→POV tag added: Reply
|
|||
(17 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 205: | Line 205: | ||
: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. [[User:InformationToKnowledge|InformationToKnowledge]] ([[User talk:InformationToKnowledge|talk]]) 16:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
: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. [[User:InformationToKnowledge|InformationToKnowledge]] ([[User talk:InformationToKnowledge|talk]]) 16:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
||
== POV tag added == |
== POV tag <s>added</s> 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: {{tq|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 [[Socialism|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. |
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: {{tq|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 [[Socialism|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. |
||
Line 237: | Line 237: | ||
:::::::: 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. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 10:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
:::::::: 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. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:InformationToKnowledge|InformationToKnowledge]] ([[User talk:InformationToKnowledge|talk]]) 10:53, 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. [[User:InformationToKnowledge|InformationToKnowledge]] ([[User talk: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: {{tq|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.<ref name="RoyalSociety2009">{{cite report |url=http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf |title=Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty |author=The Royal Society |date=2009 |publisher=The Royal Society |location=London |page=1 |isbn=978-0-85403-773-5 |id=RS1636 |access-date=2011-12-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140312031514/http://royalsociety.org/uploadedfiles/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf |archive-date=2014-03-12 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite report |url=https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/publication/1970-01/sri_experiment-earth-report-on-a--public-dialogue-on-geoengineering_sept2010.pdf |title=Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering |author=[[Ipsos MORI]] |date=August 2010 |access-date=6 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190215050427/https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/publication/1970-01/sri_experiment-earth-report-on-a--public-dialogue-on-geoengineering_sept2010.pdf |archive-date=15 February 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Mercer |first1=A M |last2=Keith |first2=D W |last3=Sharp |first3=J D |date=2011-12-01 |title=Public understanding of solar radiation management{{Snd}} IOPscience |url=https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12763597/53098873.pdf?sequence=1 |url-status=live |journal=Environmental Research Letters |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=044006 |bibcode=2011ERL.....6d4006M |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190331144301/https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12763597/53098873.pdf?sequence=1 |archive-date=31 March 2019 |access-date=6 June 2021 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kahan |first1=Dan M. |last2=Jenkins-Smith |first2=Hank |last3=Tarantola |first3=Tor |last4=Silva |first4=Carol L. |last5=Braman |first5=Donald |date=2015-03-01 |title=Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization Testing a Two-Channel Model of Science Communication |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |volume=658 |issue=1 |pages=192–222 |doi=10.1177/0002716214559002 |issn=0002-7162 |s2cid=149147565}}</ref><ref>{{Cite report |url=http://iagp.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Views%20about%20geoengineering%20IAGP.pdf |title=Views about geoengineering: Key findings from public discussion groups |date=2014-07-31 |publisher=Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals |access-date=6 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161223100051/http://iagp.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Views%20about%20geoengineering%20IAGP.pdf |archive-date=23 December 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wibeck |first1=Victoria |last2=Hansson |first2=Anders |last3=Anshelm |first3=Jonas |date=2015-05-01 |title=Questioning the technological fix to climate change{{Snd}} Lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden |url=http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-119732 |journal=Energy Research & Social Science |volume=7 |pages=23–30 |bibcode=2015ERSS....7...23W |doi=10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.001}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Merk |first1=Christine |last2=Pönitzsch |first2=Gert |last3=Kniebes |first3=Carola |last4=Rehdanz |first4=Katrin |last5=Schmidt |first5=Ulrich |date=2015-02-10 |title=Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection |journal=Climatic Change |volume=130 |issue=2 |pages=299–312 |bibcode=2015ClCh..130..299M |doi=10.1007/s10584-014-1317-7 |issn=0165-0009 |s2cid=154196324}}</ref>}} [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 11:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 11:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::3. She removed from the 'Lessened mitigation' subsection: ''<nowiki/>'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.''<nowiki/>' This is relevant but to Politics section, where I have moved it to. |
:::::::3. She removed from the 'Lessened mitigation' subsection: ''<nowiki/>'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.''<nowiki/>' 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. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 10:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
:::::::: 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. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 10:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
Line 242: | Line 243: | ||
:::::::: I've started a new section on this topic below for further discussion. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 10:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
:::::::: I've started a new section on this topic below for further discussion. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 10:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::::[[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 21:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
:::::::[[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 21:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} 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. |
{{od}} 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. |
||
Line 253: | Line 255: | ||
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! [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
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! [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
: I ask @[[User:EMsmile|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. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | {{reflist-talk}} [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:Thank you. Per the quote from @[[User:InformationToKnowledge|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 [https://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/ssc/ the leadership of Earth System Governance Project], which is paying @[[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] for editing this article, are the [https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/signatories/ originators of a political campaign against SRM and its research]. Of course, this should not influence how your edits are judged by others. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 15:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Renaming the section on "politics" == |
== 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”. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 10:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
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”. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk: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 '<u>Politics</u> would be about <u>political</u> processes and decisions.' A [[Tautology (logic)|tautology]] is a statement that is inherenly necessarily true, often because it is self-referential. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 08:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Objecting to unsourced content about advocacy == |
== Objecting to unsourced content about advocacy == |
||
I had removed this content but TERSEYES put it back in so let's discuss it: {{tq|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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Make Sunsets |url=https://makesunsets.com/ |access-date=2024-03-09 |website=makesunsets.com}}</ref> 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 [[ |
I had removed this content but TERSEYES put it back in so let's discuss it: {{tq|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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Make Sunsets |url=https://makesunsets.com/ |access-date=2024-03-09 |website=makesunsets.com}}</ref> 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. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 10:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk: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) [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk: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. [https://www.npr.org/2024/04/21/1244357506/earth-day-solar-geoengineering-climate-make-sunsets-stardust 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 [https://www.gob.mx/semarnat/prensa/la-experimentacion-con-geoingenieria-solar-no-sera-permitida-en-mexico 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.' [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk: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 {{tq|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 [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter16.pdf AR6] , the public {{tq|mostly rejects deployment for the foreseeable future}} but have {{tq|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 [[Wet-bulb_temperature#Wet-bulb_temperature_and_health|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.) [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 13:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[1]. 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.[2][3] In climate models, solar geoengineering can reduce the global mean surface temperature.[4] A 2% reduction in absorbed solar radiation would approximately be enough to balance the radiative forcing from doubling preindustrial CO2 concentrations [5]. 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.[6] 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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
References
{{cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(help); External link in |doi=
(help); Missing or empty |title=
(help)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
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)[reply]
References
And yet solar geoengineering's relatively low cost raises the possibility that a single nation, or perhaps a group of island nations threatened by rising seas, could act unilaterally to initiate it. "One small group of people can have a lot of influence over the entire planet," Keith says. But he does not view this as an inexorable threat.
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)[reply]
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.
--Mhenryclimate (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay, I’ll do it on my computer in the next couple of days. MurrayScience (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]EMsmile (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
References
EMsmile (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[1] 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)[reply]
advocating for the research and, in some cases, the potential deploymentSo 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.
mostly rejects deployment for the foreseeable futurebut have
conditional and reluctant support for researchYou 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.
References