Talk:Solar radiation modification/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Solar radiation modification. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Question about COI edit notice on talk page
Hi User:Dustfreeworld, I have a couple of questions about the COI edit tag that you have put on the talk page here. Do you see this as just a general warning tag, or are you saying that a few of us who have recently been editing here would need to stop editing directly? Because if that's what you're saying then I would mildly oppose that.
I think in the last few weeks (or even most of the time in the last 12 months), the editing here has been collaborative and beneficial for the quality of the Wikipedia article - regardless of whether people have a close connection to the topic, e.g. by being researchers in SRM, or not. I think Thisredrock and TERSEYES are good examples. They have a connection to the topic, and are WP:experts, e.g. perhaps working at universities where SRM research takes place (see their profile pages for disclosure). And yet, we can work together in a collaborative style to make this article better, right?
If e.g. the three of us stopped to edit the article directly, and only made suggestions on the talk page, then it would take much longer and rely on volunteer time of others who may or may not have time/interest/energy for this.
Did you have a particular intention with placing this tag at this specific point in time? If it's a general "be careful" notice then I think it's fine. EMsmile (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Few scientists? Or only a few scientists?
I don't fully understand this sentence and how the Hansen ref is used: Yet in the 20th and early 21st century even calls for further SRM research have been controversial, and few scientists called for its actual use.
. I thought it was meant to mean "only a few" but User:William M. Connolley said my addition of "only" broke the grammar? Does "few scientists" mean "several scientists"? Or "many"? Or "only a few"? Also, I don't understand why the Hansen 2025 ref is used as a source here: Does Hansen say that "few scientists called for its actual use" or is Hansen supposed to be an example of someone calling for its use? It might be better to add the Hansen ref to the end of "Yet in the 20th and early 21st century even calls for further SRM research have been controversial". The sentence and ref was added by User:FeydHuxtable so perhaps they'd like to comment on how it was meant. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- "few" does not mean "many". I'm baffled by your inability to understand a common word. Also, Hansen is a bad source, he is desperately idiosyncratic William M. Connolley (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Grammar and Hansen aside, I cannot think of any scientist who has called for SRM to be used. TERSEYES (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, William M. Connolley: not everyone is a native English speaker. So when you say "few scientists" and that is supposed to mean only a handful of them (?), then wouldn't the sentence be clearer if we said: "only a few scientists"? (or is that grammatically wrong / bad English?) Or actually, if TERSEYES says that no scientist has called for SRM to be used, then why do we even say "few scientists called for its actual use"?
- The MIT Review article from 2017 that is used as a source here (not a super strong source) says "Few serious scientists would argue that we should begin deploying geoengineering anytime soon." (without saying who those "few serious scientists" are). The same source also states (bolding added by me): "As climate change accelerates, a handful of scientists are eager to move ahead with experiments testing ways to counteract warming artificially."
- The Hansen ref is not a good one for this sentence either. The closest sentence I could find in their paper (searching for "scientists") is:
We do not recommend implementing climate interventions, but we suggest that young people not be prohibited from having knowledge [...]
- To summarise: I think we should rather delete the second half of the sentence:
Yet in the 20th and early 21st century even calls for further SRM research have been controversial,
. Or else, find a more precise source for that. EMsmile (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)and few scientists called for its actual use.- Changing "Few" to "Only a few" changes the meaning and reduces source:text integrity.
- 'Few' means "Not many" - and generally "Not many" could be seen as meaning quantities like 3, 2 or even zero.
- Whereas 'Only a few' means "not many - but at least two or three" - quite a different thing.
- TERSEYES did not say "that no scientist has called for SRM to be used" (And if he had claimned that, he'd be wrong) He said he cannot think of one. Again, big difference. And regardless, we go by what's said by WP:RS, not the opinions of an admitedly knowledgable editor like TERSEYES.
- There's too many other mistakes & false assumptions in your statements here to address. It would have been more collegial to think things through a bit more, rather than subject a volunteer editor to so many unnecessary questions just beacause he corrected one of your mistakes. It's good to be considerate of volunteer editor time - many of us like have high article:talk space ratios. Dont take this too much to heart - mostly youre quite charming and your talk pages posts are useful for article improvements. But sometimes it's best to think more and edit less. I'm now taking this page of my watchlist for a few months, please don't ping me back. Much as I consider William M. Connolley to be a rightly recognised expert on GW, it's just too vexing to see my man Hansen being described as 'desperately idiosyncratic'. FeydHuxtable (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- MIT Technology Review is among the best sources of science news for non-expert audiences in English. The author of that source, James Temple, might be the best journalist on SRM.
- In principle, I would go even further: that no mainstream scientist calls for the use of SRM. But we must stick to WP:RSs.
- I am torn on whether to keep "few scientists called for its actual use". On the one hand, it counters the clickbait headlines the many false clickbait headlines which claim that scientists do want to use SRM (e.g. 1, 2; I could produces dozens), while the articles' texts describe mere modelling experiments. On the other, the phrase implies that some scientist do call for its actual use. Ultimately, I lean toward keeping it. (But remove the Hansen source, which is one paper that calls for SRM research.) TERSEYES (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I've removed the Hansen source for this sentence now. Maybe it would be clearer if we said "not many scientists...". Or we use a direct quote from the MIT source:
Few serious scientists would argue that we should begin deploying geoengineering anytime soon.
? But if someone asks: would we know who those few serious scientists are? Is the important aspect in that sentence perhaps the "anytime soon"? It seems to me that those scientists who advocate for more SRM research now (like David Keith (physicist)) implicitly would also argue that we should use it in the future when the research is completed and if it seems promising (otherwise, why else spend money on researching it; nobody would bother researching something that is likely to be a "dead horse".). EMsmile (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)- I agree that we quote the MIT Tech Review.
- Not relevant to the article, but plenty of SRM researchers oppose its use, e.g. Alan Robock. TERSEYES (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Done (reworded by using a direct quote from MIT Tech Review). Thanks for the info on Alan Robock. This is a name I hadn't heard about yet. Will read more. EMsmile (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I've removed the Hansen source for this sentence now. Maybe it would be clearer if we said "not many scientists...". Or we use a direct quote from the MIT source:
Conditional tense in the introduction
At the moment the intro text states that "SRM could be a supplement to climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, but would not be a substitute for reducing greenhouse gas emissions".
I appreciate that one wants clarity ahead of pedantry in the opening sentences, but isn't this statement too confident? One of the major concerns about SRM is that it could be pushed as a substitute for mitigation. Would it be too picky to have something along the lines of "Experts often argue that SRM should only ever considered as a supplement to climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, not a substitute"? There is probably a better formulation than this but I don't think that the text should state with certainty what SRM will or won't be. Thisredrock (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you. And I also don't like with this sentence that the ref (IPCC report) is used mid-sentence here. In general, refs should always be at the very end. If needed to have the ref mid-sentence then this might indicate that the sentence should be split in two. EMsmile (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Thisredrock I understand your objection but I think your proposed replacement text is not strong enough.
- https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/10/453/2019/esd-10-453-2019.html is CC and
- says “even if successful, SRM can not replace but only complement CO2 abatement.” Chidgk1 (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Thisredrock So you are saying that SRM could not be a real substitute but could be a fake substitute? How about we change “ would not be a substitute” to “cannot replace”? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- My formulation might not be right but what I'm trying to do is separate fact from opinion. Experts agree that SRM should not be used as a substitute for emissions cuts (and I have written this in more articles and reports than I can remember) but it is not an immutable fact that SRM isn't a substitute. It could be used as a substitute, this would just be inadvisable and very risky. But perhaps this is too pedantic and the sentence is fine either as it is or with "cannot replace". Thisredrock (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- "Experts agree that SRM should not be a substitute for mitigation."
- "SRM could not be a perfect substitute for mitigation." For example, ocean acidification would continue and, even under optimized SRM, there would be residual precipitation anomalies.
- Both are true. I find the first to be more relevant for the lead section. TERSEYES (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- My formulation might not be right but what I'm trying to do is separate fact from opinion. Experts agree that SRM should not be used as a substitute for emissions cuts (and I have written this in more articles and reports than I can remember) but it is not an immutable fact that SRM isn't a substitute. It could be used as a substitute, this would just be inadvisable and very risky. But perhaps this is too pedantic and the sentence is fine either as it is or with "cannot replace". Thisredrock (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Do we still need pre-2020 sources outside the history section?
Don’t we have enough sources from 2020 onwards? Apart from the history section, if we just used sources from the past few years it might be easier to check that the sources support our text don’t you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Um, I don't know if a general statement (and a cut-of year) can be made about this. I think pre-2020 is only 5 years old so could still be very valid. Which sources in in particular do you have in mind which you think should be replaced with newer ones? EMsmile (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Two of the “major reports” at the end of the context section could presumably be removed - 2009 is already mentioned in the history section and 2015 seems to be superseded Chidgk1 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Should the opening sentence and the bulleted list of major reports be moved to the history section?
- And for what it is worth, the 2021 US National Academies report had a slightly different focus ("Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance") than the 2015 one (a scientific assessment). TERSEYES (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Two of the “major reports” at the end of the context section could presumably be removed - 2009 is already mentioned in the history section and 2015 seems to be superseded Chidgk1 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Inputs by climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
A few days ago I've reached out to climate scientist Kevin Trenberth and asked him what his opinion is about SRM in general, the SRM Wikipedia article, and the recent Hansen publication which we have cited (and briefly discussed above). FYI, Kevin is one of the content experts whom we have reached out as part of our Formas-funded project and who has kindly donated his time to give critical feedback and inputs for several Wikipedia articles on climate change. I wish more content experts would be so generous with their time as he has been. I have for many years tried to bring the knowledge of content experts into Wikipedia articles (not just for this topic).
Anyhow, here is his input, for inspiration purposes and food for thought (he said it's OK by him to copy his e-mail to the talk page):
++++++++++
This may help:
Hacking planet Earth will not save us from ourselves. 27 March 2024
I am against SRM especially for ethical reasons: who decides on behalf of all humanity? I first wrote about this in 2007:
Trenberth, K. E., and A. Dai, 2007: Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lttrs., 34, L15702, doi:10.1029/2007GL030524
For every action the atmosphere reacts in ways not well understood or modeled. Many proposals are not sound physically because while they may cool things in one spot they may increase T in other spots.
wrt Hansen: he is wrong.
I sent this out on Feb 5 to colleagues:
"Is there any commentary that is useful on Jim Hansen's latest article in Environment. Goodness knows how he gets stuff like that published. I can't stand to read it: it is 40 odd pages. I did a search and not once was water vapor mentioned. Yet water vapor is at record high levels, and of course so is the ocean heat. Global integrated water vapor is some 7% higher in 2024 than in 2000. Of course that is a feedback and depends on higher temperatures (in the right places), but it also very much depends on the warmer oceans!
He carefully compares things to cause exaggerations, e.g. he uses SST, but SST in the northern hemisphere is for a much smaller region that in the SH: is is not area or mass weighted. He also uses Watts per square meter for other metrics but not total Watts. Globally that is OK but comparing regions or ocean areas, the size and volume matter. If he did the latter he would find that, no, the biggest warming is not in the northern hemisphere oceans but in the southern hemisphere oceans where aerosols certainly were not responsible for the warming. I am not saying they haven't played a role: they have, but not like Hansen believes."
But got little back. But these two reports:
- Matt Rozsa, Salon - 6 Feb 2025 A recent report finds climate change is accelerating faster than predicted. Some experts disagree
- Bob Berwyn 4Feb 25, Inside Climate News New Research Led by James Hansen Documents Global Warming Acceleration
+++++++++++++
Should the methods sections be excerpts?
As each of the five methods sections has a main article should we replace those with excerpts from the main articles? That way they might be easier to keep up to date in future. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think that is a good suggestion. I would support it. In the process, you could take those sentences and refs that are good from here and move them to the leads of the sub-articles (so that they come back via the excerpt). (but I know some people don't like excerpts, particularly if the ambition is to get this to GA or FA standard; or if the leads of the sub-articles are of poor quality.) EMsmile (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes if I remember right the only excerpts I have submitted for GA have themselves come from GA. Still if the GA reviewer objected it would be quick and easy to change this article back to not using excerpts. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would say: good ahead with doing the excerpts, and in the process also improving the leads of the transcribed articles. :-) EMsmile (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes if I remember right the only excerpts I have submitted for GA have themselves come from GA. Still if the GA reviewer objected it would be quick and easy to change this article back to not using excerpts. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Some pretty major claims appear unsourced and misleading
In at least two places, a claim is made that a particular method would compensate for very large increases of CO2. These claims are not sourced. They appear implausible or at least misleading. The wording makes it sound like they would accomplish this offset overall, but I'm guessing that that reduction statement is only for / within the area covered by the measure which would only be a tiny fraction of the world. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I put CN tags on them. I'm assuming these came from sources and it would probably be good info with wording which more accurately reflects what the sources say, which I'm guessing is that the quoted offset is valid (only) for the areas where the measure is applied. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I deleted them. There is some info in https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/10/453/2019/esd-10-453-2019.html but I don’t understand it Chidgk1 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I skimmed that paper and didn't see anything covering that topic.North8000 (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I wrote / revised some of the text where you added CNs. Adding those and double-checking the precision of the language is on my to-do list. Maybe this weekend?
- Either way, note that the leading SRM methods would generally have (near) global effects. TERSEYES (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- ??? I think we may be talking about two different areas? North8000 (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I deleted them. There is some info in https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/10/453/2019/esd-10-453-2019.html but I don’t understand it Chidgk1 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
For example: It said "potentially reversing the warming effect of a more than a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide." Aside from being unsourced, a common reading of this this is a pretty mathematically implausible statement. That we could cancel out a doubling of the CO2 in the word's atmosphere by using this method. My guess is that source actually said that if you applied this measure in a test spot and doubled the CO2 in a test spot, that within that test spot those two changes would cancel each other out. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I just looked at the section in question and removing the text was correct, I think. The original said that MCB "could produce up to 5 W/m² of negative radiative forcing, potentially reversing the warming effect of a more than a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide". Part of this is true, part is wrong. A doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels would have a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. If an SRM method could produce a global forcing of -5 Wm-2, it would indeed reverse the warming from a doubling of CO2. But I think that under current projections MCB could produce this amount of cooling regionally not globally, and as such it was right to cut the text. Thisredrock (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- The IPCC AR6 stated "1–5 W m–2, depending on the scale and amount of sea salt injection; heterogeneous radiative forcing" for "Global Mean Negative Radiative Forcing Potential and Characteristics". I just now looked at the underlying sources, and it appears that the IPCC report is not quite correct. Both of the newer IPCC-cited articles [1, 2] gave maximum global negative RF as 2.0 W/m2, and the older two give no values. However, one of the newer cited articles does refer back to this one from 2012 which concludes "we predicted a [global] radiative flux perturbation (RFP) of −5.1 W m−2, which is enough to counteract warming from doubled CO2 concentration." This seems like an outlier.
- To be cautious, I propose something like "studies generally indicate that this technique could produce up to 2 W/m² of negative radiative forcing" and cite the two newer IPCC-cited articles instead of the IPCC itself. I recognize that this flirts with crossing into WP:NOR but, in this case, would defend it. TERSEYES (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- @TERSEYES Thanks for that expert advice - I am trying to improve the MCB section based on that. By the way if you have time perhaps you would like to Talk:Marine cloud brightening with any expert suggestions you may have for that article Chidgk1 (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Will do. TERSEYES (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- @TERSEYES Thanks for that expert advice - I am trying to improve the MCB section based on that. By the way if you have time perhaps you would like to Talk:Marine cloud brightening with any expert suggestions you may have for that article Chidgk1 (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Suggestion to put info about costs of SAI back in
I don't understand why this text was removed in an edit by TERSEYES on 16 Feb? It seems like useful information to me. Was there a specific reason for removing it?:
++++++++
A 2021 report by the US National Academies estimated that developing the technology for SAI could cost several billion dollars over a decade, while annual deployment could cost in the tens of billions of dollars.[1] Costs are expected to increase over time due to reduced efficiency from larger aerosol particles,[clarification needed] requiring greater mass injections to maintain cooling levels.[2]
++++++
EMsmile (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
References
- ^ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2021). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. National Academies Press.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Niemeier, U.; Timmreck, U. (2015). "What is the limit of climate engineering by stratospheric injection of SO2?". Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15 (16): 9129–9141. doi:10.5194/acp-15-9129-2015.
EMsmile (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- I kept the costs of SAI and only updated the source from the 2021 US NAS report to 2023 UNEP. The only substantive removal was the sentence regarding increasing costs, which came from a single ten-year-old study and was not (as far as I could see) not repeated in any of the recent major reports. TERSEYES (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)