 | Environment C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Climate change C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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=|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]
