion that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the scale needed to achieve net zero goals exist. Additionally, the various climate modelling efforts undertaken to determine the likely trajectory of global average temperatures after net zero concede that, as with the case in all such model studies, their results are only indications based on what are admittedly incomplete data inputs, such that "substantial continued warming for decades or centuries following cessation of emissions is a feature of a minority of the assessed models and thus cannot be ruled out purely on the basis of models."

That sentence that starts with "additionally" is way too long and confusing. I also see very low source-text integrity for some of the refs. For example, the ref 1 (which I chose to keep), does not talk about these things (explicitly) but does (mainly) talk about different methods for CDR. Which is why I chose to formulate the sentence like this "the most suitable methods for carbon dioxide removal are under debate" if we want to use that ref. But I am also happy to strike out that sentence.

User RPeel then proposed this wording: Additionally, the feasibility of the required scale of carbon dioxide removal that this strategy requires is hotly debated. Likewise, the assumption that net zero would bring about a near immediate stabilization of global average temperatures is based on climate modeling recognized to be based on idealized conditions and incomplete data. These conditions form part of the case for exploring SRM as a secondary strategy to confront warming.. I could not find where the refs said "hotly debated" and think this is editorialising. Ref 1 didn't say that.

By the way, the references from Frontiers come up in yellow with the tool that checks references (rightly or wrongly). Yellow means: "borderline source which often (but not always) fails higher sourcing requirements".

Regarding Chidgk1's question: "As far as I know we don’t know the risk from SRM because there have not been enough experiments- is that right?" This is not right. The risks are pretty much known even before doing large-scale experiments. See the content of the article further down that talks about technical challenges and risks. Many of the risks relate to governance issues as well. EMsmile (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding text-source integrity, I can see an argument for low text-source integrity with the first paper (Sekera) . I see high text-source integrity with the other three citations. As for sources coming up in yellow when you use a tool, the tool documentation that you linked to says yellow means “This is where using your brain matters the most as these sources are generally the least problematic and may not even be problematic at all. This is mostly a double-check this reminder, rather than a probably should be removed warning.” Yet you’re using it as a justfication for removal.

I am reminded of the essay Wikipedia:Bring me a rock.

I appreciate your appreciation for higher-quality sources but the first point Rpeel was trying to make – i.e. that it’s questionable whether humanity will get to net zero by 2050– is so anodyne and obvious that it barely needs a citation at all. The second point – that net zero by 2050 might not be enough to stabilize the climate – disappeared altogether in your proposed compromise. I see no reason to remove these points nor to compromise on them. I agree the original wording was too long and technical but these are reasons to copyedit it - or to simply leave it as-is if you don't want to copyedit it yourself. They are not reasons to erase entire concepts.

Here’s how I’d reword Rpeel’s contributions. I'm sure this too is imperfect. We can improve on it:

However, serious questions have been raised on whether it is feasible to do carbon dioxide removal (CDR) at the very large scales needed to achieve net zero goals. Additionally, a minority of climate models indicate that substantial warming could continue after the goal of net zero emissions is achieved. These uncertainties form part of the case for exploring SRM as a secondary strategy to confront warming.

I've put a variation of the above text in the article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your new text proposal, it's so much better. I like your new paragraph so much that I've moved it to the start of the section on "rationale". I think it sets the scene nicely. I still think the refs used here are not the greatest (if it was the climate change article we would not accept them, or would we?). Also, there are bound to be higher quality refs available for these kinds of general statements, probably the IPCC reports. But I don't have time/energy to look, and if you say these refs are suitable and sufficient then fine. I've done a bit more work on the entire section on "rationale", trying to improve the logical flow and doing some copy editing. I see some repetition and unsourced content further down below in the section. This could be straightened out. EMsmile (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help. Re if it was the climate change article we would not accept them, or would we? I don't have time to fully answer this question, but I'll point out that questions of source reliability are always context-dependent. I.e. a source that is not good enough in one context can be fine in another context. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Reworked advocacy section a bit

I've just reworked the advocacy section a bit. For the content on Germany's position I added two quotes from the report in order to stay closer to what the source says. I've also moved some content from the advocacy section to other (new) sections so that it's easier to follow the logical flow. The second part of the table of content now looks like this:

• Advocacy
• Opposition to deployment and research
• Funding (with two sub-sections: one on research and one on deployment; or maybe it would be better if "deployment" became a main level heading on its own?). EMsmile (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)