Wikipedia

Talk:Climate engineering/Archive 3

< Talk:Climate engineering
Latest comment: 1 year ago by InformationToKnowledge in topic Much more work needed
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Climate engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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) 10:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Additional measures to mention ?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See this talk page for some other possible measures that cna be mentioned at this page (mainly monitoring for fast intervention) Genetics4good (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide removal is *not* generally considered to be climate engineering

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Carbon dioxide removal is *not* generally considered to be climate engineering, especially since natural carbon sequestration is literally carbon dioxide removal, so this really needs to be removed from the article, unless a source can be provided (currently their are none) in which case it should reworded to "According to X, carbon dioxide removal is also climate engineering". I doubt such a source will be found. If it is not, I will remove all mentions of carbon dioxide removal from the article. Alec Gargett (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Self-correction. I believe it should be possible to find sources suggesting that *some* forms of carbon dioxide removal like iron fertilization may be considered climate engineering, so I have reworded the article to emphasise this.
I agree. But I think afforestation, ecosystem restoration and BECCS should be removed as I don't think they are generally considered climate engineering.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I added a citation to the National Academies of Sciences report on negative emissions technologies to the sentence about how not all commentators agree that NETs constitute climate engineering. The NASEM report supports this sentence.--Cscott79 (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

A bit of restructuring?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am wondering if the sections "Evaluation" and "risks and criticisms" should be merged together and streamlined. Also, I don't think it makes sense to have a section called "General". Rename that to "terminology" or move it to elsewhere in the text, would be my suggestion. EMsmile (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Trim and separate into solar geoengineering (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The collective "climate engineering" or "geoengineering" is used less. Both the US National Academies (since 2015) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (since 2018) no use the term and instead split the two concepts. Consistent with this, I will move some of the content here to solar geoengineering and carbon dioxide removal. TERSEYES (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sasu21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 May 2019 and 24 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Benjamin youngberg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion

A discussion about deletion is currently taking place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Climate_engineering EMsmile (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Best I can see, no discussion. Am I missing something? Swliv (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggested that discussion be closed as obviously the consensus is against my suggestion to delete - but it is still open so please add your view there or here if you have one. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Another procedural observation: I don't see the proposal for deletion listed in the December 4 listing of AfDs or in the daily logs for the 5th, 6th, 7th or the 8th. I'm not sure if that is relevant, either; trying to understand.
But as to the substance, I do now see the efforts to migrate the article to ones reflecting more current terminology etc. I hope the older term(s) won't be completely extinguished, for history and for reaching variously prepared readers. Swliv (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I couldn't find it before but I've found the discussion here (link) via revision history at Nov. 30 (link). 13:38 (Somehow I missed the 4 Dec. notification with this same link above when I first visited this talk page, leading to my question earlier today. That question now of course seems stupid with the 4 Dec. link right before it. I don't know how I missed the 4 Dec. link, before.) I'm comfortable with the consensus that's emerged in the discussion [and impressed with the level of the discussion pro and con; it's what I was looking for; for now I don't consider myself ready to contribute one way or another but appreciate the work. 14:26 I also] appreciate the extra work done on this article to update and integrate it with other articles and current best terminology etc.
For reference, there's also an archive of the first comments on this discussion on this talk page here (link). Swliv (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
This article should now be merged into solar radiation management because this is what it's all about. Note also that the term climate engineering is no longer used in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. I've just written about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation#Terminology_and_scope. I formulated it as follows "The Sixth IPCC Assessment Report stated in 2022 that the term “geoengineering” (or climate engineering) is used in the literature sometimes for both CDR (carbon dioxide removal) or SRM (Solar radiation management or solar geoengineering) when applied at a planetary scale. In their own report, "CDR and SRM are discussed separately reflecting their very different geophysical characteristic". The terms geoengineering or climate engineering are no longer used in IPCC reports." - We could also change it to a disambiguation article. Pinging Chidgk1 EMsmile (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I have changed my mind on this. I am reworking this article to become a brief overview article for a term that is still kicking around in the literature even if the IPCC has stopped using it. EMsmile (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Question about Passive daytime radiative cooling

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm wondering if it's justified that Passive daytime radiative cooling gets mentioned as "the third type" of climate engineering (according to one source). I am just a bit unsure as this technology is not mentioned in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, working group 3. Or perhaps I overlooked it in that report because they use a different term for it? EMsmile (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's not build up a parallel structure

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I am referring to this edit by User:Lfstevens. I've just reworked it a bit, trying to make it clearer how the term is defined by IPCC and then give "alternative definitions" by others (who exactly? Citation needed). Also, I think this article needs to remain brief and not build up a parallel structure: a lot of the content that has now been added under "ocean geoengineering" is already at carbon sequestration. So the reader should be mainly referred to that other article. Same with iron fertilization: there is a good article on that so we don't need to build up new content about iron fertilization here. Just an excerpt from the iron fertilization article is sufficient and then refer readers across. Otherwise we'll end up with the same/similar content in several articles and would need to updated content in several places which is not efficient. Basically, the term "climate engineering" is just an umbrella term for a range of technologies. It might still be used in the media but as the IPCC has dropped this term, I think we can expect that it will become less used in future. People will more likely speak about carbon dioxide removal, carbon sequestration and so forth. That's where we should put our energy as Wikipedia editors, in my opinion. EMsmile (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! CE is not just about sequestration, of course. That's why this article remains relevant. Appreciate the refactoring to place new facts closer to existing facts. I'd have kept the recent liming experiment, because it was about oysters. Sequestration was a secondary issue.
Well, my point was that "ocean geoengineering" overlaps with carbon sequestration so I am not sure it works to list it as a "fourth" type of climate engineering when it's really part of the category on carbon sequestration. About those lime experiments, I didn't move that info, it's still there: This was assessed in 2022 in an experiment in Apalachicola, Florida in an attempt to halt declining oyster populations. pH levels increased modestly, as CO2 was reduced by 70 ppm. This idea about adding lime is also in this article though: Carbon sequestration#Adding bases to neutralize acids. We should be mindful not to duplicate. Perhaps it's better to have a sub-article on Ocean alkalinity addition which is what ocean liming really is? This is actually also included here: Ocean acidification#Carbon removal technologies which add alkalinity. A good publication on this topic (a secondary source) is this one (this is better than citing individual small experiments): https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26278/a-research-strategy-for-ocean-based-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-sequestration. EMsmile (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Agree that there is overlap, but not that one is a subtopic of the other. If you're trying to grow oysters, sequestration is a side effect, and vice versa. That's why I put liming here.

Citing the claim that the IPCC no longer uses the term 'geoengineering'

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have examined the notes listed as citing evidence that the IPCC no longer uses the term 'geoengineering' that are offered here, and do not find that they support the claim. Specifically, the first note links an IPCC document which does not include any statement about a decision to not use the term. 2A02:AA16:577F:B80:E995:D5DE:5016:17E3 (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's always hard to find a ref that says that something is not the case or something does not exist... If the three big working group reports of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report don't use the term "geoengineering" anymore then I think this is an OK reference to use for this statement. Yes, even better would be an official statement by the IPCC saying "we don't use this term anymore" but I suspect such a document doesn't exist. We could alternatively ask some of the IPCC report authors. Perhaps User:Jonathanlynn has a suggestion for this. EMsmile (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Many scientists prefer to avoid the term geoengineering because it covers two broad and distinct categories of action -- carbon dioixide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). So the term geoengineering is ambiguous and confusing. It is also emotionally freighted. For definitions of CDR and SRM see the glossary (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Annex-I.pdf) to the Working Group III contribution (mitigation) to the Sixth Assessment Report. The glossary does not include an entry for geoengineering. There is extensive coverage of CDR in the WGIII report including in the Summary for Policymakers, but SRM is mentioned only briefly in Ch 14. This reflects the lack of scientific literature on SRM. See Ch 14 section 14.4.5 for a discussion of the two terms and of geoengineering and the international governance issues including cross-working group Box 4 on SRM (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Chapter14.pdf) Jonathanlynn (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Much more work needed

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I haven't looked at this article closely before, as I didn't quite understand the distinction before. Now, I can certainly see the purpose of this article, as well as its limitations.

Don't have time to contribute more to it right now, but some quick suggestions:

  • "Moral hazard and ethics" does not appear to cite a single source newer than mid-2010s.
  • "History" section seems too far down? In general, article layout is strange. First, we go through different methods, than we list some, often vague and seemingly not very comprehensive reasons why some are opposed, than we confirm that quite a lot of people are indeed opposed, and then we mention a few assessments by various organizations, nearly all inconclusive. Surely there has to be a better way to organize it?

InformationToKnowledge (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and here is another fun discovery. It turns out we also have a planetary engineering article, which is like a confused mix between this one and terraforming. Small, receives 9 times fewer views than this one, and basically all of the current article has been written by two student editors a couple of years ago. Thoughts on how to deal with it? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I am against investing much time into this article. I am not sure if you've read my comment on this talk page from December 2022? If not, I copy it again below: "Also, I think this article needs to remain brief and not build up a parallel structure: a lot of the content that has now been added under "ocean geoengineering" is already at carbon sequestration. So the reader should be mainly referred to that other article. Same with iron fertilization: there is a good article on that so we don't need to build up new content about iron fertilization here. Just an excerpt from the iron fertilization article is sufficient and then refer readers across. Otherwise we'll end up with the same/similar content in several articles and would need to updated content in several places which is not efficient. Basically, the term "climate engineering" is just an umbrella term for a range of technologies. It might still be used in the media but as the IPCC has dropped this term, I think we can expect that it will become less used in future. People will more likely speak about carbon dioxide removal, carbon sequestration and so forth. That's where we should put our energy as Wikipedia editors, in my opinion."
As for the history section being further down towards the end of the article, I think that is good. For science and tech type articles I think the history section should NOT be at the start of the article as it's unlikely that the main thing that readers are looking for is the history of that science or tech topic. Placing it towards the end, near the standard section "society and culture", is appropriate in my opinion.
And I hadn't seen the planetary engineering article before. Hadn't heard of the term yet either. If there is overlap then this should be reduced. EMsmile (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I remember that comment. I just don't think my goals are in contradiction to it.
Sure, this article should mainly serve as a directory which only gives a brief overview of the specific interventions. I.e. much like what tipping points in the climate system currently does, and what I would want the article on biome impacts (a proposed modification of the ecosystem effects article) to ultimately look like. (As well as my proposed alternative to the "co-benefits" article, that secondary impacts draft.) The thing is, even directory-style articles can well be of a different quality level. Given the whole "people often only read the lead" argument I have seen several times on here, wouldn't picking a great page image (probably a 2x2/3x2 collage at the end of the day) be even more of a priority then?
And my objection is not that history is at the end of the article per se, but rather that in the article's current state, we list a few objections and downsides from often vaguely defined "opponents", while the positive views on the subject are either absent or hidden somewhere within history of these assessments. It's almost like a joke: you would think that nobody wants it, yet those big organizations keep researching it regardless. Solar geoengineering also seems to have a similar issue, at least in my view, and this is where I think we can likely do a lot better.
Lastly, I think that page might just be another term which was mainly invented on here and/or picked up from general conversation. It doesn't seem to cite any source actually using this term (much like the ecological collapse article). I now think that the best thing to do with it would probably be to make a disambig pointing to either this page, or terraforming. (Once anything unique to it is spread to the articles which would need it more, of course). InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Your idea about a disambiguation page got me thinking: how about we change it over to become a short article like marine resources. It gives a short intro and then a list of relevant articles. This might do the trick? EMsmile (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps, though there is a notable difference, as marine resources at least has firm roots in a reliable source (SDGs) while with planetary engineering, the most reliable recent source I could find was this conference paper from over 30 years ago. It's even technically possible some newer uses of it have been examples of WP:Citogenesis. I'll have to think about it. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_engineering/Archive_3&oldid=1235321523"