Talk:Solar radiation modification

Make Sunsets section

The article should and does discuss Make Sunsets. Over the last year, this has been in various sections: politics, funding, and now 'deployment'. But none of these are appropriate. For example, MS has released less than 250 kg, which is approximately 0.000005% of deployment. I have therefore changed the title of the section to Make Sunsets, but am open to other suggestions. TERSEYES (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer if our main level headings are all as generic as possible (generic is e.g. "Methods", "Costs", "Risks"). So I don't think having "Make Sunsets" as a main level heading is good. It's actually rather confusing for our readers. Nobody would know what is inside of a section that is called "Make Sunsets". Before your latest round of changes, we had a main level heading called "Deployment" which had two sub-sections: "Legality" (not sure what this was for; did you move this content so somewhere else?) and "Private sector" (this is where the Make Sunsets content was). I think "Deployment" as a main section heading still makes sense even if no large scale deployment has happened yet. EMsmile (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your logic about generality. However, I do not see Make Sunsets as deployment due to the very small scale. Another general category could be something along the lines of "Commercial actors". Thoughts?

You can see here the two single-sentence subsection 'Legality' which I removed. It has one fact that is covered elsewhere (no prohibition at the national level) and two that strike me as too small to warrant inclusion (the EU report's recommendations and prohibition in US state of Tennessee). I could be convinced that the final point should be added to National and subnational law. However, given the large number of pending state bills, I am concerned that it would quickly become out of date. TERSEYES (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

"Commercial actors" is a good suggestion. But I wouldn't make this a main level heading. Neither should the chemtrail theory be a main level heading, in my opinion. I've moved them both into "society and culture" like this:

Society and culture

• Commercial actors
• Public awareness and opinions
• Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Do you think that could work? I think generic main level headings are very helpful for our readers. If you think it doesn't fit under "society and culture" then what else could be a good main level heading for the sub-sections "Commercial actors" and "Chemtrail conspiracy theory"? EMsmile (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

And regarding that former text under "legality" why did you remove this sentence?: In 2024 the Scientific Advice Mechanism to the EU advised banning deployment, but continuing research and reviewing the ban every five to ten years.. I thought that is quite an important statement? EMsmile (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

That sentence was two (or three) of the five recommendations (merged into one sentence) of seven major reports that the page lists, most of which have around a similar number of recommendations. Why list those two recommendations and not the other approximately 25 recommendations from all those reports?

As an alternative, we could try to synthesize what the recommendations of those seven reports have in common, e.g. no use now, continue or expand research, etc. However, this might be contrary to WP:NOR. TERSEYES (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I am a bit lost. I liked this sentence (which was removed): "In 2024 the Scientific Advice Mechanism to the EU advised banning deployment, but continuing research and reviewing the ban every five to ten years." as it's very clear. How is it "That sentence was two (or three) of the five recommendations (merged into one sentence) of seven major reports that the page lists"?. I think the EU report deserves special attention because it's recent and it's from the EU, therefore providing a balance to the many reports from the US that this article uses as sources. I do notice that it's been cited 28 times by now (currently reference number 27), so I guess that is giving it some weight already. EMsmile (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

To explain my logic: That report had five recommendations. If we cite one or two, we should cite all five. If we cite those, we should cite the recommendations of the other major reports.

In terms of relative emphases, there are two US reports (cited a total of 10 times), one UK report (cited 3 times, although it is older), two EU reports (cited a total of 32 times, although they are the newest), two international SRM reports (cited 16 times total), and the IPCC sections on SRM (cited 47 times total). In my eyes, this is not unbalanced away from the EU and, if anything, in its favor. TERSEYES (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, those three former sections could, with roughly the same content, be subsections of Society and culture. TERSEYES (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Criticism of The Degrees Initiative

Earlier this year I had suggested a modified sentence that explains what some people criticise about "The Degrees Initiative" (previous discussion is here in the archive). That discussion didn't properly conclude and it was also at the same time when everything got very fired up regarding my COI, PR etc. Now that we're talking calmly again, I would just like to check: what's your opinion on this reference: https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/the-degrees-initiative Would you regard it to be OK as a source or not reliable? Given that criticism towards SRM research often comes from CSOs, I would regard that source to be permissible in this case (although not great). I am not singling out The Degrees Initiative. I am interested to explain anyone's criticism of any concept/approach/organisation if the source meets WP criteria of WP:RS.

My proposed wording for the criticism and source is like this: However, the German NGO Geoengineering Monitor has criticized The Degrees Initiative for "imposing its research agenda onto the Global South" and for being "predominantly funded by foundations run by technology and finance billionaires based in the Global North".. This new sentence would be in the section on "advocacy for research" directly after these two sentences: The Degrees Initiative is a UK registered charity, established to build capacity in developing countries to evaluate SRM. It works toward "changing the global environment in which SRM is evaluated, ensuring informed and confident representation from developing countries.". EMsmile (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems fine to me Chidgk1 (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I thank @EMsmile for posting here before editing and @Chidgk1 for your input. I am not going to comment on this specific proposal, as I am a partisan. However, I do ask @Chidgk1 to consider whether this draft statement is consistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. If I'm not mistaken, self-published sources should not be used support for claims about third parties.

More generally, and coincidentally, yesterday I was looking at the sentence: "In 2024, the same journal had published a commentary from a different group of scientists, which criticized the proposed non-use agreement and argued for a more permissive research framework." The inclusion in this article of criticism from actors on one side of a polarized issue, based largely or entirely on their values and opinion, of the actors on the other side strikes me as unhelpful. I prefer to keep such back-and-forth criticisms out of the article. TERSEYES (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

My approach is a little bit different: I think as a Wikipedia reader, it is these descriptions of criticisms (with suitable sources of course) that are actually most interesting and valuable; this is also what sets a Wikipedia article apart from a general website of an organisation. Often, when I look up an organisation or a person on Wikipedia I go straight to the sections on "controversies", "reception", "criticism" or alike because this is where I get interesting information and food for thought; something that I wouldn't find on the website of the organisation itself.

And I think the existing sentence of "In 2024, the same journal had published a commentary from a different group of scientists, which criticized the proposed non-use agreement and argued for a more permissive research framework." is in principle useful, although the reaction from the authors (if it exists) could also be added.

By the way, I think we should take out the red link in the sentence that follows because there is probably no need to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article on the Non-Use Agreement. EMsmile (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Unless there is strong opposition I intend to make the change that I had proposed on 4 April above, which was supported by User:Chidgk1 and the intention of which I explained further on 8 April above. I am also open to modified wording or additional sources, of course. I think as the criticism towards SRM research comes often from CSOs, the source of Geoengineering Monitor is fine in this case. The article seems to me well written and researched. I don't think that "self-published" is a problem in this case. EMsmile (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that it's an OK change. Not something that I would put in but OK. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe that this is clearly contrary to WP:V:

"self-published material... are [sic] largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications

"Self-published... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as... It does not involve claims about third parties;"

@EMsmile:

1. Is this source (an essay from an NGO on its own website) not self-published?
2. Is this source (an activist NGO) an expert whose work previously been published by reliable, independent publications?
3. Is this (an essay about another NGO) not about a third party?

As a partisan, I will not get involved into an editing war. However, I ask @EMsmile to answer these questions. TERSEYES (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's self-published but so are many other sources used in this article, e.g. the website of SRM360 is called upon a few times. For comparison also, the article Climate crisis also cites tweets From Twitter/X 3 times even though they are also discouraged in that "self-published rule" description. In any case, I would also argue that WP:PRINCIPLE applies here: This rule is a guidance but it's the overall spirit of the source that counts, and the topic at hand.

Is there anything in particular about the criticism that the article from The Geoengineering Monitor describes about The Degrees Initiative that appears to be plain wrong, and that's why you don't want to see it mentioned? In my opinion it seems to be well researched and thought through. So I think it's valid and interesting for the reader. If other publications come to light that also critique The Degrees Initiative, or that counter-argue the point of Geoengineering Monitor, this could be added at a later date to flesh out the picture further.

Actually, I've just had an idea: I'll contact the author of the article, Anja Chalmin. Perhaps she can point us to additional publications or insights on this matter. EMsmile (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the first question; you did not address the latter two. Could you? After all, self-published sources are allowed on claims about only the authoring person or organization (i.e. not a third party), or if the author is a recognized expert. TERSEYES (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

One other idea....this sort of (only) implies a situation where the interests or opinions of the global south being different than those of the global north. If this is the case, IMO it would enclyclopedic information. Maybe explore (including in EMsmile's potential exploration) to see if that is the case. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

To answer the questions by TERSEYES above: I believe Anja Chalmin and the Geoengineering Monitor is reliable and regarded as a good quality source for this topic in this Wikipedia article. See below the e-mail reply by Anja. Yes, it is a claim about a third party in a "self-published source" but I think it's nevertheless valid information that our readers should be able to see. You didn't answer my question (i.e. with regards to actual content): Is there anything in particular about the criticism that the article from The Geoengineering Monitor describes about The Degrees Initiative that appears to be plain wrong, and that's why you don't want to see it mentioned?.

Here is the e-mail reply by Anja Chalmin, translated from German with Deepl.com:

+++++++++

"It is not uncommon for content from the Geoengineering Monitor (GeoMon) to be used as a source in publications. Here are a few examples:

• the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) uses the article you mentioned on the Degrees Initiative as a source. See here: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/479/publikationen/2025_uba_fb_srm_dt.pdf
• peer-reviewed publications also use GeoMon articles, e.g. on SRM or governance (example 1, example 2)
• international reports on climate change, such as this UNEP report, also use GeoMon articles as a source.
• the Wikipedia entry on DAC (Direct air capture) and an entry on the Gorgon CCS project (de:Gorgon-Gasprojekt in the German Wikipedia) also use GeoMon articles as a source."

++++++++

So therefore, I think it's fair to say that the GeoMon article is a suitable source in this case. I intend to add the sentences and the source back in accordingly. It appears that Chidgk1 and North8000 are also supportive (?). EMsmile (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I gave my primary concerns about your proposed change above. To make clear:

1. You and I agree that this addition would be contrary to WP:RS, but could be added because (in your words) "it's valid information that our readers should be able to see". The fact that they are cited elsewhere does not change that this is a self-published claim about a third party.

2. I personally find the prospect of an article about a controversial subject to include (in my words) "criticism from actors on one side of a polarized issue, based largely or entirely on their values and opinion, of the actors on the other side strikes me as unhelpful".

Although I recognize the consensus among other editors, I will use this decision as guidelines for my future edits of this article. TERSEYES (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

As previously noted, IMO it is OK to add but not something that I would add.North8000 (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

IMO it is OK to add. North8000 (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. Added like this, in a neutral tone: A researcher from the German NGO Geoengineering Monitor is of the opinion that this charity is "imposing its research agenda onto the Global South" and is "predominantly funded by foundations run by technology and finance billionaires based in the Global North". In the edit summary I briefly explained my edit as follows: "added alternative point of view, after lengthy discussion on talk page. I am of the opinion that this Global South/North aspect is worth noting here, especially given that so much in this world is Global North centered, including the internet at large". - Let's see what other publications, one way or another, come to light in future. EMsmile (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Move section "U.S. Republican policymakers"

Hi everyone, hi @TERSEYES, I suggest to move the section on "U.S. Republican policymakers" from under the heading "Opposition to deployment and research" to "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" at the bottom of the page, as I think it is better suited there as noted, these "bills are influenced by the chemtrails conspiracy theory". Do you agree? 1HumbleB (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

There are many problems with that. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you elaborate @North8000? Do you have other suggestions?

IMO, this content should not be placed under the heading "Opposition to deployment and research" to SRM. The first paragraph under "U.S. Republic policymakers" states: "These bills are influenced by the chemtrails conspiracy theory." citing Maruf, Ramishah; Miller, Brandon (25 March 2025). "State lawmakers are looking to ban non-existent 'chemtrails.' It could have real-life side effects".

Given this, categorzing this as opposition to SRM seems inaccurate, rather it is opposition to "non-existent 'chemtrails'". Placing it under opposition to SRM risks conflating SRM with the chemtrails conspiracy theory, which is misleading and very problematic, in my view. 1HumbleB (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll just make a few quick comments. First, if (as you say) it isn't about opposition to SRM, it doesn't even belong in the article. Second, taking overall opposition to weather modification and saying that a piece of it might be influenced by a rare whacky conspiracy theory and then say that that justifies classifying the broader opposition as the rare whacky conspiracy theory (putting it under that heading is that statement) is from both a logic and writing standpoint is a bad idea. And that's without even getting into the Wiki question of sourcing for that implicit assertion. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @North8000. We know via reliable sources that these bills and statements oppose SRM "geoengineering". But we do not know how much of this effort is motivated by the chemtrails conspiracy theory. Specifically, the relatively senior figures (e.g.

RfK Jr., Zeldin. DeSantis, Lee) do not explicitly refer to supposed ongoing spraying. TERSEYES (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Fewer sections?

After reading about Wikipedia's preferred style, I concluded that this page has too many sections (and their names are too long). I will merge:

• Methods = Atmospheric methods + other methods
• Effects = Potential for reducing climate change + Uncertainties and risks for the environment
• Governance = Potential governance challenges + Existing governance
• Support for research = Advocacy for research + Research funding

In the latter three cases, the existing heading structure will be decreased a level (i.e. "Potential governance challenges" becomes SH1, "Displacement of mitigation" becomes SH2). In the case of Methods, I will remove the Atmospheric and Other distinction. If you disagree, let's discuss! TERSEYES (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Possible contradiction MCB?

At present the Marine cloud brightening section seems to suggest that local areas be kept from overheating by reducing albedo (my italics). Is this a contradiction?--AntientNestor (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I suspect “reduced albedo” might be a typo so I changed it to “increased” to match the body of that article - but I am not very knowledgeable about this so it would be great if someone could check Chidgk1 (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

That looks like a fix, thanks. It's what I had in mind, but I wasn't sure. AntientNestor (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)