Talk:Stratospheric aerosol injection

This article was nominated for deletion on February 25, 2009. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Arctic C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic 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.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment C‑class

	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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Geology C‑class High‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Stratospheric aerosol injection is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering C‑class

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

citations

Boris ^{[citation needed]} tag for 'existing technology'. How can I reference that existing stuff exists? Isn't it kinda self evident that weather balloons and planes exist?Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to show not just that they exist, but that a reliable source has noted their suitability in the present context. Please read WP:SYN carefully -- many of the objections raised toward your edits arise from similar concerns. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example: do you see how this edit[1] removed a misleading implication/synthesis? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied up a bit, do you like it? The F15 statement is still unsourced but I don't like fact-tagging pictures, it's anorak.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tasks

0pen tasks

Replace any non-notable links with sci. papers etc.
Check references cited support claims in article
Convert bare urls to cite-webs

Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Will editors please assume WP:GOODFAITH and stick to WP:CIVILITY, particularly as regards edit summaries. ThanksAndrewjlockley (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The IPCC calls this technique a sub-set of 'stratospheric reflective aerosols'

Stratospheric Reflecting Aerosols. This technique involves the controlled scattering of incoming sunlight with airborne sub-microscopic particles that would have a stratospheric residence time of about 5 years. Teller et al. (2004) suggest that the particles could be: (a) dielectrics; (b) metals; (c) resonant scatterers. Crutzen (2006) proposes (d) sulphur particles. The implications of these schemes, particularly with regard to stratospheric chemistry, feasibility and costs, require further assessment (Cicerone, 2006).

Should we move this to that title, and include more detail on Teller et al? Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SSA(g)

Please evidence your comment about the F15C. Which other suitable aircraft do you belive exist.Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source has mentioned use of the F15-C for this purpose? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the point. What reliable source have you got to show that another plane would do? (copying to article TP)Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the contributing editor who has the burden of providing references. Not the other way around. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no dispute that the F15 works. Boris suggests other planes can be used. That's WP:OR. I'll rv. shortly.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is dispute - i dispute it, right here. Now please supply a reference that specifies using an F15 for aerosol injection. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the citation. Its not disputed any longer. (although the source seems to be an (as yet) un-refereed paper) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That why I mentioned it as a suggestion, not a statement of capabilities. My various detractors might be interested to join the [[2]] and [[3]] groups, and then they'd see that I'm not making all this stuff up.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had given the citation to begin with, all this could have been avoided. Note we can't use Google Groups as sources for the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was available to begin with, I would have given it. You can use a GG citation, but only for what someone's said.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Google group citation would certainly not be a reliable source in any way or form. GG doesn't have any form of moderation or editorial control. (ie. it wouldn't even be acceptable as a self published source, since we can't be certain about the identity of the poster. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's got Ken Caldeira's email address, and it's signed by Ken Caldeira, then I think that it's more reliably authored by Ken Caldeira than would be a book that's been through numberous editing cycles or a journalist misquoting him in a newspaper. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient for anyone, but it is withoiut doubt a reliable source, and one that's admissable in court.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geostationary satellite system / elevator?

Is there any research about geostationary satellites / space elevators as being one possible solution for the aerosol distribution problem? // On a different issue: someone has the page content pasted in a second time; was there a reason for that? 134.39.92.59 (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er... I've seen space elevators mentioned, but can't recall seeing them in a paper. That was for launching space mirrors though. You wouldn't use them for aerosols - why build something 22,000miles when you only need 10? Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre traffic spike

Anyone know why this article was getting nearly a thousand hits a day earlier this month? Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Rain

A discussion of acid rain (as a side effect of stratospheric sulfur) is advisable. Thank you.