Talk:Solar radiation modification

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

No Aluminum?[edit]

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]

Fixed 1010[edit]

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]

3.7 watts/m^2[edit]

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]

And it is really necessary to say that everything is "insufficient" to offset the 3.7 W/m^2? The article would read better if a brief explanation of how albedo relates to the effect of greenhouse gases, what total change to albedo would be required, and then list the possible techniques & their effectiveness. Only a dummy would assume that an SRM system would employ only one technique; therefore, give the reader the ability to see how much of each technique would be needed to reach a given goal. 69.174.87.108 (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article to: Solar geoengineering[edit]

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]

Merge and reduce lead and Purpose section[edit]

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]

A few questions: 1. what's the issue of saying SRM can prevent the climate change associated with global warming? If SRM eliminates radiative forcing then the average temperature stays constant (or goes back to its pre-industrial average), and the climate change associated with global warming is averted. 2. Relatively low financial cost, should be clarified, relative to what? 3. Why use "theoretically" deployed? I think the summary that the geopolitical risks arise because deployment 'affects the whole planet' is rather vague. There are uncertainties with how solar geoengineering would be governed, see the first sentence of that section: "Climate engineering poses several challenges in the context of governance because of issues of power and jurisdiction". 4. I don't think the lead should tell the story of Mount Pinatubo, that's very specific, and it's already in the lead of Stratospheric aerosol injection. 5. The 2% reduction line is from a 2013! paper, we should not have original research in the lead, that's way too specific, and at the very least the figure of 2% should be verified form the paper with a quote from the paper that would go in the citation. 6. There are uncertainties about changes in the precipitation patterns, stratospheric ozone concentrations, etc. And these might be entirely specific to stratospheric aerosol injection with sulfur dioxide, rather than other forms such as thinning cirrus clouds. We want the lead to make statements that are true about solar geoengineering in general, rather than just one method. 7. The lead should be approachable to a layman/laywomen and thus should not include technical words such as 'radiative forcing', notice that the one technical term albedo has an explanation (reflectivity) next to it. 8. The 'most optimistic scenario' is rather vague, who thinks this is optimistic? (That's an opinion not an encyclopedia-type fact.) 9. Where in the wiki page does it say that SRM depends entirely on the 'method, time and location'?

In general, the way leads are edited in Wikipedia is not through complete re-writes. It shouldn't be surprising that a lead is difficult to edit, this is because it goes through years of crafting and perfection. My suggestion is this: copy and paste the lead into this talk page, then make incremental changes to the lead as it is, adding or subtracting sentences with justifications. That's generally how leads are changed. In general, a lead should summarize information that's already covered in the article, rather than introduce new specific information that's not in the article. It should be as conservative as possible in the sense that all statements in the lead should be extremely well verified and discussed in much greater detail in the article below.

Also, if you would like to see the latest development in solar geoengineering, please see this report (from last week) from the National Academy of Sciences (https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/developing-a-research-agenda-and-research-governance-approaches-for-climate-intervention-strategies-that-reflect-sunlight-to-cool-earth). You can download the full report for free, I highly recommend it. You can also see this new york times article on it (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/climate/geoengineering-sunlight.html) and this Guardian article on it (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/25/top-us-scientists-back-100m-geoengineering-research-proposal).

On another note, I think the 'Purpose' section is a combination of two things: The general methodology of solar geoengineering, and the developments of solar geoengineering. The developments section would have the Andrew Yang thing, the statements by the royal society and Harvard, the recent report form the National academy of sciences (that I just linked to), and this Harvard field experiement (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/geoengineers-inch-closer-sun-dimming-balloon-test). So I would split up the purpose section into those two sections. As before, if you would like to work on this, please develop in the talk page as these are big changes. MurrayScience (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[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]

Responding to your points:

1. I agree, that makes sense, though I think the difference between the solar geoengineered climate and the pre-industrial climate (assuming they have the same mean temperature) is a function of which method is used. Thus, if we're to make a statement like 'the ozone is affected', we need to make that 'ozone loss has been shown to be a potential risk with stratospheric aerosol injection of sulfur dioxide', for example. (As it may not be a risk with something like calcium carbonate.) It's important not to make general statements which apply to some methods but not others, with the wrong implication that they apply to all methods. But yes in general I agree with your point.

5. The first paragraph in the 'purpose' section discusses this. Let me know what you think. Might be a bit detailed for a lead, but it can work possibly. Also the 2% goes with doubling CO2, and we're a long ways from doubling CO2 concentration, that's kind of a worst case scenario.

6. Yes but SAI may not win out in the end. We can't assume it's the default/only SRM method. Any statements that apply to SAI need to be specified as such. Under 'view history' you can see the pageviews of the SAI page and this page. It actually gets more (https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Stratospheric_aerosol_injection%7CSolar_geoengineering).

I made a sandbox here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MurrayScience/Solar_geoengineering) feel free to develop edits there, should be much easier.

I love your ideas for a 'Methods' section. And I'm glad you agree that we could split the Purpose section into a 'Development' section and perhaps the rest can go into the intro of the 'Methods' section. I also think 'Methods' should go before 'advantages', and 'limitations and risks'. I think the Yang thing is important because it's an example of SRM in politics, and the US is a major/important country obviously. If you can find examples from the EU, China, Russia, India, etc. I would be happy to include that. It's just all I found.

Also please check out the national academy of sciences links I sent, I think it's rather important, probably gives a wide-ranging and unbiased review of the methods (which is exactly what we want on Wikipedia), and play be a big role in the Development section. :)

It's great to have someone else working on this article. I think it can be improved a lot. As I said, if you would like to work in the sandbox I linked to, that's a perfectly legitimate way to prepare an article as long as it's clearly linked in the talk page, and it should be easier to work there. MurrayScience (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ . doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000462. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |doi= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Soden, B. J. (2002-04-26). "Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor". Science. 296 (5568): 727–730. doi:10.1126/science.296.5568.727.
^ Robock, A. (2002-02-15). "PINATUBO ERUPTION: The Climatic Aftermath". Science. 295 (5558): 1242–1244. doi:10.1126/science.1069903.
^ Visioni, Daniele; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben; Boucher, Olivier; Jones, Andy; Lurton, Thibaut; Martine, Michou; Mills, Michael J.; Nabat, Pierre; Niemeier, Ulrike; Séférian, Roland (2021-03-09). "Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations". Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions: 1–37. doi:10.5194/acp-2021-133. ISSN 1680-7316.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
^ Kravitz, Ben; Caldeira, Ken; Boucher, Olivier; Robock, Alan; Rasch, Philip J.; Alterskjær, Kari; Karam, Diana Bou; Cole, Jason N. S.; Curry, Charles L.; Haywood, James M.; Irvine, Peter J. (2013). "Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)". Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118 (15): 8320–8332. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50646. ISSN 2169-8996.
^ Irvine, Peter J; Keith, David W (2020-03-19). "Halving warming with stratospheric aerosol geoengineering moderates policy-relevant climate hazards". Environmental Research Letters. 15 (4): 044011. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab76de. ISSN 1748-9326.

Replace first image[edit]

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]

I like those images, but it's very difficult to get images onto Wikipedia. If you can then great, but it's complicated. One way to do it is to make your own, but that's a lot of work and you may not be a graphic designer. I think the point that it was made under SPICE is relatively mute, it shows solar geoengineering and that's what matters. On the other hand, I like those sources in general, so if you would like to work on including information from those sources in the article, that would be great. In general, when you include a source you can add a quote tag. These are VERY helpful when verifying the statement. So please have quotes from sources you cite, which verify the statement you make with that source. Here's an example (you can click 'edit' this section to see the citation how the quote works in the citation):

Solar geoengineering's low cost means that a single nation could conduct it unilaterally.^[1] MurrayScience (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(If you hover over the blue citation number thing, you can see the quote.) Isn't that wonderful? I think so. MurrayScience (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty neat! Mhenryclimate (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Buffering the Sun". 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.

New section : How SRM interacts with other climate change responses.[edit]

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]

I love the napkin diagram but please link sources about it. (The paragraph needs to have good sources obviously.) It's best to avoid using words like 'we' or 'we need to'. But in general, I like the idea. It is hard to get images on Wikipedia, so if you would like to make that plot on your own you could upload it to Wikipedia. MurrayScience (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-organizing Limitations and Risks section[edit]

Keith makes a useful distinction in understanding the risks involved in SRM. There is a fair bit of literature on each of these, but let me know what you think of this structure.

Physical risks of wise use (Ozone loss, acid rain, monsoon failure, ocean acidification, less rain, air pollution from particulates, impacts on agriculture, solar power generation, predictability of weather)
Risk of misuse (Climate wars, more inequality)
Moral hazard (Does research into SRM increase the probability that it will be deployed? How will it affect our resolve to cut emissions?)
End of nature (more philosophical point on how we as humans would be consciously manipulating nature on a global scale. Analogy with nitrogen cycle could be mentioned here).

--Mhenryclimate (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it's important that the physical risks are tied to the methods that would produce them. For example, would calcium carbonate lead to ozone loss? What's the certainty about this? Rather than just general statements like 'solar geoengineering can cause ozone loss'. In what situations? In summary, go for specificity. And refer to the article as it is, many of this information is already in the article, so incremental changes can be made to those sections if information should be added or rephrased. MurrayScience (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename SRM tags to solar geoengineering?[edit]

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]

Lead changes[edit]

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]

Reversing climate change[edit]

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]

I agree with you. I've taken out the "reverse" part now as I thought this should be uncontroversial. Even the word "to limit" is perhaps a bit unclear? Maybe we should have a definitions section for this article where we list the main definition (plus alternative definitions if they exist) of the term solar geoengineering? EMsmile (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word "reverse" appears a second time in the article here: This technique can give more than 3.7 W/m² of globally averaged negative forcing, which is sufficient to reverse the warming effect of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Is that wording valid? EMsmile (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made by User:InformationToKnowledge[edit]

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]

@InformationToKnowledge: I agree with 'C421. Your giant edits are impossible for others to understand or review, and some of your edit comments are misleading. Please stop. These are issues related to violations of WP:OWNership of article, which can cause your editing privileges to be limited. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding the work that InformationToKnowledge is doing very valuable and constructive but I do agree with the other two people here that incremental editing is preferable. In addition, my advice to InformationToKnowledge is to use the talk pages more and to explain on the talk pages any bigger changes that might be planned or that have been executed. This helps for people who are watching this page. And I wouldn't say "please stop", I would say "please carry on but make those small changes to your editing routines". Your work will be valued and appreciated even more then! EMsmile (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. The issue is that the ideal of collaboration needs a certain baseline level of community activity to function - the kind of baseline which tends to be absent for far too many articles. WikiProject is stretched far too thin, and only relatively few articles (mostly to do with mitigation, from my impressions) have been continually kept up to date across their length. While those are important, the imbalance means many other articles had >50-70% of their content written 10-15 years ago, and this just seems to be accepted as a given.

Leaving comments on talk pages is a fine idea in principle, but in my experience, they often get ignored and it just slows things down. When hundreds of people view these pages every day and can get at times receive very wrong impression from what is said on the page, this is hardly an idle concern. For the record, I did mention that I intend to be reorganizing this article in the near future on the WikiProject talk page right here, on June 29th, several days before the July 2 edits that are now discussed here. Maybe I could have been clearer, but nobody asked for clarification in all the time in between. Indeed, several posts I made about the subject went completely uncommented on. (Most recently, this one.)

I find it dismaying that User:RCraig09 can apparently spot a comment criticizing me and swoop in after just 20 minutes, yet ignore the proposals/requests for comment I make for days or even months. For that matter, that series of edits of May 23 (the ones which my edit responded to) was also not previewed either on the talk page or on the WikiProject - yet nobody seems to have taken an issue with that, or with the very clear balance/due weight shortcomings those edits had introduced. That is, not until I had time to look at the page again, over a month later. (How can leaving pages alone for weeks or months, trusting the process not to introduce any issues, square with accusations of WP:OWN?) Similarly, I would like to know which one of my edit summaries had been "misleading". And I must (once again) say that being incremental is easier when the articles have a stable, coherent, logical structure that does not need changes, rather than when whole (sub)headings are better off reorganized.

In all, I understand that one can have concerns about the manner in which edits are done and I have been trying to incorporate this feedback - see the recent revision history of Holocene extinction, for instance. At the same time, can we, collectively, have a little more focus on what the articles we have are telling to our readers, in addition to how they are edited (or even how they are written - readability is important, but I would think completeness and being up-to-date comes first)? This here in particular is an article about a highly contentious topic, which is also not going to fade from the public view any time soon (if anything, the opposite is happening). What is written here is likely to impact real-world decision-making, potentially incuding some very large decisions. I don't want to WP:OWN the responsibility which comes with this and its sister articles, yet somehow, I seem to be the only regular editor who sees it this way, and appears willing to consider the message(s) sent out by the entire article. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I share your frustration. I have that time and time again myself where I wonder "where is everyone?", "am I talking to myself here?", e.g. recently with my work at carbon footprint. Nevertheless, this is the harsh reality of Wikipedia editing. You probably find dozens of editors busy with trivia type articles (movies and so on) for every one editor who is working on climate change topics...

Nevertheless my advice would still be to leave comments (even if they are just short and even if nobody reacts) on the article talk page, not at the WikiProject talk page (or let's say: mainly at the article talk page, less often at the WikiProject CC talk page). Because then if anyone has any doubts or confusion about any big edits you have made, they can quickly read on the article's talk page your reasoning for making the big change. Compare with how I have been writing on the talk page of carbon footprint. I just carry on there, even if I don't get any replies. Sometimes replies only come months or years later or not at all. Still, I think it's a worthwhile thing to do (and it doesn't need to slow you down as you can write on the talk page just after having made your edits). EMsmile (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I "swooped in" because 'C421 wrote my username in his post. You should not be "dismayed" when other editors don't respond to your requests for comment: many of your edits are so massive, almost no one would want to spend the time dealing with them. Related: your edits include large numbers of tiny technical details that only tiny numbers of readers of a layman's encyclopedia will be willing to plough through (example: Extinction risk from climate change has 246 instances of "%" which indicate an unmatched level of techy detail, e.g. textualizing confidence ranges). It is no excuse that editing incrementally and providing honest edit comments "slows things down"; the edit comment for this edit is an example of editorializing without explaining the large number of unrelated changes within the edit. Importantly: WP:OWN has to do with editors taking control of articles, not "own"ing the real-world implications of an article. You are far from the only editor who cares about such implications. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think that the tone of any (constructive) criticism is also important, RCraig09. I find your tone quite often a bit aggressive, at least towards people where you might have formed an opinion that you don't like their style (like myself or InformationToKnowledge). I have learned to live with it and generally have a thick skin. But your comment above where you said "Please stop" and the hint that "which can cause your editing privileges to be limited" really can be disheartening for another editor, especially one who has only been editing since October last year and only has made 500 edits. User InformationToKnowledge is no longer a newbie and I know they can fight for themselves here. Still, if you use the same communication styles towards newbies or people who venture into this CC area from other areas, this could scare people off. Let's try to be nice and friendly to each other and always assume good faith. And I think we should regularly dish out some praise for other people's editing efforts, too, not only criticism. EMsmile (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that the bar chart you attached comes from a meta-analysis about field interventions. Its relevance to the point you are trying to make is rather dubious. Most of the techniques it lists aren't even materially possible for Wikipedia (how does an encyclopedia provide rewards or commitment?) and "Appeals" is technically possible, yet explicitly prohibited by WP:NPOV It's entirely possible that from that meta-analysis' POV, all of Wikipedia would be in that first "Facts" category, regardless of how it's written - and that is acceptable, in the sense that it's unrealistic to expect an article (of any kind) to directly compete with a rebate.

Extinction risk article is the most extreme example you could have chosen. It has a scope which lends itself to such details in a way most other articles do not, and many other articles I edited remain a lot more sparing with percentages or numbers. Regardless, I would question the idea that numbers and percentages are inherently ineffective without stronger evidence. We are, after all, talking about a subject where certain numbers (2 and 1.5) and dates (2050 and 2030) have taken on massive significance in the activist movement specifically. A decade earlier, a percentage (99%, or rather 1%) had taken on even greater significance as a rallying cry of another protest movement. Arguably, the most stereotypical layman isn't going to click on an article about impending extinctions in the first place, no matter how it's written. But for those who are prepared to take that plunge, I believe that article will offer a lot. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] . doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000462. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |doi= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] Soden, B. J. (2002-04-26). "Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor". Science. 296 (5568): 727–730. doi:10.1126/science.296.5568.727.

[3] Robock, A. (2002-02-15). "PINATUBO ERUPTION: The Climatic Aftermath". Science. 295 (5558): 1242–1244. doi:10.1126/science.1069903.

[4] Visioni, Daniele; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben; Boucher, Olivier; Jones, Andy; Lurton, Thibaut; Martine, Michou; Mills, Michael J.; Nabat, Pierre; Niemeier, Ulrike; Séférian, Roland (2021-03-09). "Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations". Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions: 1–37. doi:10.5194/acp-2021-133. ISSN 1680-7316.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

[5] Kravitz, Ben; Caldeira, Ken; Boucher, Olivier; Robock, Alan; Rasch, Philip J.; Alterskjær, Kari; Karam, Diana Bou; Cole, Jason N. S.; Curry, Charles L.; Haywood, James M.; Irvine, Peter J. (2013). "Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)". Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118 (15): 8320–8332. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50646. ISSN 2169-8996.

[6] Irvine, Peter J; Keith, David W (2020-03-19). "Halving warming with stratospheric aerosol geoengineering moderates policy-relevant climate hazards". Environmental Research Letters. 15 (4): 044011. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab76de. ISSN 1748-9326.

[7] "Buffering the Sun". 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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]