Talk:Climate engineering

Burying charcoal

I asked at Talk:Mitigation_of_global_warming#Burying_charcoal about James Lovelock's suggestion that we bury charcoal. 69.228.235.107 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Google biochar and check a few of the links dinghy (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, such as Biochar; thank you! 69.228.235.107 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Speculative POV fantasy masquerading as science

People should try reading their references for summarizing and synthesis before making POV wild claims about for instance "Both of these techniques have the capacity to undo, or nearly undo, the warming effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, when compared to pre-industrial levels".

Well i checked the reference given and here is part of what they say.

"On the face of it some encouraging results emerge from our analysis, but they come with very large caveats. We have examined maximum effects, which entail truly global deployment and may not be physically achievable (as upper limit values have generally been assumed). Deployment itself costs energy, which if obtained from fossil fuels would tend to counteract any reductions in radiative forcing achieved. For some options, e.g. adding calcium carbonate to the ocean, the CO2 emissions of deployment could be of the same order as the CO2 sink generated (Harvey, 2008). Generating the energy and materials required for global scale geoengineering in turn costs money, and we have ignored economic constraints. If combined with strong mitigation, air capture of CO2 by plants providing bio-energy, followed by carbon storage, might be able to return atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels sometime next century, thus removing the need for shortwave geoengineering to cool the climate beyond that time. Others have even argued that combining all land carbon cycle geoengineering options, atmospheric CO2 could be brought back to the pre-industrial level within this century (Read, 2008; Read and Parshotam, 2007). However, if one examines the land areas involved in such scenarios (which we have adopted), they appear to be in conflict with food production and/or the preservation of natural ecosystems."

If you cannot be bothered to read a source document and understand it then you shouldnt be making POV statements and cloaking them with apparent respectability by exploiting the hard work and considered conclusions of researchers.--Theo Pardilla (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Great work. Hope you can put some caveats in. I'm planning to wait for a while before fully incorporating Lenton and Vaughan, as it's new.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, was that from L+V? I took it out - it seemed a bit garbled, there was 10 / 15 / 20's in it, sme pasto? NAyway, L+V is too new: please give it a few months before using it. Otherwise, thanks for toning down AJL's enthusiasm William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected various mistakes and inconsistences. Will leave L&V for a bit, can always re-instate later.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing without reading

Please read the article before editing. Geoeng has been in use for years, through cool roof, tree planting, etc. Any further introduction of factual inaccuracy may be treated as vandalism.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the lead with additional NPOV, citations, etc. Please don't revert for the sake of it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Battleship artillery

I'm planning to re add:

Scientist Paul Crutzen suggested that heavy artillery could be used to fire shells containing sulphurous gases into the stratosphere to create a reflective haze, screening the earth from the sun. Naval artillery has sufficient range to reach the stratosphere. (This picture shows horizontal firing)

I think it is a relvant image that helps explain the topic. Could anyone who objects please explain in detail why they don't feel the image is relevant. It's the closest artillery pic available I could find.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How is an image of a battleship firing a low trajectory barrage relevant? Don't think battleship big guns were designed for high altitude delivery. As such it appears just a fluff or propaganda image unrelated to content. Did Crutzen suggest battleship guns? Vsmith (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can find an example of another relevant artillery piece, I'd be happy to include it. Many commentators have suggested artillery, the mounting is irrelevant but the calibre/range is highly significant. Battleships fit the bill neatly. I see no evidence that battleships can't fire to the necessary altitude.Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, the artillery text over at Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering) is junk, cos it says "For example, the 460-millimetre (18 in) guns used on the World War 2 Japanese Yamato class battleships fired a 1,460 kilogram (3,219 lb) projectile to a maximum range of 42,000 metres (45,930 yards) (26.1 miles). This far exceeds both the range and payload necessary for aerosol precursor delivery." This confuses horizontal and vertical range, with hilarious results William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already a cleanup tag on that article WMC. As you know, your comment should be placed on the article TP, not here. The vertical range exceeds that needed to reach the lower stratosphere.Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[1]? That is voodoo. And you know that the vertical range is OK because... of what? Certainly there is no ref on that page to say so William M. Connolley (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The vertical range of a ballistic projectile is determined by its muzzle velocity. A projectile fast enough to go 26 miles is fast enough to escape the troposphere. If I'm wrong, show me how.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WMC I took out your vertical range text. In future, if you don't like a claim, please tag it, delete it or research it. Don't write something that directly reverses the original claim, and is itself unreferenced. Please see your User TP for further discussion of how you can improve your contributions to WP. ThanksAndrewjlockley (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick calculations (subject to error :) A 42 km max. range assumes a 45 degree muzzle angle and gives an initial velocity of ~650 m/s (ignoring air resistance for simplicity) The vertical component of that would be about 450 m/s and would reach a max altitude of ~10.5 km Just about the base of the strat. (again ignoring air resis.) So, yeah elevate the muzzle above 45 deg. and you can possibly get a payload up there. Now I don't know much about battleship big gun design, but I doubt they were designed for >45 deg as anything greater would give less horiz range (and they aren't anti-aircraft guns). You got a reference with the details of using/modifying big battleship guns? Without referenced, specific details the use of an image of the Iowa blasting a low angle barrage is nothing more than eye candy (great image) and maybe simply irrelevant visual propaganda. Vsmith (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad we can agree they can reach the strat. Can we get the image back in? It's really not that important whether the actual gun is the one that would be used, is it? It's illustrating a principle.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Please read propaganda. Vsmith (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any actual reason why that exact gun could not be used?Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got the burden of proof backwards. It's up to you to provide a reliable source to support your claims; you don't just throw something out there and challenge others to refute it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's only a picture for illustration! We've show it can reach the strat. Where's the problem?Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, as is it is an irrelevant photo used as apparant propaganda. And as for We've show it can reach the strat. err, not hardly, my crude calculations are not a WP:RS for that. Vsmith (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_cm/45_Type_94 the gun in question can reach 45deg, showing it can reach the stratosphere. The battleship shown in the image is Iowa. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter a jot whether the actual battleship would be the one used, as it's an illustrative image, not a photo of an actual aerosol shot.Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(cr)There is no reference for the single mention of artillery in the article. So first that needs a source, then even a mention of naval or battleship use would need a specific source along with sourced info on the vertical range. Absent that the use of that image is WP:OR. Vsmith (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The section is referenced and the mention is there. Feel free to duplicate the ref. if it's important. If you missed it, maybe others did too?Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the Popular Mechanics article referenced does include the artillery idea -- pretty weak. Derived most likely(?) from Crutzen's essay which includes: "achieved by burning S2 or H2S, carried into the stratosphere on balloons and by artillery guns to produce SO2". So, yes Crutzen did mention artillery in an essay. Now we need a connection and detailed capabilities (muzzle velocity, trajectory angle, etc) to make the case for big battleship gun applicability. Without those details the use of the image is simply WP:OR or WP:SYN. Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's already been show that Yamoto guns can reach the stratosphere without modifications. The IOWA is more marginal, but I still think the image is sufficiently relevant to justify inclusion as a relevant illustration.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Who showed that "Yamoto guns can reach the stratosphere without modifications"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh - guilty, seems my "back of the envelope calculations" above have convinced him :-) --- or is there an unmentioned RS out there? Vsmith (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The RS is what I was after. You are a fine Wikipedia editor, a respected administrator, an educator of our youth, and no doubt have many other sterling qualities. But alas, you are not a reliable source. I am trying to see if Andrew recognizes that fact and can cite another source. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Basic calculations don't have to be sourced.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is far more than a basic calculation; it involves numerous assumptions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Terraforming link

I took it out by accident, sorry. Collateral damage.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

For merge discussion, please see Talk:Bio-energy with carbon storage#Merge?

Please note that after the AfD debate on stratospheric sulphur aerosols (geoengineering) there is now a precedent that WP:MERGE requests into this article will be denied where the source article is a geoengineering technique in its own right. Please don't make such proposals, except in exceptional circumstances.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Twaddle William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain your argument, WMCAndrewjlockley (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at Talk:Bio-energy with carbon storage#Merge? is evolving on a potential merger but NOT into geoengineering.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Other proposal

Olaf Schuiling has proposed digging up olivine-rich rocks and crushing them (to increase surface) See http://www.geo.uu.nl/Research/Geochemistry/abstracts/O_Schuiling.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.135.164 (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

See list of proposed geoengineering projects and carbon sequestration Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics

I've removed the aircraft and artillery bits from the Evaluation of geoengineering section. It was sourced to Popular Mechanics [2] and quite simply the PM article did not support the wording used.
From the PM article:

Some scientists think that planes could be the answer. But excluding Arctic areas, only small fighter jets can reach the stratosphere, and they couldn't carry enough particles of sulfur hydroxide to get the job done. Others have suggested heavy artillery—shooting sulfur-laden cannonballs that would explode in the stratosphere. So far, experiments using World War IIÐera technology have been less than successful.

If you're gonna use Pop Mech as a source, at least get it right. Vsmith (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the trimmed down edit is fine. I could find a source which supports the exact wording used, but I don't think the article needs the text. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you know several people have asked for a reference for these pictures - Boris, Vsmith, 67.187.111.197 and me. You certainly do need to reference it. The burden is on you to reference it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no outstanding pic ref reqs of which I'm aware. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit skirmish

I've cited/explained pictures and replaced them. I've replaced some recently hacked text with a tighter version. WMC rv me, I rv him back - as I don't see a rationale for his rv. Comments? Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As several have said (look up), its only tangentially related, and apparently only chosen for dramatics rather than to accurately depict the subject. - and more importantly: you are ignoring consensus... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean the F-15 and the KC-135? Can you suggest a better/more relevant picture? Seems unlikely as this shows both applicable aircraft. Pls note your rv(Kim) killed a whole bunch of other work - which was why i rv it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I too disagree with your edits. So that is 3-1, if we're counting. What exactly was "await TP consensus" supposed to mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The scream picture was rmvd as it was uncited - CITED. The intro text was rmvd cos it was waffly - TIGHTENED. The F15/KC135 pic was rmvd because it was not 'relevant' - but the relevance has now been EXPLAINED. Exactly which of the 3 edits you keep reverting with your big blunt axe do you object to, WMC? Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No-one likes the F15. Don't shout, it is impolite William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've protected the page. Please find consensus or seek dispute resolution.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Scream" and the F15 image are purely propaganda used for effect by a "campaigning" activist. Leave 'em out. Vsmith (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

CAPS used for clarity of reading. The cited scream image is relevant to the sky effect discussion. The F-15/KC135 image is relevant as it shows 2 aircraft which have been speicifically identified as having a ceiling appropriate for sulfur delivery (whether editors like the aircraft is irrelevant). Can anyone offer any rational explanation of why these images are NOT applicable/relevant/appropriate? VSmith's propaganda allegations are clearly contradicted by the rather negative 'Scream' image, so I think that charge can safely be ignored. I put them in because I think images are important - not because I'm a frothy-mouthed nutter who's beyond all reason. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

so I think that charge can safely be ignored - translation: anytime anyone tells me something I don't like I will ignore them. It won't work William M. Connolley (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps you can explain to me how a picture of a distorted man screaming in front of a distored, blood-red sky can be construed as propaganda for blood red skies? Or can this ad hominem attack now be 'safely ignored', and the real issue of unwarranted deletions discussed? Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless geoengineers are proposing using volcanic eruptions as a tool the "Scream" image is irrelevant. Vsmith (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Scream image is unnecessary and out-of-place in a mostly scientific discussion of the topic BobKawanaka (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The reddening is caused by stratospheric sulfur aerosols, which are proposed as a geoengineering tool. There is plenty of info on this at stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering). There are no photos of the sky at this time, as colour photographs are not available from this period, so paintings are an appropriate source. Turner is another source, but less famous. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and reference works are not a collection of images and pictures to illustrate, line after line, every point that might be illustrated within an article. This article and most articles do not 'need' any photographs at all. They should be used to (literally) illustrate a point that is difficult to comprehend from text alone. The specific image is also not consistent with a scientific article. BobKawanaka (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Let' use Turner then. The reddening f the sky is genuinely difficult to appreciate without images. Turner is more literal Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most will agree for the reasons listed above (which you did not respond to) that no image is needed. This is a page on Geoengineering. Wikipedia doesn't have, need, or want an image for every word in an article, it is not a picture book. Why not pictures of Forest Fires, Siberia, Sea Ice, Plankton, Space Sunshades, Volcanoes, the National Academy of Sciences, etc.? "Red Skies" are red skies, any reader can imagine a red sky and, most importantly, the concept (of a red sky) is not central to the topic of Geoengineering. Can others chime in and can we move on? A lot time seems to have been wasted on several irrelevant images here and one hopes (but doesn't believe) that this will be the last attempt at injecting such images to this page. No image of "red skies" is needed for this article. BobKawanaka (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The red sky effect in turner paintings is highly typical of the effect which would be seen in a geoengineered world, and the cooling effect is comparable in magnitude. I think the onus should be on those arguing for an images removal why it should go. There's a clear justification for it staying in this case. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen more closely. The song doesn't go ""Me and Me Against The World". Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Boris, being right is much more important than being popular. Both the sunset pictures and the battleship guns pictures should go in. There is no credible reason why they're not fit to illustrate this article. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WMC revert

WMC, please explain your revert. 'of course not' makes no sense as an edit summary. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Geoengineering costs

I've deleted the following sentence:

"It is therefore possible to argue that certain implementations of such techniques are preferable to cutting carbon emissions on cost grounds alone."

It has not been clearly attributed to any source. Enescot (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New ref

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464656a.html William M. Connolley (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting -- thanks for posting the link. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Increasing polar land mass

I recently came up with another idea regarding geoengineering: would it not be possible to artificially make extra ice sheets in order to decrease global warming ? Since freshwater freezes more quickly then seawater (see http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99263.htm ), and since the water itself would freezes allot quicker when it is layed out on a surface (which is colder than the watermass), a possibility could be to have some vessels equipped with a osmotic freshwater plant, and produce freshwater. The idea is inspired by the workings of a snow cannon, which is somewhat similar in concept. This freshwater could be pumped into a large "mold" connected to a vessel using a "Forklift truck-like arm. When the water has frozen, the mold is opened (using 2 sliding panels) at the bottom and the hydraulic arm is then lifted, moving the encasement (mold) above the newly created ice sheet. The mold-carrying vessel, aswell as the osmotic plant ship then move to a new location and start over again.

Another method I came up with is to simply use newspapers and spread them across the seasurfaces near ice sheets at the poles. It would also be beneficial to position the ship distributing these newspapers in such a way that it reduces the waves from the sea. This method is inspired by a mythbusters episode; see http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/mythbusters/projects/4313387

This project (if viable) could reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions as the added white surface area reflects solar radiation (and thus warming). The project could be funded selling the CER (certified emission reduction) credits it has generated.

KVDP (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

IPCC conclusions

I've added this to the intro:

IPCC (2007) concluded that geoengineering options, such as ocean fertilization, remained largely unproven. It was judged that reliable cost estimates for geoengineering had not been published.

The IPCC report deserves a central place in this article, and its key findings on geoengineering should be mentioned in the introduction. Enescot (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Add? "Time to Act" from Nature (journal)

Add? "Time to Act" from Nature (journal) 30 April 2009. See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/ 99.190.89.224 (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That fits better in adaptation or mitigation than in geoengineering. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Add? Climate crunch: Great white hope Geoengineering schemes, ... from 2009 Nature (journal)

Climate crunch: Great white hope. Geoengineering schemes, such as brightening clouds, are being talked about ever more widely. In the third of three features, Oliver Morton looks at how likely they are to work. 99.190.89.224 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Moral Hazard Fallacy - a whiff of non neutrality.

This article cites often the concept of moral hazard. However, the meaning implied by context is different than the actual meaning of moral hazard. The misapplication and the reasoning (so-called) surrounding it is quite a stretch and it smells of non neutral POV. 108.7.11.125 (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The citations are there, and they do speak of moral hazard, but the citations themselves misuse "moral hazard". Wikipedia citations must be reliable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). It is up to us (editors) to be the judge of the reliability of citations. It is simple to compare the way "moral hazard" is used in the citations to the actual meaning (it just doesn't compute). It is easy to include something when it has a citation because citations are so (over)emphasized in Wikipedia, while reliability of references is emphasized very little. However, the fallacy is readily apparent to the reasonably discerning with just a few clicks. And so, the delight with which the "moral hazard" idea was absorbed into the article, regardless of its applicability, is readily apparent -- and that is what gives the appearance on non-neutrality.

Moral hazard is a real thing that is applicable in many places, more so than most realize. Moral hazard arguments are often compelling, and they make us look smart as an extra added bonus!  :-) But, the applicability here (and in the sources) is a big stretch, and they make the article look, well, "not smart" and non-neutral.

108.7.161.100 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean (assuming both of above posts are by one editor). I see the moral hazard article itself has a multi-issue tag. Maybe start by straightening that one out?

In general, from what I've read, "moral hazard" is most-often used by partisans to (rhetorically) discourage GE, as the much-abused precautionary principle is used to promote the writer's activist CAGW agenda. A better term is needed for both? Meanwhile, a footnote that this author isn't using the std definition would be in order (if verifiable). Obvious hazard of OR here.... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the two above were me, looks like my IP got changed. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one with the same sense of smell. I guess I am objecting to its use here (apparently) in the same way you describe (by partisans to discourage GE, etc). This kind of misuse belies 1) misunderstanding of the term (of course) and 2) partisanism, i.e. non neutrality.

I'd suggest not redefining the term to permit its misuse. Redefining still leaves the same non-neutral tone. "Moral hazard" is used (misused) here to justify moralizing (perhaps), and with or without the misapplied term, the moralizing smell remains, which isn't encyclopedic.

"Moral Hazard" is presented to a decision maker when the risk of harm to the decision maker for taking a conceptually bad course of action is removed, and so the decision maker has a tendency to act less carefully than it alternately would. Muddlement on the meaning occurs in a number of ways. The concept they want to use "moral hazard" for seems to be more akin to "(negative) externalities" in economic transactions - where a cost of the transaction is born by parties other the two (or more) making the transaction. For example, plastic bags in my trees are a cost I pay for a transaction between the grocery store and one of its customers. The bags in my trees are an "externality". Does the grocer face a moral hazard? I don't know! :-) The prospect of bags in my trees are bad for me but not for him. So is it hazardous for him to allow bags in my trees? I'm not so sure. Is the "conceptually bad course of action" a potentially bad effect on the decision maker or on others? Now I'm all confused. Anyway, I think people also like to misapply "Moral Hazard" because they get to imply they are more "moral" when they are using it to moralize!  :-)

A quick perusal by people who don't know what "moral hazard" is (most people) may come away with the idea that Geoengineering is somehow immoral. It isn't of course, though some seem to adopt that ideology. Geoengineering has the same potential for economic externalities (both bad and good) as any other transaction. And, all that depends on how parties are included in the decision making. Calling out Geoengineering as somehow especially more of a moral hazard in and of itself depends on too many things other than Geoengineering itself, and so it may be off topic even to mention moral hazard or externalities at all.

Economic "externalities" apply here much more so than "Moral Hazard". I'm sure you-all can find references that discuss the (same) matter in correct and neutral terms, and in a non-moralizing way.

108.7.161.100 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I figured it out. Safety systems like seat belts, air bags, and crumple zones, in addition to eliminating actual hazards, impose a "moral hazard". That is, we feel less likely to be harmed as a result of driving fast, and therefore we will drive faster than if we didn't have those systems, thereby countering some of the systems' hazard reduction (or all of it or more than it). Yeah, that's it!

So, if one believes that the only or proper method of combating (presumed) man made global climate change is the reduction of those activities causing it, then having geoengineering as an option reduces the likelihood of addressing the issue by that "proper" method (by the reduction of the "bad" activities). This is indeed correct use of "moral hazard". But! that's true only if it really is bad to address global climate change by other than the "proper" means (reduction of the "bad" activities). The trouble is that, while having a car wreck is obviously bad, reversing global climate change by other than the "proper" method is not obviously bad. And so, citing "moral hazard" is either 1) (mis)applying the term because the "hazard" isn't actually a hazard, or 2) asserting that geoengineering is bad, which is non-neutral!

In the "Moral Hazard" section, the article states without qualifications: "The existence of such techniques may reduce the political and social impetus to reduce carbon emissions". This is an in-your-face example of implying that the only solution is "reduction of what I think is bad". This is one example of non-neutral POV in the application of "Moral Hazard" here in this article.

Let's fix it. The ideas can remain, but they need to be stated neutrally. And, in as much as they digress off-topic, not dwelled-on too much.

108.7.161.100 (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Add Bill Gates connection to geoengineering projects with Intellectual Ventures per Z Magazine June 2010. See Talk:Bill Gates?

Add Bill Gates connection to geoengineering projects with Intellectual Ventures per Z Magazine June 2010. See Talk:Bill Gates? 99.88.229.86 (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Which kind of "Absurd" are you referring? Please help me understand. 99.39.186.123 (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The following are unsourced (and points 3 and 4 are absurd). And if you want to understand, may I suggest an ESL course?

1. That Bill Gates has a connection to Intellectual Ventures.
2. That Intellectual Ventures is involved in geoengineering (Superfreakonomics is also not a reliable source for questions of fact.)
3. That Z Magazine is a reliable source.
4. That, even if all of the above were false, that the indirect connection between Bill Gates and geoengineering is notable.

I don't doubt that Bill Gates supports some causes which any rational person would consider absurd, but we don't have any evidence of this connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You searched in Google? PS, Define your terms (Category:Languages Category:Language), it's a basic step in the Scientific method; or are you just marketer of conspiracy theories ... Word to the Wise: "A man's got to know his limitations". 99.155.150.83 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that, if you wanted to provide support for your assertions, you would provide credible support. Google does produce some connections (without mention of Intellectual Ventures), in apparently reliable sources. (I say apparently, as Bill could easily buy 10-page advertisements, even in reputable scientific magazines, and it would be difficult to distinguish them in the online copy.)) If an editor with a reasonable history of fact-checking and reasonable knowledge of the English language and Wikipedia policies (this excludes the 99.39 and 99.155 anons) would report it as stated in a reliable source, it might be appropriate in one of the articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you put those "reliable sources" in those wikipedia articles then? 99.54.141.75 (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a good use of my time to look for "reliable sources" which I don't think actually exist. If you think they exist, why don't you find them, and suggest them here (at Talk:Geoengineering and/or Talk:Bill Gates), and I, or other established editors, will see whether they might be reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Implying it is "good use of your time" to delete without explanation instead? Note your contradiction, you previously stated these "apparently" exist. Acts of omission ARE acts of commission. Please become an informed editor, or don't edit those topics information for which you don't show evidence of being informed. Maybe just stick with syntax and numbers? Here's hoping you become a less reactionarily impulsive in your "editing" actions. Cheers! 99.102.177.113 (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon: if you want to add material to the article, please find the relevant sources to support it. It sounds like you're trying to insert original research. This isn't to say that it's wrong, just that it's a synthesis of information (i.e. source A + source B = assertion C = original research). If the synthesis is valuable or interesting, chances are a reliable source will do the synthesis for you sooner or later (i.e. source C), and then you're in a much stronger position to add the material. --PLUMBAGO 18:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Per "Hack the Planet" (see link below & in article) Notes (p247) "When an individual has 'said' or 'says' something in the text, it indicates that the author was present when the person said it, unless an endnote indicates otherwise"; from page 8: Ken Caldeira and David Keith (scientist) managed a $1.5 million fund provided annually by Bill Gates to study geoengineering, and starting on page 177 Kintisch goes on to describe the Gates Foundation money and personnel connections, including the comment "(The tacit understanding was that scientists were not to mention his {Gates} name)". "{}" were added by me for clarification. On page 187 it states Gates was an investor in Intellectual Ventures, and Gates is listed as a geoengineering patent-holder with Stephen Salter. 99.54.141.32 (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

To date, no large-scale geoengineering projects have been undertaken.

"To date, no large-scale geoengineering projects have been undertaken. " -- this statement needs a reference please. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. User:Pedant (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please define "large scale". Is only global large-scale, or does sub-continental count? 99.54.137.100 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Intentional or unintentional? 99.54.136.159 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Add *Eli Kintisch's "Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope, or Worst Nightmare, for Averting Climate Catastrophe" ISBN 978-0470524268 http://hacktheplanetbook.com/ and ref.s

Add * Eli Kintisch's "Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope, or Worst Nightmare, for Averting Climate Catastrophe" ISBN 978-0470524268 http://hacktheplanetbook.com/ [3] http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/In-the-Margin/Hack-the-Planet/ba-p/2747 [4] http://www.amazon.com/Hack-Planet-Sciences-Nightmare-Catastrophe/dp/047052426X [5] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127245606 [6] ? 99.190.88.67 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is added, just without all the links. (Adding one link to the book's page, at http://hacktheplanetbook.com/ might be appropriate. I'll see what I can do.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Would List of climate change initiatives be a See Also for this article, and visa versa?

Would List of climate change initiatives be a See Also for this article, and visa versa? 99.37.85.122 (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation question

I improved the citation style of the reference currently #86: "Geo-Engineering - a Moral Hazard". celsias.com. 14 November 2007. Retrieved 9 September 2010. but it appears to be a blog. I don't see any evidence this blog has been vetted, nor do I see it in RSN. I see it was added

here

Is this source acceptable, or should we find a better one?

(As an aside, where are the talk archives? I was going to check the discussion at the time, but don't see anything prior to Jan of this year.)--SPhilbrickT 20:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Plenty bettr citations exist. Check Robock, for example.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy from http://www.zimbio.com/

Copied from my talk page, for more general discussion --Nigelj (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nigelj

I tried to contribute an article only to discover you reverted my contribution. Could you explain your reason for doing this as I'm sure this issue can be resolved.

Regards Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lickandqui (talk • contribs) 10:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chris. After a bit of research, it appears that you mean this edit. Since this isn't about me, and others have previously reverted your edit, I'll copy this discussion over to Talk:Geoengineering and reply there so that other editors can join in. --Nigelj (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. First, Squiddy already reverted it first here, saying "remove chunk of, err, something, which is a copyvio from the last comment here: http://www.zimbio.com/Virgin+Earth+Challenge/articles/2/Branson+offers+reward+global+warming+solutions". When you re-added it, I said, "Reverted 2 edits by Lickandqui (talk); Rv copyvio from http://www.zimbio.com/Virgin+Earth+Challenge/articles/2/Branson+offers+reward+global+warming+solutions again." There are a number of problems - the text is a copy-and-paste of someone's lengthy comment on that website, which means it was submitted there under their terms and conditions, not here under ours, and that's legally important. Secondly, it is unformatted and virtually unreadable without punctuation and formatting. Third it is uncited, which contravenes a basic principle of Wikipedia article text. Fourth, it seems unrelated to the flow of the article at that point. I see that Vsmith has put a welcome note on your talk page; I suggest you follow the links in that note, find out more about the way Wikipedia works, and come back to this in a few days when you have a bit more background in how best to make valuable contributions to the articles. --Nigelj (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusing terminology - Geoengineering is more than only climate engineering

The term Geoengineering has been in use for many years before any climate issue was raised. The term geoengineering is therefore used for items such as geotechnical or geomechanical engineering throughout the literature and also on Internet. The term is not unique to climate engineering as this page claims. This causes confusing, even if the page claims in the header "a non-confusing statement". Hence, this page should be renamed to Geoengineering (climate) and a Disambiguation page for Geoengineering should be created. Bonzo 02:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Hack (talk • contribs)

Could you add a few representative links please? 108.73.113.97 (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the addition of Weather to Portal box|Energy|Weather ... "obvious"?

Isn't the addition of Portal:Weather to {{Portal box|Energy|Weather}} ... "obvious"? 99.181.146.194 (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously improper. Why do you think it's "obvious"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a starter, from this article "... proposes to deliberately manipulate a planet's climate, ..." 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also weather modification, weather control, reference example Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control ISBN 978-0231144124. Do you understand what the word obvious means, as it is an extreme term? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll have to withdraw my statement. It's not obviously wrong. It's still wrong. However, it should be left to the Weather people to decide whether this article should be connected to weather in any way, including the portal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What in the World are they Spraying

It is odd that this documentary is not mentioned. How many other full length films deal with the subject? Even if you can question the film, then much of it must be verifiable - for example the Congressional Hearings om Geoengineering and Chemtrails mentioned in them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

also does not mention this - where I would really expect some mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Fake geoengineering in an article on real geoengineering? As well include those 40s SF stories in which a nuclear disaster causes the Earth to turn to iron. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope not kidding.... The grids being sprayed over your head... are you blind?

The Congressional Hearings on Geoengineering / chemtrails as they are 1 in the same. This is very real and has been underway for 10 years. Prove me wrong.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.179.34 (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please cite references with links. You will need authentic evidence, not just Heresay of what you write being called The Truth. 99.181.138.132 (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Add Global warming crisis may mean world has to suck greenhouse gases from air ?

Add Letter by Georgina Mace Professor of conservation science, Imperial College London and Catherine Redgwell Professor of international law, UCL, Royal Society geoengineering working group member: Global warming crisis may mean world has to suck greenhouse gases from air "As Bonn talks begin, UN climate chief warns of temperature goals set too low and clock ticking on climate change action" by Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk 5.June.2011 18.10 BST. 99.19.47.35 (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Also a Letter by Mace and Redgwell: Geoengineering research guidelines 13.June.2011 99.19.47.35 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Add http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=at-un-convention-groups-push

At U.N. Convention, Groups Push for Geoengineering Moratorium - Amid calls for more research, a United Nations convention on biodiversity considers a proposal to ban geoengineering solutions to global warming by Lauren Morello and Climatewire in Scientific American October 20, 2010. 141.218.36.44 (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Excerpt ...

Two years ago [2008] in Bonn, Germany, nations that participate in the convention backed a ban on one geoengineering technique -- seeding the ocean with tiny particles of iron to encourage the growth of algae that consume carbon dioxide.

99.181.151.50 (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Add http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/21/us-geoengineering-idUSTRE69K18320101021

Add U.N. urged to freeze climate geo-engineering projects by Chisa Fujioka in Reuters Oct 21, 2010 regarding Convention on Biological Diversity (Nagoya Protocol). 141.218.36.44 (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarify groups.google.com with Google Groups

• Caldiera, Ken (March 18, 2009). "DARPA and Geoengineering". Geoengineering Google group. Retrieved 2009-03-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) 99.181.139.210 (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably a mistake, but I wouldn't have reverted if you had produced a non-idiotic edit summary. I'm not saying you are an idiot, just that your writings are idiotic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Watch your Wikipedia:Civility Art. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Just an observation. The only possible reasons for your edit summaries (that I can think of) are:

1. You are a WP:TROLL.
2. Your limited knowledge of English makes it impossible for you to produce coherent sentences.
3. You have no intention of following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (This is not the same as point 1.)
4. You have inadequate intelligence to follow Wikipedia policies, or have a mental flaw that prevents you from following Wikipedia policies.

I choose to believe #2, in the interest of WP:NPA, but I really can't think of any other explanations. We do have an editor suffering from #4b, who is still allowed to edit, but I'm not sure that policy really allows that. In any case, WP:COMPETENCE doesn't go into the reasons for the incompetence.

It still doesn't mean that the result does not appear to be idiotic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This may be helpful Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Add SPICE?

From Talk:Climate_change_policy_of_the_United_States#.22climate_remediation.22_geoengineering_resource_in_the_NYT ...

• The Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering experiment, known as SPICE ... http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/SPICE/SPICE.htm
• SPICE put on ice in Nature (journal) 30.Sept.2011

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why was Arctic geoengineering removed?

Main article: Arctic geoengineering

Various hydrological geoengineering projects aim to change the climate without directly or indirectly removing greenhouse gases, or directly influencing solar radiation. These principally act by limiting Arctic sea ice loss. Keeping the Arctic ice is seen by many commentators as vital, due to its role in the planet's albedo and in keeping methane, which is an important greenhouse gas, locked up in permafrost.

141.218.36.152 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Film Carbon Nation includes some geoengineering, such as cool roof. 99.109.126.248 (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Futher Reading, (book review) resource?

Climate Change and Global Energy Security: Technology and Policy Options by Marilyn A. Brown and Benjamin K. Sovacool; Reviewed by By Richard N. Cooper January/February 2012 Foreign Affairs 99.19.44.155 (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't this included?

99.19.45.48 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Resource

Geoengineered Food? Climate Fix Could Boost Crop Yields, But With Risks by Ted Burnham January 23, 2012, 11:09 AM; excerpt ...

For a few years now, a handful of scientists have been proposing grandiose technological fixes for the world's climate to combat the effects of global warming — schemes called geoengineering. Climate change has the potential to wreak all kinds of havoc on the planet, including the food system. Scientists predict that two variables farmers depend on heavily — temperature and precipitation — are already changing and affecting food production in some arid parts of the world where there isn't a lot of room for error. And if the problem worsens on a larger scale, it could do a lot of damage to agricultural yields and food security. ...

99.181.152.120 (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)