This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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'm planning to re add:
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)
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)
(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)
I took it out by accident, sorry. Collateral damage. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 11:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
For merge discussion, please see Talk:Bio-energy with carbon storage#Merge?
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)
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:
If you're gonna use Pop Mech as a source, at least get it right. Vsmith ( talk) 20:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
WMC, please explain your revert. 'of course not' makes no sense as an edit summary. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 01:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464656a.html William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
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 freeze a lot quicker when it is layed out on a surface (that is colder than the watermass). A possibility could be to have some vessels equipped with a osmotic freshwater plant wich would 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)
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) 30 April 2009. See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/ 99.190.89.224 ( talk) 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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? 99.88.229.86 ( talk) 02:28, 30 June 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)
Why don't you put those "reliable sources" in those wikipedia articles then? 99.54.141.75 ( talk) 03:48, 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)
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. " -- this statement needs a reference please. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. User:Pedant ( talk) 06:00, 2 July 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/ [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)
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)
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
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.)-- SPhilbrick T 20:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
99.181.151.50 ( talk) 03:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)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.
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
99.181.139.210 (
talk) 01:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)97.87.29.188 ( talk) 20:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
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, [1] due to its role in the planet's albedo and in keeping methane, which is an important greenhouse gas, locked up in permafrost. [2]
141.218.36.152 ( talk) 00:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Film Carbon Nation includes some geoengineering, such as cool roof. 99.109.126.248 ( talk) 02:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
MacNaghten, P.; Owen, R. (2011). "Environmental science: Good governance for geoengineering". Nature. 479 (7373): 293. doi: 10.1038/479293a. PMID 22094673.
99.19.45.48 ( talk) 04:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
In a paper released on Sunday by the journal Nature Climate Change, four California researchers used computer analysis to test the idea of managing incoming sunlight and predicted what that would do to crop yields.
See Current sea level rise, food security, 99.181.134.88 ( talk) 08:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Microbe Helps Convert Solar Power to Liquid Fuel by David Biello SciAm March 30, 2012 ...
This novel bioreactor uses the electricity from a photovoltaic panel to help a microbe build CO2 into a liquid fuel.
99.181.147.96 ( talk) 04:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
108.195.138.38 ( talk) 05:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
By ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson in Exxon on climate change impacts: “Don’t worry, engineering will fix it” June 29, 2012 Skeptic (U.S. magazine) with Oil chief: World will adapt to climate change June 28, 2012, quote “We have spent our entire existence adapting. We’ll adapt,” he said. “It’s an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution.” 99.181.133.134 ( talk) 05:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
99.119.130.123 ( talk) 19:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Introduction para 2: "geoengineering represents the only known method for reducing Earth's temperature to pre-industrial levels in the short term (years to decades)."
I take issue with the term "the only known method". Shouldn't this read, "the only theoretical method", as the method is far from proven ? Or is there a better way of expesssing this ? Darkman101 ( talk) 03:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This line is unsourced: "While greenhouse gas remediation offers a more comprehensive possible solution to climate change, it does not give instantaneous results; for that, solar radiation management is required." If greenhouse gasses' main role in climate change comes through their ability to modulate solar radiation's effect on the planet, then why is it expected that altering their levels wouldn't begin have an immediate impact akin to solar radiation management? Smells of WP:OR. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 07:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Four website articles: [7], [8], [9], and [10] (If I ever get myself imprisoned because of this, amen.) -- Lo Ximiendo ( talk) 19:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
There are authoritative sources that caution against the use of geoengineering, and instead recommend conventional measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In my opinion, these sources should be explicitly referred to in the lead. These include the Interacademy Panel statement on ocean acidification [11], the American Meteorological Society [12], the German Advisory Council on Global Change (2006 p.3; 2011 p.335), the Royal Society of the UK (summary – "Headline messages"), and the US National Research Council (p.53, see below).
Enescot ( talk) 11:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The article seems to be largely biased towards a negative viewpoint on the subject. For example, the section title "Justification" implies that the subject is inherently wrong, and justification is necessary. In addition, the presence of a "Risks and criticisms" without any sort of balancing section on benefits and support is biased. The "Implementation Issues" section is also biased, and should be with the other negative section ("Risks and Criticisms"). 184.166.6.102 ( talk) 04:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems this article should be renamed Climate engineering which is now a redirect here and the geoengineering page be made into a disambiguation page for environmental engineering, geotechnical engineering, planetary engineering and climate engineering. Geoengineering implies far more than the current article focus which is on climate. The page prior to being rewritten by an advocate back in Dec. 2008 was a redirect to planetary engineering. Vsmith ( talk) 14:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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'm planning to re add:
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)
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)
(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)
I took it out by accident, sorry. Collateral damage. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 11:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
For merge discussion, please see Talk:Bio-energy with carbon storage#Merge?
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)
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:
If you're gonna use Pop Mech as a source, at least get it right. Vsmith ( talk) 20:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
WMC, please explain your revert. 'of course not' makes no sense as an edit summary. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 01:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464656a.html William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
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 freeze a lot quicker when it is layed out on a surface (that is colder than the watermass). A possibility could be to have some vessels equipped with a osmotic freshwater plant wich would 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)
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) 30 April 2009. See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/ 99.190.89.224 ( talk) 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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? 99.88.229.86 ( talk) 02:28, 30 June 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)
Why don't you put those "reliable sources" in those wikipedia articles then? 99.54.141.75 ( talk) 03:48, 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)
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. " -- this statement needs a reference please. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. User:Pedant ( talk) 06:00, 2 July 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/ [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)
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)
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
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.)-- SPhilbrick T 20:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
99.181.151.50 ( talk) 03:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)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.
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
99.181.139.210 (
talk) 01:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)97.87.29.188 ( talk) 20:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
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, [1] due to its role in the planet's albedo and in keeping methane, which is an important greenhouse gas, locked up in permafrost. [2]
141.218.36.152 ( talk) 00:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Film Carbon Nation includes some geoengineering, such as cool roof. 99.109.126.248 ( talk) 02:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
MacNaghten, P.; Owen, R. (2011). "Environmental science: Good governance for geoengineering". Nature. 479 (7373): 293. doi: 10.1038/479293a. PMID 22094673.
99.19.45.48 ( talk) 04:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
In a paper released on Sunday by the journal Nature Climate Change, four California researchers used computer analysis to test the idea of managing incoming sunlight and predicted what that would do to crop yields.
See Current sea level rise, food security, 99.181.134.88 ( talk) 08:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Microbe Helps Convert Solar Power to Liquid Fuel by David Biello SciAm March 30, 2012 ...
This novel bioreactor uses the electricity from a photovoltaic panel to help a microbe build CO2 into a liquid fuel.
99.181.147.96 ( talk) 04:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
108.195.138.38 ( talk) 05:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
By ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson in Exxon on climate change impacts: “Don’t worry, engineering will fix it” June 29, 2012 Skeptic (U.S. magazine) with Oil chief: World will adapt to climate change June 28, 2012, quote “We have spent our entire existence adapting. We’ll adapt,” he said. “It’s an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution.” 99.181.133.134 ( talk) 05:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
99.119.130.123 ( talk) 19:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Introduction para 2: "geoengineering represents the only known method for reducing Earth's temperature to pre-industrial levels in the short term (years to decades)."
I take issue with the term "the only known method". Shouldn't this read, "the only theoretical method", as the method is far from proven ? Or is there a better way of expesssing this ? Darkman101 ( talk) 03:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This line is unsourced: "While greenhouse gas remediation offers a more comprehensive possible solution to climate change, it does not give instantaneous results; for that, solar radiation management is required." If greenhouse gasses' main role in climate change comes through their ability to modulate solar radiation's effect on the planet, then why is it expected that altering their levels wouldn't begin have an immediate impact akin to solar radiation management? Smells of WP:OR. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 07:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Four website articles: [7], [8], [9], and [10] (If I ever get myself imprisoned because of this, amen.) -- Lo Ximiendo ( talk) 19:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
There are authoritative sources that caution against the use of geoengineering, and instead recommend conventional measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In my opinion, these sources should be explicitly referred to in the lead. These include the Interacademy Panel statement on ocean acidification [11], the American Meteorological Society [12], the German Advisory Council on Global Change (2006 p.3; 2011 p.335), the Royal Society of the UK (summary – "Headline messages"), and the US National Research Council (p.53, see below).
Enescot ( talk) 11:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The article seems to be largely biased towards a negative viewpoint on the subject. For example, the section title "Justification" implies that the subject is inherently wrong, and justification is necessary. In addition, the presence of a "Risks and criticisms" without any sort of balancing section on benefits and support is biased. The "Implementation Issues" section is also biased, and should be with the other negative section ("Risks and Criticisms"). 184.166.6.102 ( talk) 04:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems this article should be renamed Climate engineering which is now a redirect here and the geoengineering page be made into a disambiguation page for environmental engineering, geotechnical engineering, planetary engineering and climate engineering. Geoengineering implies far more than the current article focus which is on climate. The page prior to being rewritten by an advocate back in Dec. 2008 was a redirect to planetary engineering. Vsmith ( talk) 14:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)