An overview of the Earth system science of solar geoengineering


Peter J. Irvine, Ben Kravitz, Marc G. Lawrence, Helene Muri


14.Juli 2016





Solar geoengineering has been proposed as a means to cool the Earth by increasing the reflection of sunlight back to space, for example, by injecting reflective aerosol particles (or their precursors) into the lower stratosphere. Such proposed techniques would not be able to substitute for mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a response to the risks of climate change, as they would only mask some of the effects of global warming. They might, however, eventually be applied as a complementary approach to reduce climate risks. Thus, the Earth system consequences of solar geoengineering are central to understanding its potentials and risks. Here we review the state-of-the-art knowledge about stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection and an idealized proxy for this, ‘sunshade geoengineering,’ in which the intensity of incoming sunlight is directly reduced in models. Studies are consistent in suggesting that sunshade geoengineering and stratospheric aerosol injection would generally offset the climate effects of elevated GHG concentrations. However, it is clear that a solar geoengineered climate would be novel in some respects, one example being a notably reduced hydrological cycle intensity. Moreover, we provide an overview of nonclimatic aspects of the response to stratospheric aerosol injection, for example, its effect on ozone, and the uncertainties around its consequences. We also consider the issues raised by the partial control over the climate that solar geoengineering would allow. Finally, this overview highlights some key research gaps in need of being resolved to provide sound basis for guidance of future decisions around solar geoengineering. 





Solar geoengineering has been proposed as a means of reducing some of the risks of climate change caused by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. The aim of proposed solar geoengineering techniques is to increase the reflection of sunlight back to space by various means to cool the climate. Numerous climate modeling studies have shown that while no solar geoengineering technique can completely reverse the climate change caused by elevated atmospheric GHG concentrations, they may be able to offset a large fraction of the changes in several key climate variables, such as temperature and precipitation, thus potentially reducing climate risks.1–3 Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is widely discussed as a promising solar geoengineering proposal in terms of its potential to cool the Earth,4 and its assumed technological feasibility.5 The climate could be cooled as a result of injecting aerosol particles (in particular sulfate particles) into the stratosphere (a layer of the atmosphere that begins between 10 and 18 km above the surface). The particles would scatter and reflect solar radiation, increasing the planetary reflectivity (albedo), and cooling the climate.6


There are a number of other potentially effective solar geoengineering proposals that are not as well understood as SAI. Marine cloud brightening is a proposal to inject sea salt aerosols into the marine boundary layer to directly scatter light, and particularly to increase the albedo of low-lying clouds.7 There are also proposals to increase the land surface albedo through the application of reflective materials in deserts or other areas, or through the enhancement of cropland albedo.8,9 Cirrus cloud thinning is a proposal to inject aerosol particles to reduce the thickness and lifetime of cirrus clouds, allowing more thermal radiation to escape to space.10 Though cirrus cloud thinning is not technically a ‘solar’ geoengineering proposal, it raises similar issues. Finally, the idea of solar geoengineering by placing an array of mirrors in space, so-called sunshade geoengineering, is occasionally discussed.11 While the logistics involved render this idea unrealistic for implementation in the foreseeable future, it represents a very simple form of solar geoengineering to simulate with models, and the results of such modeling studies are considered in Section Climate Response to Sunshade Geoengineering of this article, before we proceed to considering the specific response to SAI in Section Effects of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Geoengineering.


In  its summary of SAI, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that there is medium confidence that a radiative forcing of −4 W m−2 , approximately equivalent to reversing the radiative forcing effects of a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 concentration, could be achieved through the injection of 10 million tons of sulfur (S) annually into the stratosphere.4 The injected aerosol particles would have a lifetime of approximately 1–3 years,12 depending on their size, implying that if the injection of aerosols were terminated over a short period of time, there would be a rapid warming, a problem referred to as a ‘termination shock’ in the literature.13–15


In this article, we delve deeper into understanding the potential of SAI, discussing some of the expected climate effects of solar geoengineering as have been revealed in the peer-reviewed literature, as well as discussing several key research gaps:


1. Many climate model simulations of solar geoengineering have used the simple proxy representation of reducing total solar irradiance, here called sunshade geoengineering (Section Climate Response to Sunshade Geoengineering). This method is easy to implement in the models and represents some of the firstorder climatic effects of SAI. Nevertheless, the differences between the relatively wellcharacterized simulations of sunshade geoengineering and simulations of SAI geoengineering are substantial (Section Effects of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Geoengineering).


2. The models used to project Earth system changes in the coming century typically do not represent all the relevant processes for simulating stratospheric aerosols and so may not represent SAI well (Section Effects of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Geoengineering). These modeling challenges are compounded by the limited sources of evidence available to validate the models’ performance.


3. There is a potentially wide range of ways that solar geoengineering could be deployed and thus a wide range of possible consequences. This raises questions about what objectives would be pursued and how to evaluate their consequences, and, if a large-scale implementation of any form of solar geoengineering were to be pursued, how to design a deployment to best achieve specific objectives (Section Solar Geoengineering as One Means of Limiting the Impacts of Climate Change). Solar geoengineering is one option among others for addressing climate risks, which offers unique possibilities but also poses unique risks.


This overview does not address the many significant governance and ethical challenges posed by solar geoengineering. We suggest that the interested reader refer to, for example, the review of the ethical issues by Preston,16 and the report of the European Transdisciplinary Assessment of Climate Engineering (EuTRACE) project.17






This section summarizes the current state of knowledge about sunshade geoengineering as a proxy for SAI, with a focus on key climate variables, including changes in temperature, the hydrological cycle, sea level, vegetation, and the carbon cycle. We cover the range of topics that have been addressed in published material, but many aspects have yet to be investigated. Most of the results in the following section are based on findings from the idealized sunshade geoengineering experiment G1 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP).18 In this simulation, an instantaneous quadrupling of the CO2 concentration (4xCO2) relative to a preindustrial baseline case (piControl) is balanced by a reduction in incoming solar radiation (insolation) to maintain the same top-of-atmosphere radiative balance as in the piControl simulation. Consequently, global mean temperature in G1 remains about the same as its preindustrial value. To achieve this, insolation in each model was reduced by 3.5–5.0%, depending upon the model.1 Despite being highly idealized, these experiments can provide useful information about the climate responses to scenarios with more realistic GHG forcing inputs, such as those based on the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs).19 The sunshade geoengineering studies can also provide useful information about many aspects of what might be expected with an implementation of SAI, though there are some notable differences in the climatic response, as discussed in Section Effects of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Geoengineering. Kravitz et al.1 summarize the multi-model climate response to the G1 and 4xCO2 experiments, providing several figures that illustrate the regional responses and may be used as a valuable supplement to the descriptions below.


One of the main lessons learned with the sunshade geoengineering simulations, as emphasized also by Boucher et al.,4 is that simulations consistently suggest that a climate with elevated GHG concentrations and solar geoengineering (G1) would be more similar to that of a low-GHG climate (piControl) than a climate with elevated GHG concentrations alone (4xCO2). However, neither sunshade geoengineering, nor any other form of solar geoengineering is capable of fully reversing the effects of elevated GHG concentrations; that is, there is a significant residual climate change when comparing the G1 and piControl simulations (G1–piControl).




Temperature and Extremes


A large reduction in incoming sunlight, as simulated in the G1 experiment, would reduce the global-mean temperature and surface temperatures everywhere compared to the temperatures in the 4xCO2 simulation. However, differences between the solar and GHG forcing result in geographical and temporal temperature differences from piControl4 (Figure 1). The greatest temperature reductions in these simulations occur in those regions which are expected to show the greatest warming under elevated GHG conditions, that is, at high-latitudes where strong positive feedbacks act on temperature changes.1,20 In addition to mean temperature changes, the distribution of extreme temperature events shifts in the simulations; extreme hot event frequencies are reduced in G1 as compared to those of 4xCO2, and extreme cold event frequencies are increased.21 In experiment G1, simulations show an overcooling (relative to piControl) in tropical ocean regions and a residual temperature increase over high-latitude land regions and in polar regions (G1–piControl), although the magnitude of these changes is small compared with the avoided warming (4xCO2–piControl).1 Additionally, night-time temperatures are expected to rise more quickly than day-time temperatures under global warming; sunshade geoengineering would partially reverse this effect in most regions.22




Hydrological Cycle and Its Extremes


Global mean precipitation will increase with global warming, referred to as hydrological cycle intensification.23 This response is composed of a ‘slow’ hydrological response to warming that increases the intensity of the hydrological cycle and a ‘fast’ response to the effects of GHGs on the atmospheric energy budget that suppresses the intensity of the hydrological cycle.24 The net effect of anthropogenic emissions is an increase in the intensity of the hydrological cycle.25 Solar forcing acts primarily on the surface, hence balancing GHG forcing by solar reduction, as in the G1 experiment, results in a more stable troposphere from the effects of GHG on the atmosphere, suppressing rising motion and hence reducing the intensity of the hydrological cycle. Tilmes et al.26 showed that in experiment G1, which restores the global-mean temperature to the value in piControl (and hence cancels the ‘slow’ temperaturedriven effect on the global-mean hydrological cycle), there is a reduction in the intensity of the hydrological cycle that is roughly equal to the ‘fast’ response to the elevated GHG concentration (Figure 2).


The regional hydrological response to global warming can be crudely summarized by noting that wet regions tend to get wetter and dry regions tend to get drier, largely due to a combination of changes in circulation and the equilibrium amount of water in the air at higher temperatures.23,27 Regional hydrological conditions in G1 are more similar to piControl than those of 4xCO2. However, there remain substantial regional hydrological cycle differences when comparing G1 against piControl (Figure 1). Global monsoon precipitation is approximately 5% higher than piControl under 4xCO2 and is approximately 5% lower than piControl under G1 (Tilmes et al.26 provide a thorough discussion of regional precipitation effects and monsoonal precipitation changes). Over land, even though precipitation decreases in G1 relative to piControl, evaporation decreases are typically greater, resulting in a net increase in runoff (as measured by precipitation minus evaporation; Figure 1).1


The intensity of precipitation (i.e. the frequency of floods and droughts) is projected to increase due to anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and rising temperatures.28 This general tendency would be reversed by sunshade geoengineering, with more low-intensity rainfall events and fewer, weaker extreme precipitation events.21,26


Large changes in the global hydrological cycle and its consequences at the regional level are often discussed as a potential risk of solar geoengineering. However, changes in the hydrological cycle are not straightforward to interpret. Simulations of solar geoengineering show that it would generally reduce precipitation on land, particularly in monsoon regions.26 However, these reductions in precipitation are also accompanied by a reduction in evaporation that results in a net increase in runoff in many regions that show a decline in precipitation.1,29 Vegetation plays an important role in the hydrological cycle and changes to the climate and to CO2 concentrations will affect this important relationship.29



Vegetation Response


The response of vegetation has been argued to be a useful aggregator of changes in the climate as it can indicate whether or not growth is being hampered or promoted.1,29,30 In both 4xCO2 and G1, the direct effect of CO2 on plant growth accounted for nearly a doubling of net primary productivity (NPP; a measure of the total carbon flux from the atmosphere to the plants), with disagreement between models as to which experiment shows the highest NPP.1,15,29 CO2 fertilizes plant growth and also reduces transpiration and preserves water, increasing the water-use effi- ciency of plants; this mechanism is responsible for an observable greening of arid regions since the 1980s.31,32 However, it has been found that the magnitude of this CO2 fertilization effect is likely constrained by the availability of nitrogen and phosphorus, which is not represented in many global climate models.33 Figure 3 compares the response of NPP in 4xCO2 and G1 and illustrates that the climate effects of sunshade geoengineering matter at the regional-scale. For G1–4xCO2, a relative decrease in NPP at high latitudes for all models was found due to the reduced temperature increase, which would allow vegetation to grow in these cold regions.29 There was also a relative increase in NPP in tropical regions for most models due to the reduced respiration at lower temperatures with sunshade geoengineering.29 In addition, Glienke et al.29 found that many regions which show an absolute decline in precipitation and P-E for G1–piControl, that is, those which have a drying trend, show an increase in NPP. The effect of sunshade geoengineering on crops is discussed in Section Climate Impacts of Solar Geoengineering; the crop response represents a special case as their environment is more-or-less controlled and different modeling tools are used to assess their response.


Vegetation productivity is also affected by a number of other factors including soil properties, the quality of light (the fraction of diffuse and direct light) and tropospheric chemistry. The effect of SAI geoengineering on tropospheric chemistry and the quality of light, and the implications of these changes on vegetation are discussed in Sections Tropospheric Effects of Aerosol Deposition and Changes in Quality Of Light, respectively.


Vegetation plays an important role in the hydrological cycle, with transpiration from vegetation responsible for a considerable fraction of total evapotranspiration on land.34 CO2 increases the water-use efficiency of vegetation, which causes a substantial reduction in transpiration and a substantial increase in runoff.31,35 However, the fertilization effect of CO2 on plants increases NPP which increases transpiration, somewhat offsetting this reduction in transpiration.31 Irvine et al.36 found that the very large uncertainty in the magnitude of NPP response for G1–piControl in the GeoMIP models (in some models NPP was more than twice as high as in others) was likely behind the large spread in tropical hydrological response due to the hydrological impact of NPP on transpiration.




The Carbon Cycle


The projected increases in NPP of vegetation would be expected to be reflected in the carbon cycle, though the exact effect will depend on the fate of the carbon that is taken up by the vegetation. Under scenarios of global warming, the land surface is projected to shift from a net sink to a net source of carbon as increases in soil respiration will liberate carbon stored in soils across the world.37 Sunshade geoengineering would reduce this increase in temperature, so it will likely suppress soil respiration while potentially retaining most of the increases in vegetation productivity, leading to increased carbon storage on land and a potentially large reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.13,29,38 However, recent attempts to include a nitrogen cycle in an Earth system model have resulted in a weaker terrestrial response than those earlier, simpler studies39 In addition, sunshade geoengineering would reduce high latitude temperatures, which would reduce the rate of permafrost melting and possibly help prevent the release of sub-sea methane clathrate deposits, although this has yet to be evaluated.


Tjiputra et al.39 found that the ocean absorbs 10% more carbon in the solar geoengineered scenario, similar to earlier findings with simpler models.38,40 CO2 is more soluble in colder seawater, so solar geoengineering increases inorganic carbon storage across most ocean areas. One exception is the Arctic, which stores less carbon because geoengineering encourages sea ice recovery, reducing the exposure of Arctic seawater to the atmosphere. Tjiputra et al.39 also found that the so-called biological pump of carbon from the surface to depth (sinking biomass) is increased in the solar geoengineered case, as there is less stratification of surface waters (a projected effect of global warming) and increased upwelling of nutrient-rich waters to the surface, both of which boost the productivity of ocean surface waters. The strength of the meridional overturning circulation, which transports CO2-rich Atlantic surface waters to depth, is projected to decline as the climate warms due to reduced sea-ice formation and increased fresh-water runoff, suppressing the formation of the cold, salty plumes of sinking water that drive this flow.41 Tjiputra et al.39 find that in their simulations, solar geoengineering maintains the strength of the meridional overturning circulation leading to a much greater transport of inorganic carbon to the interior of the Atlantic Ocean than in the reference case, contributing to the global reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentrations but leading to a considerable acidification of these deep waters. Together these effects result in little change in surface pH in these simulations,39 but the aragonite saturation level, important to the formation of the shells of certain calcifying organisms, would still decline, as this is reduced at lower temperatures.40 However, studies of the impacts solar geoengineering on coral reefs suggest that the impacts of temperature change would be greater than those of reduced aragonite saturation level.42,43    



Sea Level Response


Global sea-level rise can be driven either by an increase in the mass of water in the oceans, due to reduced storage of water on land primarily caused by the melting of ice, or by an increase in the volume of water, due to the thermal expansion of water (thermosteric sea-level rise). Sunshade geoengineering, or any form of solar geoengineering, would reduce the rate of thermosteric sea-level rise, as it would reduce the heat flow into the oceans.14,44 The response of glaciers and ice-sheets is more complicated, as it depends upon the balance between accumulation of mass from precipitation and losses from melting and from the calving of icebergs into the oceans. While sunshade geoengineering would reduce precipitation (reduced accumulation) in most regions, idealized simulations of the response of the Greenland ice sheet to the G1 experiment suggest that the reduced temperatures (reduced loss) would have a greater influence in that region.45 Simulations varying the reduction in insolation found that the Greenland icesheet could be stabilized by a deployment of sunshade geoengineering even if temperatures in that region are not restored fully to the pre-industrial value.45 However, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the temperature rise sufficient to destabilize the ice-sheet.46 Irvine et al.14 found that sunshade geoengineering deployed early in the 21st Century could greatly reduce sea-level rise, though halting it would require offsetting all anthropogenic forcing (See Figure 4). While sunshade geoengineering could reduce sea-level rise, simulations employing more sophisticated models suggest that hysteresis in the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to climate change could mean that there may be a limited ability to reverse some of the contribution to sealevel rise from the ice-sheets if deployment of solar geoengineering is delayed.47,48





While sunshade geoengineering is a useful first-order approximation to SAI, the effects of SAI will differ from that of sunshade geoengineering in important ways. Here we complement and extend the review of solar geoengineering by Robock,49 highlighting the basic processes that shape the consequences of SAI and some of the broad differences between sunshade geoengineering and SAI. While we focus on sulfate aerosols throughout, we also note that alternative aerosol particles, such as aluminum oxide, titanium dioxide, or black carbon, would have qualitatively similar climate effects, though with important differences in the magnitude and distribution of those effects.50




Generating a Stratospheric


Sulfate Aerosol Cloud The most commonly discussed approach to generate a stratospheric sulfate aerosol layer would be to release a gaseous sulfate aerosol precursor such as SO2 in the stratosphere. This gas then oxidizes over a period of weeks to form sulfuric acid, which condenses to form aerosol particles.54 Once the aerosols are formed, particles begin to coagulate, and gaseous precursors condense onto existing aerosol particles, resulting in larger aerosol sizes. For higher rates of injection, these processes have larger aggregate effects, shifting the aerosol size distribution toward larger, less reflective particles, resulting in diminishing returns.54,55 The size of the aerosol particles in the cloud is critical as it determines: (1) how well light is scattered, with a diameter of around 0.1 micron being most effective;56 (2) the lifetime of the aerosols, as larger particles sediment more rapidly;55 and (3) the amount of stratospheric heating by the aerosols, which undermines the scattering effect to some extent.12,56


It could also be possible to gain more direct control over the aerosol particle size distribution by either releasing sulfuric acid (H2SO4) directly, or by injecting pre-formed particles of some other composition such as TiO2. 50 Any of these possibilities would have the challenge of more difficult logistics, as well as additional degrees of uncertainty in the technological feasibility (e.g., nozzle technologies which would produce particles of appropriate sizes under the flight conditions). Focusing particularly on the case of emitting H2SO4 instead of SO2, simulations suggest that the H2SO4 would condense rapidly in the release plume, and that this would allow more control over the aerosol size distribution,56 potentially avoiding some of the scaling problems seen for SO2 release.55,56 However, more research is needed to determine whether the desired aerosol particle distribution could be achieved. In particular, models that can represent in-plume processing may be critical; English et al.57 simulated release of H2SO4 over a large volume but did not consider in-plume dynamics, and so they did not replicate the methods or results of Pierce et al.56


The injection strategy for SAI would be critically important in determining the efficacy and consequences of the deployment. Injecting SO2 or H2SO4 in the equatorial stratosphere would be effective for achieving a global aerosol layer, as the Brewer– Dobson circulation, which rises in the tropical stratosphere and descends at higher latitudes, would help to distribute the aerosols to produce a global coverage.58 Any release of aerosols from a point source into the stratosphere would quickly become distributed zonally due to the strong zonal flows in the stratosphere and would also tend to be transported poleward, albeit at a slower rate.12,59 The height of the aerosol release is also critical, with aerosols released at higher altitude tending to have a longer lifetime.12,55 The technical feasibility of SAI geoengineering is discussed in Box 1.


In the rest of this section, the discussion focuses on the consequences of releasing SO2 into the tropical lower stratosphere to produce a global sulfate aerosol layer, as this is the most commonly simulated experiment.









There have been a number of assessments into the feasibility and costs of annually lifting the millions of tons of material to the stratosphere that would be required to implement SAI.5,60,61 While a wide range of options have been considered, ranging from rigid towers to artillery, only two options seem both feasible and relatively cheap: high-altitude aircraft or tethered balloons.5,60 All assessments agree that aircraft have the potential to deliver millions of tons of material to the lower stratosphere (~20 km or 60 hPa) at a cost on the order of 1–10 billion US dollars per mega-ton of material per year.5,60,61 Tethered balloons offer a potentially cheaper alternative, especially for large injection amounts, with estimated costs ranging from an order of magnitude less to an order of magnitude more than delivery by aircraft;60 balloonborne injections would rely on less certain technologies, and as such, assessments disagree on its potential feasibility.5,60 However, getting the material to the stratosphere is a necessary but not sufficient condition to produce a cooling effect, as the aerosols or aerosol precursors must then form an effective aerosol layer with the appropriate optical properties.49 The direct costs of SAI might therefore be small relative to the costs of mitigating emissions of GHGs or adapting to climate change. However, cost estimates so far have assumed a perfectly efficient formation of an aerosol layer, so they should be interpreted as likely providing a lower bound on the costs.49,62





Effects of Atmospheric Heating by Aerosols


Sulfate aerosols are excellent at scattering radiation in the visible band, but they also absorb some solar and thermal radiation, which results in heating by the aerosols.63 The amount of heating would depends on the total amount of aerosol and the aerosol size with larger particles absorbing more radiation.12 As an example, the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo placed approximately 20 Tg of SO2 in the troposphere and lower stratosphere, which caused a peak stratospheric warming of approximately 3.5C.64


One effect is that stratospheric heating changes the total column energy budget, leading to greater imbalances between the surface and the atmosphere than would occur under an equivalent amount of sunshade geoengineering radiative forcing. Because the hydrological cycle responds to the total column energy budget,65 there ends up being a greater hydrological cycle response to SAI than to sunshade geoengineering.2,66 However, the degree to which the two methods differ depends on the injection strategy, and studies disagree on the magnitude of this difference.67


Furthermore, the stratospheric heating would cause circulation changes. Aquila et al.68 found that the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO, an approximately two-year cycle in the direction of stratospheric winds) has a longer westerly phase in response to stratospheric heating. With sufficient warming, this oscillation ‘locks’ in a permanent westerly phase. The QBO also modulates the Arctic Oscillation and the jet stream, and hence can affect surface climate.69 Ferraro et al.70 found that SAI reduces tropical convection strength, although these simulations were conducted using a model that lacks the full complexity of a general circulation model, including radiative feedbacks on dynamical circulation patterns, so further investigation is needed.



Stratospheric Chemistry Changes


The stratosphere is home to the ozone layer, which protects the surface of the Earth from the full intensity of ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun. The reactions that determine the ozone concentration are sensitive to the quantity of UV, temperature, and humidity, as well as the presence of various reactive gases.71,72 After the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, there was an observed reduction in total column ozone,73 and simulations of SAI have shown similar effects.74 SAI would provide more surface area on which ozone-destroying reactions could occur.75,76 However, the stratospheric warming that would result from SAI would suppress another ozone destroying chemical reaction: the NOx (monoNitrogen Oxides) cycle.76 Local warming would produce greater upwelling which could potentially increase the quantity of water vapor that penetrates into the very dry stratosphere with further consequences for stratospheric chemistry.12,77


There are major uncertainties in the effects of SAI geoengineering on stratospheric ozone chemistry, but despite these uncertainties in modeling studies to date, the projections of its effects are fairly consistent. In the earlier decades of the 21st century when ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) concentrations will still be high, SAI would be expected to reduce global-mean stratospheric ozone concentrations, delaying the recovery of the ozone hole for many decades.75,78 But due to the declining concentrations of CFCs and the suppression of the NOx cycle, SAI would be expected to increase ozone concentrations in the second half of the 21st century.76,78 Additionally, as the aerosols would scatter light, including UV, it would prevent some of the UV from reaching the Earth’s surface, which would reduce UV exposure if there were no changes in ozone.76 Some regions may experience increases in UV exposure in the spring and early summer seasons, but this is restricted to polar regions and is a smaller effect than the existing ozone hole.76 There are a number of uncertainties around the effects of SAI on ozone, but these studies suggest that it is a relatively small effect that would not pose substantial risks, perhaps with the exception of regions already affected by the ozone hole.



Tropospheric Effects of Aerosol Deposition


Deposition of the sulfate aerosols, which will generally make precipitation more acidic, is known to be a potential source of significant damage to ecosystems if the sulfate is sufficiently concentrated.79 Kravitz et al.80 found that only the most poorly buffered ecosystems would be susceptible to the additional acid deposition from an SO2 injection rate of 5 Tg per year (about a fourth the amount of the injection by the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo volcano eruption); the amount of global sulfur pollution due to industrial activities is over an order of magnitude greater.81 However, this conclusion may need to be revisited if larger sulfate aerosol injection amounts were to be considered.


Preliminary analysis of stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection using a chemical transport model have suggested that SAI could result in 26,000 premature deaths per year (per degree of cooling),82 a small fraction of the more than three million premature deaths associated with existing air pollution.83 This total is highly uncertain as it depends on the cancelation of two large and highly uncertain contributions, an increase in harmful particulate matter and a decrease in tropospheric ozone, and includes a smaller contribution from increased UV exposure (4500 premature deaths per year per degree of cooling). These results need further confirmation, as a large portion of the variance in these estimates is due to uncertainties in the relationships between exposure and mortality. Importantly the study found that the descending stratospheric aerosol itself would be almost entirely removed by wet deposition so the direct contribution of the sulfate aerosols themselves to particulate matter burden at the surface would likely be very low.


Of additional concern are aerosol–cloud interactions as the aerosols sediment out of the stratosphere and through the troposphere. Aerosol–cloud interactions are some of the leading sources of uncertainty in understanding climate change.4 In the context of SAI, these sorts of interactions are not well understood. Kuebbeler et al.84 and Cirisan et al.85 found an enhancement of cooling from SAI due to depletion of cirrus clouds by the falling aerosols, but their results strongly depend upon the cloud and aerosol microphysics treatment used in their simpli- fied studies. The strong mixing events that occur through folds in the tropopause might pose a particular concern for SAI; the stratospheric air can be transported deep into the troposphere and even reach the surface, possibly leading to strong deposition events.86 Evidence was also found of effects on cirrus clouds due to the fallout from the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption,87 but this was shown to be very difficult to quantify and does not provide quantitative information of what would be anticipated for SAI.



Changes in Quality of Light


SAI would change the balance of direct and diffuse radiation, whereas sunshade geoengineering would not affect this balance. For every 1 W m−2 of sunlight reflected to space by SAI, approximately 4 W m−2 is scattered downward as diffuse light.88 Simulations suggest that this would not significantly change the hue of the sky, except during sunrise and sunset, but would whiten it noticeably (reduced color saturation), shifting its appearance toward that of urban skies.88 The reduced intensity of direct sunlight would reduce the ability of concentrating solar power plants to generate power.89 The increase in diffuse light is expected to boost plant productivity, as diffuse light can penetrate through the canopy to the shaded leaves below.90 Xia et al.91 found an increase in the rate of photosynthesis in a study of the effects of SAI geoengineering but did not isolate the effects of diffuse light from the other effects of SAI. Kalidindi et al. compared the effects of SAI geoengineering and sunshade geoengineering, finding that the increase in the rate of photosynthesis of the shaded leaves from the increased diffuse light was offset by the decrease in productivity of the sunlit leaves due to the decreased direct light.67 More work is needed to determine the magnitude of the diffuse light effect from SAI geoengineering on photosynthesis.


Model Uncertainty in the Response to SAI Geoengineering To simulate the effects of SAI requires a model that has a thorough treatment not only of climate processes and feedbacks, but also of stratospheric chemistry and aerosol microphysics, with an upper model boundary that is sufficiently high to completely resolve the stratospheric circulation.92 Sophisticated representations of stratospheric chemistry and dynamical processes are not yet included in most climate models, and observational-based validation of these models that do include such processes is limited.93 Moreover, comparisons with the observed climate response to volcanic eruptions suggest that Earth system and climate models do indeed fall short of representing all the relevant processes. For example, after large volcanic eruptions a warming at high latitudes in the winter is observed but is not reproduced by many of the current models.94 Thus, simulations to date of the consequences of SAI have been made with models with a number of significant shortcomings resulting in significant uncertainty in some aspects of the response.


One measure of this uncertainty can be found by comparing the range of model responses to a prescribed release of SO2 in the stratosphere. Figure 5 shows the distribution of sulfate aerosols from three models participating in the GeoMIP experiment G4, in which 5 Tg of SO2 is injected into the lower stratosphere each year.18 The GISS-E2-R and HadGEM2- ES models both used interactive treatments of sulfate aerosols, including conversion of SO2 gas into aerosols, transport of the aerosols, and subsequent stratospheric removal. MIROC-ESM prescribed aerosol distributions based on scaling the distribution for the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. It is clear from Figure 5 that the models are producing very different aerosol clouds for the same deployment of SAI, which will of course affect the climate outcomes.


Figure 6 shows the broad multi-model spread in global mean temperature response to the G4 experiment, that is, the global cooling effect of the same release of SO2 is very different in the various models. The figure also shows results for the G3 experiment in which all models are prescribed to produce the same global mean radiative forcing. Despite this imposed conformity, temperature differences for both experiments span nearly 1C, which is double the amount of cooling produced in the allmodel mean.



Climate Differences between SAI Geoengineering and Sunshade Geoengineering


The current generation of climate models are not capable of modeling all relevant aspects of the response to SAI, so there are considerable uncertainties in the response to SAI, as shown above. This uncertainty, combined with a paucity of model studies, means that the regional climate response projections produced so far are not robust enough to describe in detail. Instead, we provide a broad-brush description of the key differences between the climate response to SAI and sunshade geoengineering.


The effects of SAI on the Earth system differ from those of sunshade geoengineering in a number of important ways described above and some of these will give rise to distinct climate consequences. A key difference between SAI and sunshade geoengineering is that the absorption of solar and thermal radiation by a stratospheric aerosol layer would increase downwelling thermal radiation that would warm the troposphere which would need to be balanced by a greater reduction in downwelling sunlight than would be required for sunshade geoengineering. The combination of these two forcings would result in the increased stability of troposphere that would lead to less precipitation.66,95 This effect means that SAI would result in a greater reduction in the hydrological cycle than sunshade geoengineering for a similar reduction in global temperatures.2 Another effect of this warming would be changes to stratospheric circulation, which would have impacts on the surface.47,68 Unlike sunshade geoengineering, in which incoming sunlight is reduced uniformly, SAI would produce a non-uniform forcing because the aerosol cloud would not be evenly distributed across the world (see Figure 5). Studies of the combined effects of these differences find that for the same global mean temperature reduction, SAI produced a greater change in the hydrological cycle than sunshade geoengineering and gave rise to greater regional change in climate, particularly in the tropics.2,67,96 


Despite these differences, there are important lessons about SAI that can be learned from sunshade geoengineering. A substantial portion of the climate system response to radiative forcing is due to temperature-related feedbacks and is relatively independent of the particular forcing agent.97 In the case of SAI, the latitudinal distribution of radiative forcing from SAI deployed in the tropical lower stratosphere will likely be qualitatively similar to that of solar irradiance reduction.2 As such, the climate effects of offsetting CO2 via shortwave radiative flux reduction are likely to have some fundamental commonalities regardless of the method by which shortwave irradiance is reduced.98





Solar geoengineering is one option, among others, that could help to limit the impacts of climate change. Thus to understand the role, or roles, that solar geoengineering could play, it is important to understand what would be possible with solar geoengineering, how these choices would affect various climaterelated objectives, and how the potentials and limits of solar geoengineering compare against those of other options. This is obviously a substantial challenge, and the available literature is still limited. Here we provide a brief overview of some of the key issues.



Shifting to a Design Perspective for Solar Geoengineering


There are many choices involved in how any form of solar geoengineering might be implemented;99 two key parameters determining the effects of SAI are the amount and location(s) of injection. Strong stratospheric winds would quickly spread out a stratospheric aerosol cloud zonally, preventing a regionalization of the forcing. However, as the net transport in the stratosphere is poleward it would be possible to concentrate a stratospheric aerosol cloud in one hemisphere or at high latitudes. Robock et al.59 and Haywood et al.100 found starkly different climate effects for SAI restricted to one hemisphere as opposed to global SAI. In addition, alternative aerosol particles could be injected which would have different radiative, microphysical and chemical properties, and hence would produce different climate outcomes.50,53


In many previous studies, including all the GeoMIP studies, the central question has been to understand the climate effects of prescribed geoengineering scenarios. Instead, one could ask the converse question: given a set of climate-related objectives, what geoengineering strategy would best achieve these? In idealized simulations that are suggestive of the types of degrees of freedom that may be available through SAI, Ban-Weiss and Caldeira101 and MacMartin et al.102 found that altering the spatial and seasonal patterns of solar forcing in a high-CO2 scenario could better achieve a range of objectives, such as more closely restoring pre-industrial precipitation conditions or restoring Arctic sea-ice coverage. It is unclear, however, how one could technically achieve such forcing patterns in real injection scenarios. Studies exploring the challenge of meeting specified objectives interactively in the presence of uncertainty, that is, using only the observations that would be available at the time, have found that certain simple climate objectives could be met. This is if it were possible to develop the additional monitoring and deployment infrastructure needed to use feedback from observations to guide the deployment of solar geoengineering.99,103,104 However, there are limits to what could be achieved, even with idealized interventions. For example, starting from a scenario of elevated CO2 concentrations, it is not possible to simultaneously restore both global mean precipitation and temperature to the values of a lower CO2 scenario using any pattern of solar forcing alone (see Section Climate Response to Sunshade Geoengineering).101 Solar geoengineering thus cannot be seen as a panacea for avoiding climate change, and any potential decision of whether and how to deploy it would involve trade-offs between various objectives.




Climate Impacts of Solar Geoengineering


Most of the work to date on solar geoengineering has focused on changes to the physical environment, such as temperature and precipitation. However, the impacts of climate change on natural and human systems, such as agriculture and ecosystems, are the fundamental motivation for mitigation and adaptation and for considering solar geoengineering. Thus, a clear understanding of how solar geoengineering would affect climate impacts will be critical to making decisions on whether and how to deploy it (see Box 2).










The Earth system response to solar geoengineering described in this overview is relevant to the broader discussion on solar geoengineering, as the answers to many questions depend, at least in part, on the distribution of the benefits and risks. As we note in Section Solar Geoengineering as One Means of Limiting the Impacts of Climate Change, there has yet to be a thorough assessment of the impacts of solar geoengineering on agriculture and a host of other sectors of great concern. This has meant that most studies to date have had to employ ‘damage functions’ developed for climate change or develop novel heuristics. The wide range of heuristics employed has led to wildly differing conclusions from studies employing similar climate data.105–107 Without a solid basis for choosing one heuristic over another the inferences drawn from such studies may in effect be arbitrary, that is, functions of the choice of heuristic rather than a true reflection of the implications of solar geoengineering. Thus, it is critical to develop a clearer picture of the impacts and to develop ways to represent these fairly in higher-level studies of its implications to answer some of the most pressing questions regarding solar geoengineering. For example, would the impacts be distributed in a just manner? And what would the geo-political implications of solar geoengineering be?





The potential for solar geoengineering to lower global temperatures and offset various climate trends provides an indication that it could reduce climate impacts. However, to gain confidence, the climate impact response to solar geoengineering scenarios needs to be evaluated in depth. Only two domains of climate impacts have received any attention to date:


the effect of solar geoengineering on coral reefs and crop yields. Couce et al.43 found that solar geoengineering could help maintain the suitability of coral reef habitat in the face of increasing ocean acidification, and Kwiatkowski et al.42 found that solar geoengineering could reduce future occurrence of coral bleaching events. Pongratz et al.108 and Parkes et al.109 suggest that solar geoengineering could reduce some of the detrimental effects of climate change on crop yields, while Xia et al.110 found that a future with high CO2 and solar geoengineering might have increased crop yields regionally.


The field of solar geoengineering research has recently reached a critical juncture. The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP),111 an approach to evaluate the impacts of climate change in a rigorous and consistent manner, has reached a stage of maturity where it now may draw upon the output from GeoMIP to begin a critical evaluation of the potential impacts of solar geoengineering. However, this will be a major challenge given the wide range of potential outcomes and the fact that solar geoengineering could be designed to achieve a variety specific climate objectives.



Mitigation, Adaptation and Solar Geoengineering


Solar geoengineering is of course only one potential option for addressing some of the impacts of climate change. Mitigation, adaptation, GHG removal, and solar geoengineering all carry (or would carry) direct costs, have a range of consequences for climate and beyond, and raise broader social, economic, political and other issues. For example, while SAI geoengineering is estimated to be relatively inexpensive as compared to other methods (See Box 1) and would act relatively quickly, it would not offset all effects of high GHG concentrations (e.g., Figures 1 and 2). Mitigation directly addresses the physical cause of climate change, but due to the very long lifetime of CO2 in the climate system112 and the thermal inertia that implies the current warming is less than the committed warming for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, even reducing emissions to zero immediately would not offset many of the risks of climate change already present. Carbon dioxide removal could potentially draw CO2 levels down much more rapidly than would occur naturally by enhancing natural sinks or developing artificial ones. However, the rate of draw-down would be limited, as it would be both expensive and energy or land intensive.17 Adaptation can build the robustness and resilience of societies to climate impacts, but for certain impacts, such as changes to ecosystems, there will be little that can be done to reduce their damage.


Solar geoengineering would only mask the warming effect of GHGs. One of the concerns that has been brought out in previous studies is that, given the relatively short lifetime of the various proposed forcing agents, a rapid warming, dubbed a ‘termination shock,’ would follow any sudden cessation of a solar geoengineering deployment that was exerting a substantial cooling.13 To avoid the risk of such a rapid warming, large-scale solar geoengineering deployments would need to be phased out gradually on a timescale of decades.14 Even slowly phasing out solar geoengineering would mean that the warming that had been offset by solar geoengineering would occur as a substantial fraction of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere on a timescale of millennia.113,114 This has led to suggestions that solar geoengineering be used in combination with largescale deployments of carbon dioxide removal geoengineering to actively bring CO2 concentrations down, in so-called peak-shaving scenarios.115 Were solar geoengineering to be exerting a large cooling there is the potential for an unplanned interruption to the deployment to cause disaster,116,117 though given the gravity of such a failure it would seem as if there would be strong incentives for most actors to make efforts to ensure the redundant and backup capability were in place to allow the deployment to be maintained.118


Evaluating different combinations of mitigation, adaptation and solar geoengineering policies is challenging and involves trade-offs between various objectives on different time-scales and for different regions. Currently, no consistent picture emerges from efforts to investigate these issues.105–107 The potential role of solar geoengineering among other climate policies thus remains a difficult open research question.





Solar geoengineering is a novel proposal to reduce the risks of climate change by increasing the reflection of sunlight back to space to lower global surface temperatures. SAI has attracted particular attention and is the focus of this overview, as numerous studies suggest that it should be technically feasible. Although current technical readiness is at a relatively low level (see Box 1), the mechanism by which it cools the climate is simple, and there is a natural analogue in the cooling effect of large volcanic eruptions. However, there are many uncertainties in its expected effects as projected by climate models and there are a number of broader consequences that could result from the deployment of SAI. Further understanding of the effects of SAI can be developed through analysis of sunshade geoengineering or natural analogues (like volcanic eruptions); however, differences between these proxies and SAI are significant enough that they cannot be relied upon alone. Moreover, because there are no observations of SAI, any conclusions about its effects or effectiveness are inherently uncertain due to a lack of confirmation by different types of evidence.


pes of evidence. In general, many of the uncertainties in geoengineering research, or model representations of SAI, are also present in fundamental climate science.4,119 For example, large volcanic eruptions are excellent tests of our understanding of the climate system. To accurately represent the effects of volcanic eruptions, there needs to be a synergy between models and observations to improve understanding of sulfate aerosol microphysics, stratospheric transport of the aerosols, interactions with radiation and dynamics (e.g., the effects of stratospheric heating), removal of the aerosols from the stratosphere, interactions between the aerosols and clouds, and effects on the climate at the Earth’s surface. These concerns are identical to some of the key concerns with respect to SAI. There are many mutual benefits between climate science research and SAI research, and in many cases, the research needs of the two areas are indistinguishable.


Solar geoengineering introduces one particular issue that is novel to climate change research and climate policy measures, in that it has the potential to be designed to meet specific objectives. For SAI, the location, altitude, and amount of injection can be varied to attempt to address various aspects of climate change, potentially including climate impacts. This in turn raises questions about how to manage trade-offs between different goals and the possible role(s) of solar geoengineering as an option in addressing climate change, alongside mitigation and adaptation. Understanding the range of climate states made possible through solar geoengineering, as well as the relationships between those climates and their impacts, are some of the most important open questions in solar geoengineering research.






The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830. H.M. was supported by the EXPECT project, grant 229760/E10, funded by the Norwegian Research Council.







1. Kravitz B, Caldeira K, Boucher O, Robock A, Rasch PJ, Alterskjær K, Bou Karam D, Cole JNS, Curry CL, Haywood JM, Irvine PJ, et al. Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J Geophys Res Atmos 2013, 118:8320–8332. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50646.


2. Niemeier U, Schmidt H, Alterskjær K, Kristjánsson JE. Solar irradiance reduction via climate engineering: impact of different techniques on the energy balance and the hydrological cycle. J Geophys Res Atmos 2013, 118:11905–11917. doi:10.1002/ 2013JD020445.


3. Kravitz B, MacMartin DG, Robock A, Rasch PJ, Ricke KL, Cole JNS, Curry CL, Irvine PJ, Ji D, Keith DW, Kristjánsson JE, et al. A multi-model assessment of regional climate disparities caused by solar geoengineering. Environ Res Lett 2014, 9:074013.


4. Boucher O, Randall D, Artaxo P, Bretherton C, Feingold G, Forster P, Kerminen V-M, Kondo Y, Liao H, Lohmann U, Rasch P, et al. Clouds and Aerosols. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM, eds. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2013, pp. 571–658. doi:10.1017/ CBO9781107415324.016.


5. McClellan J, Keith DW, Apt J. Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems. Environ Res Lett 2012, 7:034019. 6. Crutzen PJ. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim Change 2006, 77:211–219. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y.


7. Latham J. Control of global warming. Nature 1990, 347:339–340.


8. Ridgwell A, Singarayer JS, Hetherington AM, Valdes PJ. Tackling regional climate change by leaf albedo bio-geoengineering. Curr Biol 2009, 19:146–150. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.12.025.


9. Irvine PJ, Ridgwell AJ, Lunt DJ. Climatic effects of surface albedo geoengineering. J Geophys Res 2011, 116:D24112. doi:10.1029/2011jd016281.


10. Mitchell DL, Finnegan W. Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming. Environ Res Lett 2009, 4:045102.


11. Angel R. Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006, 103:17184–17189. doi:10.1073/pnas.0608163103.


12. Niemeier U, Schmidt H, Timmreck C. The dependency of geoengineered sulfate aerosol on the emission strategy. Atmos Sci Lett 2011, 12:189–194. doi:10.1002/asl.304.


13. Matthews HD, Caldeira K. Transient climate-carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104:9949–9954. doi:10.1073/ pnas.0700419104.


14. Irvine PJ, Sriver RL, Keller K. Tension between reducing sea-level rise and global warming through solarradiation management. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:97–100. doi:10.1038/nclimate1351.


15. Jones A, Haywood JM, Alterskjær K, Boucher O, Cole JNS, Curry CL, Irvine PJ, Ji D, Kravitz B, Kristjánsson JG, et al. The impact of abrupt suspension of solar radiation management (termination effect) in experiment G2 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J Geophys Res Atmos 2013, 118:9743–9752. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50762.


16. Preston CJ. Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. WIREs Clim Change 2012, 4:23–37. doi:10.1002/wcc.198.


17. Schäfer S, Lawrence M, Stelzer H, Born W, Low S, Aaheim A, Adriázola P, Betz G, Boucher O, Carius A, et al. The European Transdisciplinary Assessment of Climate Engineering (EuTRACE): Removing Greenhouse Gases from the Atmosphere and Reflecting Sunlight away from Earth. Funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement 306993; 2015.


18. Kravitz B, Robock A, Boucher O, Schmidt H, Taylor KE, Stenchikov G, Schulz M. The geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP). Atmos Sci Lett 2011, 12:162–167.


19. Good P, Gregory J, Lowe J, Andrews T. Abrupt CO2 experiments as tools for predicting and understanding CMIP5 representative concentration pathway projections. Clim Dyn 2013, 40:1041–1053. doi:10.1007/ s00382-012-1410-4.


20. Moore JC, Rinke A, Yu X, Ji D, Cui X, Li Y, Alterskjær K, Kristjánsson JG, Muri H, Boucher O, et al. Arctic sea ice and atmospheric circulation under the GeoMIP G1 scenario. J Geophys Res Atmos 2014, 119:567–583. doi:10.1002/2013JD021060.


21. Curry CL, Sillmann J, Bronaugh D, Alterskjaer K, Cole JNS, Ji D, Kravitz B, Kristjánsson JE, Moore JC, Muri H, et al. A multi-model examination of climate extremes in an idealized geoengineering experiment. J Geophys Res Atmos 2014, 119:3900–3923. doi:10.1002/2013JD020648.


22. Lunt DJ, Ridgwell A, Valdes PJ, Seale A. “Sunshade World”: a fully coupled GCM evaluation of the climatic impacts of geoengineering. Geophys Res Lett 2008, 35:L12710. doi:10.1029/2008gl033674.


23. Held IM, Soden BJ. Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming. J Clim 2006, 19:5686–5699. 24. Andrews T, Forster PM, Gregory JM. A surface energy perspective on climate change. J Clim 2009, 22:2557–2570. doi:10.1175/2008jcli2759.1.


25. Kleidon A, Kravitz B, Renner M. The hydrological sensitivity to global warming and solar geoengineering derived from thermodynamic constraints. Geophys Res Lett 2015, 42:138–144. doi:10.1002/ 2014GL062589.


26. Tilmes S, Fasullo J, Lamarque J-F, Marsh DR, Mills M, Alterskjær K, Muri H, Kristjánsson JE, Boucher O, Schulz M, et al. The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP). J Geophys Res Atmos 2013, 118:11036–11058. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50868. 27. Trenberth KE. Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim Res 2011, 47:123–138. doi:10.3354/ cr00953.


28. IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2013.


29. Glienke S, Irvine PJ, Lawrence MG. The impact of geoengineering on vegetation in experiment G1 of the GeoMIP. J Geophys Res Atmos 2015, 120:10196–10213. doi:10.1002/2015JD024202.


30. Naik V, Wuebbles DJ, DeLucia EH, Foley JA. Influence of geoengineered climate on the terrestrial biosphere. Environ Manage 2003, 32:373–381. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-2993-7.


31. Franks PJ, Adams MA, Amthor JS, Barbour MM, Berry JA, Ellsworth DS, Farquhar GD, Ghannoum O, Lloyd J, McDowell N, et al. Sensitivity of plants to changing atmospheric CO2 concentration: from the geological past to the next century. New Phytol 2013, 197:1077–1094. doi:10.1111/nph.12104.


32. Donohue RJ, Roderick ML, McVicar TR, Farquhar GD. CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments. Geophys Res Lett 2013, 40:3031–3035. doi:10.1002/grl.50563.


33. Norby RJ, Warren JM, Iversen CM, Medlyn BE, McMurtrie RE. CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2010, 107:19368–19373. doi:10.1073/pnas.1006463107.


34. Coenders-Gerrits AMJ, van der Ent RJ, Bogaard TA, Wang-Erlandsson L, Hrachowitz M, Savenije HHG. Uncertainties in transpiration estimates. Nature 2014, 506:E1–E2. doi:10.1038/nature12925.


35. Cox PM, Betts RA, Bunton CB, Essery RLH, Rowntree PR, Smith J. The impact of new land surface physics on the GCM simulation of climate and climate sensitivity. Clim Dyn 1999, 15:183–203.


36. Irvine PJ, Boucher O, Kravitz B, Alterskjær K, Cole JNS, Ji D, Jones A, Lunt DJ, Moore JC, Muri H, et al. Key factors governing uncertainty in the response to sunshade geoengineering from a comparison of the GeoMIP ensemble and a perturbed parameter ensemble. J Geophys Res Atmos 2014, 119:7946–7962. doi:10.1002/2013JD020716.


37. Friedlingstein P, Meinshausen M, Arora VK, Jones CD, Anav A, Liddicoat SK, Knutti R. Uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections due to carbon cycle feedbacks. J Clim 2013, 27:511–526. doi:10.1175/JCLID-12-00579.1.


38. Keller DP, Feng EY, Oschlies A. Potential climate engineering effectiveness and side effects during a high carbon dioxide-emission scenario. Nat Commun 2014, 5:1–11. doi:10.1038/ncomms4304.


39. Tjiputra JF, Grini A, Lee H. Impact of idealized future stratospheric aerosol injection on the large-scale ocean and land carbon cycles. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 2016, 121:2–27. doi:10.1002/2015JG003045.


40. Matthews HD, Cao L, Caldeira K. Sensitivity of ocean acidification to geoengineered climate stabilization. Geophys Res Lett 2009, 36:5. doi:10.1029/ 2009gl037488.


41. Cheng W, Chiang JCH, Zhang D. Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) in CMIP5 models: RCP and historical simulations. J Clim 2013, 26:7187–7197. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00496.1.


42. Kwiatkowski L, Cox P, Halloran PR, Mumby PJ, Wiltshire AJ. Coral bleaching under unconventional scenarios of climate warming and ocean acidification. Nat Clim Change 2015, 5:777–781. doi:10.1038/ nclimate2655.


43. Couce E, Irvine PJ, Gregorie LJ, Ridgwell A, Hendy EJ. Tropical coral reef habitat in a geoengineered, high-CO2 world. Geophys Res Lett 2013, 40:1799–1805. doi:10.1002/grl.50340.


44. Moore JC, Jevrejeva S, Grinsted A. Efficacy of geoengineering to limit 21st century sea-level rise. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010, 107:15699–15703. doi:10.1073/pnas.1008153107.


45. Irvine PJ, Lunt DJ, Stone EJ, Ridgwell AJ. The fate of the Greenland Ice Sheet in a geoengineered, high CO2 world. Environ Res Lett 2009, 4:045109. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045109.


46. Robinson A, Calov R, Ganopolski A. Multistability and critical thresholds of the Greenland ice sheet. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:429–432. doi:10.1038/nclimate1449.


47. McCusker KE, Battisti DS, Bitz CM. Inability of stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections to preserve the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Geophys Res Lett 2015, 42:4989–4997. doi:10.1002/2015GL064314.


48. Applegate PJ, Keller K. How effective is albedo modi- fication (solar radiation management geoengineering) in preventing sea-level rise from the Greenland Ice Sheet? Environ Res Lett 2015, 10:084018.


49. Robock A. Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. Geoeng Clim Sys 2014, 38:162–185.


50. Pope FD, Braesicke P, Grainger RG, Kalberer M, Watson IM, Davison PJ, Cox RA. Stratospheric aerosol particles and solar-radiation management. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:713–719. doi:10.1038/ nclimate1528.


51. Kravitz B, Robock A, Shindell DT, Miller MA. Sensitivity of stratospheric geoengineering with black carbon to aerosol size and altitude of injection. J Geophys Res 2012, 117:D09203. doi:10.1029/ 2011jd017341.


52. Jones AC, Haywood JM, Jones A. Climatic impacts of stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate, black carbon and titania injection. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 2015, 15:30043–30079. doi:10.5194/acpd-15- 30043-2015.


53. Weisenstein DK, Keith DW, Dykema JA. Solar geoengineering using solid aerosol in the stratosphere. Atmos Chem Phys 2015, 15:11835–11859. doi:10.5194/acp-15-11835-2015.


54. Heckendorn P, Weisenstein D, Fueglistaler S, Luo BP, Rozanov E, Schraner M, Thomason LW, Peter T. The impact of geoengineering aerosols on stratospheric temperature and ozone. Environ Res Lett 2009, 4:045108.


55. Niemeier U, Timmreck C. What is the limit of climate engineering by stratospheric injection of SO2? Atmos Chem Phys 2015, 15:9129–9141. doi:10.5194/acp- 15-9129-2015.


56. Pierce JR, Weisenstein DK, Heckendorn P, Peter T, Keith DW. Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission of condensible vapor from aircraft. Geophys Res Lett 2010, 37: L18805. doi:10.1029/2010gl043975.


57. English JM, Toon OB, Mills MJ. Microphysical simulations of sulfur burdens from stratospheric sulfur geoengineering. Atmos Chem Phys 2012, 12:4775–4793. doi:10.5194/acp-12-4775-2012.


58. Rasch PJ, Tilmes S, Turco RP, Robock A, Oman L, Chen C-C, Stenchikov GL, Garcia RR. An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 2008, 366:4007–4037. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0131.


59. Robock A, Oman L, Stenchikov GL. Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. J Geophys Res-Atmos 2008, 113: D16101. doi:10.1029/2008jd010050.


60. Davidson P, Burgoyne C, Hunt H, Causier M. Lifting options for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering: advantages of tethered balloon systems. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 2012, 370:4263–4300. doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0639.


61. Robock A, Marquardt A, Kravitz B, Stenchikov G. Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering. Geophys Res Lett 2009, 36:9. doi:10.1029/ 2009gl039209.


62. Shepherd J, Caldeira K, Cox P, Haigh J, Keith D, Launder B, Mace G, MacKerron G, Pyle J, Rayner S, et al. Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. London: The Royal Society; 2009.


63. Ferraro AJ, Highwood EJ, Charlton-Perez AJ. Stratospheric heating by potential geoengineering aerosols. Geophys Res Lett 2011, 38:L24706. doi:10.1029/ 2011gl049761.


64. McCormick MP, Thomason LW, Trepte CR. Atmospheric effects of the Mt Pinatubo eruption. Nature 1995, 373:399–404.


65. O’Gorman PA, Allan RP, Byrne MP, Previdi M. Energetic constraints on precipitation under climate change. Surv Geophys 2012, 33:585–608.


66. Ferraro AJ, Griffiths HG. Quantifying the temperature-independent effect of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering on global-mean precipitation in a multi-model ensemble. Environ Res Lett 2016, 11:034012.


67. Kalidindi S, Bala G, Modak A, Caldeira K. Modeling of solar radiation management: a comparison of simulations using reduced solar constant and stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Clim Dyn 2014, 44:2909–2925. doi:10.1007/s00382-014-2240-3.


68. Aquila V, Garfinkel CI, Newman PA, Oman LD, Waugh DW. Modifications of the quasi-biennial oscillation by a geoengineering perturbation of the stratospheric aerosol layer. Geophys Res Lett 2014, 41:1738–1744. doi:10.1002/2013GL058818.


69. Marshall AG, Scaife AA. Impact of the QBO on surface winter climate. J Geophys Res Atmos 2009, 114:2156–2202.


70. Ferraro AJ, Highwood EJ, Charlton-Perez AJ. Weakened tropical circulation and reduced precipitation in response to geoengineering. Environ Res Lett 2014, 9:014001.


71. Chapman S. The photochemistry of atmospheric oxygen. Rep Prog Phys 1942, 9:92.


72. Groves K, Mattingly S, Tuck A. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and stratospheric ozone. Nature 1978, 273:711–715.


73. Randel WJ, Wu F, Russell JM, Waters JW, Froidevaux L. Ozone and temperature changes in the stratosphere following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. J Geophys Res Atmos 1995, 100: 16753–16764. doi:10.1029/95JD01001.


74. Tilmes S, Garcia RR, Kinnison DE, Gettelman A, Rasch PJ. Impact of geoengineered aerosols on the troposphere and stratosphere. J Geophys Res-Atmos 2009, 114:22. doi:10.1029/2008jd011420.


75. Tilmes S, Muller R, Salawitch R. The sensitivity of polar ozone depletion to proposed geoengineering schemes. Science 2008, 320:1201–1204. doi:10.1126/ science.1153966.


76. Pitari G, Aquila V,Kravitz B, Robock A, Watanabe S, Cionni I, De Luca N, Di Genova G, Mancini E, Tilmes S. Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate geoengineering: Results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J Geophys Res Atmos 2014, 119:2629–2653. doi:10.1002/ 2013JD020566.


77. Ammann CM, Washington WM, Meehl GA, Buja L, Teng HY. Climate engineering through artificial enhancement of natural forcings: Magnitudes and implied consequences. J Geophys Res-Atmos 2010, 115:2156–2202. doi:10.1029/2009jd012878.


78. Tilmes S, Kinnison DE, Garcia RR, Salawitch R, Canty T, Lee-Taylor J, Madronich S, Chance K. Impact of very short-lived halogens on stratospheric ozone abundance and UV radiation in a geoengineered atmosphere. Atmos Chem Phys 2012, 12:10945–10955.


79. Schindler DW. Effects of acid rain on freshwater ecosystems. Science 1988, 239:149–157.


80. Kravitz B, Robock A, Oman L, Stenchikov G, Marquardt AB. Sulfuric acid deposition from stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate aerosols. J Geophys Res-Atmos 2009, 114:7. doi:10.1029/ 2009jd011918.


81. Koch D, Bond TC, Streets D, Unger N, van der Werf GR. Global impacts of aerosols from particular source regions and sectors. J Geophys Res Atmos 2007, 112:D02205. doi:10.1029/2005JD007024.


82. Eastham SD. Human Health Impacts of High Altitude Emissions. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2015.


83. Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, Danaei G, Shibuya K, Adair-Rohani H, Amann M, Anderson HR, Andrews KG, Aryee M, et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012, 380:2224–2260. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8.


84. Kuebbeler M, Lohmann U, Feichter J. Effects of stratospheric sulfate aerosol geo-engineering on cirrus clouds. Geophys Res Lett 2012, 39:L23803. doi:10.1029/2012GL053797.


85. Cirisan A, Spichtinger P, Luo BP, Weisenstein DK, Wernli H, Lohmann U, Peter T. Microphysical and radiative changes in cirrus clouds by geoengineering the stratosphere. J Geophys Res Atmos 2013, 118:4533–4548. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50388.


86. Holton JR, Haynes PH, McIntyre ME, Douglass AR, Rood RB, Pfister L. Stratosphere-troposphere exchange. Rev Geophys 1995, 33:403–439. doi:10.1029/95RG02097.


87. Sassen K. Evidence for liquid-phase cirrus cloud formation from volcanic aerosols: Climatic implications. Science 1992, 257:516–519.


88. Kravitz B, MacMartin DG, Caldeira K. Geoengineering: Whiter skies? Geophys Res Lett 2012, 39: L11801. doi:10.1029/2012gl051652.


89. Murphy DM. Effect of stratospheric aerosols on direct sunlight and implications for concentrating solar power. Environ Sci Technol 2009, 43:2784–2786. doi:10.1021/es802206b.


90. Mercado LM, Bellouin N, Sitch S, Boucher O, Huntingford C, Wild M, Cox PM. Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink. Nature 2009, 458:1014–1017.


91. Xia L, Robock A, Tilmes S, Neely Iii RR. Stratospheric sulfate geoengineering could enhance the terrestrial photosynthesis rate. Atmos Chem Phys 2016, 16:1479–1489. doi:10.5194/acp-16-1479-2016.


92. Charlton-Perez AJ, Baldwin MP, Birner T, Black RX, Butler AH, Calvo N, Davis NA, Gerber EP, Gillett N, Hardiman S, et al. On the lack of stratospheric dynamical variability in low-top versions of the CMIP5 models. J Geophys Res Atmos 2013, 118:2494–2505. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50125.


93. Young P, Davis S, Hassler B, Solomon S, Rosenlof KH. Modeling the climate impact of Southern Hemisphere ozone depletion: the importance of the ozone data set. Geophys Res Lett 2014, 41:9033–9039.


94. Driscoll S, Bozzo A, Gray LJ, Robock A, Stenchikov G. Coupled model intercomparison project 5 (CMIP5) simulations of climate following volcanic eruptions. J Geophys Res 2012, 117:D17105. doi:10.1029/2012JD017607.


95. Andrews T, Forster PM, Boucher O, Bellouin N, Jones A. Precipitation, radiative forcing and global temperature change. Geophys Res Lett 2010, 37: L14701. doi:10.1029/2010gl043991.


96. Ferraro AJ, Charlton-Perez AJ, Highwood EJ. Stratospheric dynamics and midlatitude jets under geoengineering with space mirrors, and sulfate and titania aerosols. J Geophys Res Atmos 2014, 120:414–429. doi:10.1002/2014JD022734.


97. Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, Nazarenko L, Lacis A, Schmidt GA, Russell G, Aleinov I, Bauer M, Bauer S, et al. Efficacy of climate forcings. J Geophys Res-Atmos 2005, 110:D18104. doi:10.1029/2005jd005776.


98. MacMartin DG, Kravitz B, Rasch PJ. On solar geoengineering and climate uncertainty. Geophys Res Lett 2015, 42:7156–7161. doi:10.1002/2015GL065391.


99. Kravitz B, MacMartin DG, Wang H, Rasch PJ. Geoengineering as a design problem. Earth Syst. Dynam. 2016, 7:469–497. doi:10.5194/esd-7-469-2016.


100. Haywood JM, Jones A, Bellouin N, Stephenson D. Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall. Nat Clim Change 2013, 3:660–665. doi:10.1038/nclimate1857.


101. Ban-Weiss GA, Caldeira K. Geoengineering as an optimization problem. Environ Res Lett 2010, 5:034009. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034009.


102. MacMartin DG, Keith DW, Kravitz B, Caldeira K. Management of trade-offs in geoengineering through optimal choice of non-uniform radiative forcing. Nat Clim Change 2013, 3:365–368. doi:10.1038/ nclimate1722.


103. MacMartin DG, Kravitz B, Keith DW, Jarvis A. Dynamics of the coupled human–climate system resulting from closed-loop control of solar geoengineering. Clim Dyn 2014, 43:243–258. doi:10.1007/ s00382-013-1822-9.


104. Kravitz B, MacMartin DG, Leedal DT, Rasch PJ, Jarvis AJ. Explicit feedback and the management of uncertainty in meeting climate objectives with solar geoengineering. Environ Res Lett 2014, 9:044006.


105. Moreno-Cruz J, Ricke K, Keith D. A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management. Clim Change 2012, 110:649–668. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0103-z.


106. Goes M, Tuana N, Keller K. The economics (or lack thereof ) of aerosol geoengineering. Clim Change 2011, 109:719–744. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9961-z.


107. Aaheim A, Romstad B, Wei T, Kristjánsson JE, Muri H, Niemeier U, Schmidt H. An economic evaluation of solar radiation management. Sci Total Environ 2015, 532:61–69. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.05.106.


108. Pongratz J, Lobell DB, Cao L, Caldeira K. Crop yields in a geoengineered climate. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:101–105. doi:10.1038/nclimate1373.


109. Parkes B, Challinor A, Nicklin K. Crop failure rates in a geoengineered climate: impact of climate change and marine cloud brightening. Environ Res Lett 2015, 10:084003.


110. Xia L, Robock A, Cole J, Curry CL, Ji D, Jones A, Kravitz B, Moore JC, Muri H, Niemeier U, et al. Solar radiation management impacts on agriculture in China: a case study in the geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP). J Geophys Res Atmos 2014, 119:8695–8711. doi:10.1002/ 2013JD020630.


111. Warszawski L, Frieler K, Huber V, Piontek F, Serdeczny O, Schewe J. The inter-sectoral impact model intercomparison project (ISI–MIP): project framework. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2014, 111:3228–3232. doi:10.1073/pnas.1312330110.


112. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL, eds. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2007, 996 pp.


113. Archer D, Eby M, Brovkin V, Ridgwell A, Cao L, Mikolajewicz U, Caldeira K, Matsumoto K, Munhoven G, Montenegro A, et al. Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 2009, 37:117–134.


114. Solomon S, Plattner G-K, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2009, 106:1704–1709. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812721106.


115. Smith S, Rasch P. The long-term policy context for solar radiation management. Clim Change 2013, 121:487–497. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0577-3.


116. Brovkin V, Petoukhov V, Claussen M, Bauer E, Archer D, Jaeger C. Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur injections: Earth system vulnerability to technological failure. Clim Change 2009, 92:243–259. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9490-1.


117. Baum S, Maher T Jr, Haqq-Misra J. Double catastrophe: intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse. Environ Syst Decis 2013, 33:168–180. doi:10.1007/s10669-012-9429-y.


118. Morton O. The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press; 2015.


119. Robock A, MacMartin D, Duren R, Christensen M. Studying geoengineering with natural and anthropogenic analogs. Clim Change 2013, 121:445–458. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0777-5.




Ein künstliches Klima durch SRM Geo-Engineering


Sogenannte "Chemtrails" sind SRM Geoengineering-Forschungs-Experimente


Illegale Feldversuche der SRM Technik, weltweit.



Illegale militärische und zivile GE-Forschungen finden in einer rechtlichen Grauzone statt.


Feldversuche oder illegale SRM Interventionen wurden nie in nur einem einzigen Land der Welt,  je durch ein Parlament gebracht, deshalb sind sie nicht legalisiert und finden in einer rechtlichen Grauzone der Forschung statt. Regierungen wissen genau, dass sie diese Risiko-Forschung, die absichtliche Veränderung mit dem Wetter nie durch die Parlamente bekommen würden..


HAARP - Die Büchse der Pandora in militärischen Händen



Illegale zivile und militärische SRM Experimente finden 7 Tage die Woche (nonstop) rund um die Uhr statt. 


Auch Nachts - trotz Nacht-



Geo-Engineering Forschung



Der Wissenschaftler David Keith, der die Geo-Ingenieure Ken Caldeira und Alan Robock in ihrer Arbeit unterstütztsagte auf einem Geo-Engineering - Seminar am 20. Februar 2010, dass sie beschlossen hätten, ihre stratosphärischen Aerosol-Modelle von Schwefel auf Aluminium umzustellen.


Niemand auf der ganzen Welt , zumindest keiner der staatlichen Medien berichtete von diesem wichtigen Ereignis.





Wissenschaftler planen 10 bis 20 Megatonnen hoch toxischer Materialien wie Aluminium, synthetischen Nanopartikeln jedes Jahr in unserer Atmosphäre auszubringen.


Die Mengenangaben von SRM Materialien werden neuerdings fast immer in Teragramm berechnet. 


  1 Teragramm  = 1 Megatonne

  1 Megatonne  = 1 Million Tonnen



SAI = Stratosphärische

Aerosol Injektionen mit toxischen Materialen wie:


  • Aluminiumoxide
  • Black Carbon 
  • Zinkoxid 
  • Siliciumkarbit
  • Diamant
  • Bariumtitanat
  • Bariumsalze
  • Strontium
  • Sulfate
  • Schwefelsäure 
  • Schwefelwasserstoff
  • Carbonylsulfid
  • Ruß-Aerosole
  • Schwefeldioxid
  • Dimethylsulfit
  • Titan
  • Lithium
  • Kalkstaub
  • Titandioxid
  • Natriumchlorid
  • Meersalz 
  • Calciumcarbonat
  • Siliciumdioxid
  • Silicium
  • Bismuttriiodid (BiI3
  • Polymere
  • Polymorph von TiO2





April 2016 

Aerosol Experiments Using Lithium and Psychoactive Drugs Over Oregon.



SKYGUARDS: Petition an das Europäische Parlament



Wir haben keine Zeit zu verlieren!




Klage gegen Geo-Engineering und Klimapolitik 


Der Rechtsweg ist vielleicht die einzige Hoffnung, Geo-Engineering-Programme zum Anhalten zu bewegen. Paris und andere Klimaabkommen schaffen Ziele von rechtlich international verbindlichen Vereinbarungen. Wenn sie erfolgreich sind, werden höchstwahrscheinlich SRM-Programme ohne ein ordentliches Gerichtsverfahren legalisiert. Wenn das geschieht, wird das unsere Fähigkeit Geoengineering zu verhindern und jede Form von rechtlichen Maßnahmen zu ergreifen stark behindern.


Ziel dieser Phase ist es, Mittel zu beschaffen um eine US- Klage vorzubereiten. Der Hauptanwalt Wille Tierarzt wählt qualifizierte Juristen aus dem ganzen Land aus, um sicher zu stellen, dass wir Top-Talente sichern, die wir für unser langfristiges Ziel einsetzen.



Die Fakten sind, dass seit einem Jahrzehnt am Himmel illegale Wetter -Änderungs-Programme stattfinden, unter Einsatz des Militärs im Rahmen der NATO, ohne Wissen oder Einwilligung der Bevölkerung..

EU-Konferenz und Petition über Wettermodifizierung und Geoengineering in Verbindung mit HAARP Technologien


Die Zeit ist gekommen. Anonymous wird nicht länger zusehen. Am 23. April werden wir weltweit gegen Chemtrails und Geoengineering friedlich demonstrieren.


Anonymous gegen Geoengineering 



Wir waren die allerletzten Zeit Zeugen eines normalen natürlichen blauen Himmels.





Heute ist der Himmel nicht mehr blau, sondern eher rot oder grau. 



Metapedia –

Die alternative Enzyklopädie




Die neue Enzyklopädie Chemtrails GeoEngineering HAARP






SRM - Geoengineering

Aluminium anstatt Schwefeloxid


Im Zuge der American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Conference 2010, San Diego am 20. Februar 2010, wurde vom kanadischen Geoingenieur David W. Keith (University of Calgary) vorgeschlagen, Aluminium anstatt Schwefeldioxid zu verwenden. Begründet wurde dieser Vorschlag mit 1) einem 4-fach größeren Strahlungsantrieb 2) einem ca. 16-fach geringeren Gerinnungsfaktor. Derselbe Albedoeffekt könnte so mit viel geringeren Mengen Aluminium, anstatt Schwefel, bewerkstelligt werden. [13]


Mehr Beweise als dieses Video braucht man wohl nicht. >>> Aerosol-Injektionen


Das "Geo-Engineering" Klima-Forschungsprogramm der USA wurde direkt dem Weißen Haus unterstellt,

bzw. dort dem White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) zugewiesen. 



Diese Empfehlung lassen bereits das Konfliktpotential dieser GE-Forschung erahnen.






In den USA fällt Geo-Engineering unter Sicherheitspolitik und Verteidigungspolitik: 



Geo-Engineering als Sicherheitspolitische Maßnahme..


Ein Bericht der NASA merkt an, eine Katastrophensituation könnte die Entscheidung über SRM maßgeblich erleichtern, dann würden politische und ökonomische Einwände irrelevant sein. Die Abschirmung von Sonnenlicht durch SRM Maßnahmen wäre dann die letzte Möglichkeit, um einen katastrophalen Klimawandel abzuwenden.


maßgeblich erleichtern..????


Nach einer Katastrophensituation sind diese ohnehin illegalen geheimen militärischen SRM Programme wohl noch leichter durch die Parlamente zu bringen unter dem Vorwand der zivilen GE-Forschung. 




Der US-Geheimdienst CIA finanziert mit 630.000 $ für die Jahre   2013/14 

Geoengineering-Studien. Diese Studie wird u.a. auch von zwei anderen staatlichen Stellen NASA und NOAA finanziert. 




Um möglichst keine Spuren zu hinterlassen.. sind wirklich restlos alle Links im Netz entfernt worden. 






Es existieren viele Vorschläge zur technologischen Umsetzung des stratosphärischen Aerosol- Schildes.


Ein Patent aus dem Jahr 1991 behandelt das Einbringen von Aerosolen in die Stratosphäre

(Chang 1991).


Ein neueres Patent behandelt ein Verfahren, in dem Treibstoffzusätze in Verkehrsflugzeugen zum Ausbringen reflektierender Substanzen genutzt werden sollen (Hucko 2009).




Die von Microsoft finanzierte Firma Intellectual Ventures fördert die Entwick­lung eines „Stratoshield“ genannten Verfahrens, bei dem die Aerosolerzeugung in der Strato­sphäre über einen von einem Ballon getragenen Schlauch vom Erdboden aus bewirkt werden soll.



CE-Technologien wirken entweder symptomatisch oder ursächlich


Symptomatisch wirkend: 

Modifikation durch SRM-Geoengineering- Aerosole in der Stratosphäre


Ursächlich wirkend: 

Reduktion der CO2 Konzentration (CDR) 


Effekte verschiedener Wolkentypen


Dicke, tief hängende Wolken reflektieren das Sonnenlicht besonders gut und beeinflussen kaum die Energie, die von der Erde als langwellige Infrarotstrahlung abgegeben wird. Hohe Wolken sind dagegen kälter und meist dünner. Sie lassen daher mehr Sonnenlicht durch, dafür speichern sie anteilig mehr von der langwelligen, abgestrahlten Erdenergie. Um die Erde abzukühlen, sind daher tiefe Wolken das Ziel der Geoingenieure.



Zirruswolken wirken also generell erwärmend (Lee et al. 2009). Werden diese Wolken künstlich aufgelöst oder verändert, so wird sich in der Regel ein kühlender Effekt ergeben.


Nach einem Vorschlag von Mitchell et al.  (2009) könnte dies durch ein Einsäen von effizienten Eiskeimen bei der Wolkenbildung geschehen.



Eiskeime werden nur in sehr geringer Menge benötigt und könnten beispielsweise durch Verkehrs-Flugzeuge an geeigneten Orten ausgebracht werden. Die benötigten Materialmengen liegen dabei im Bereich von einigen kg pro Flug.



Die RQ-4 Global Hawk fliegt etwa in 20 Kilometer Höhe ohne Pilot.

1 - 1,5  Tonnen Nutzlast.


Instead of visualizing a jet full of people, a jet full of poison.



Das Militär hat bereits mehr Flugzeuge als für dieses Geo-Engineering-Szenario erforderlich wären, hergestellt. Da der Klimawandel eine wichtige Frage der nationalen Sicherheit ist [Schwartz und Randall, 2003], könnte das Militär für die Durchführung dieser Mission mit bestehenden Flugzeugen zu minimalen Zusatzkosten sein.




Die künstliche Klima-Kontrolle durch GE


Dies sind die Ausbringung von Aerosolpartikeln in der Stratosphäre, sowie die Erhöhung der Wolkenhelligkeit in der Troposphäre mithilfe von künstlichen Kondensationskeimen.




Brisanz von Climate Engineering  (DFG)


Climate-Engineering wird bei Klimakonferenzen (z.B. auf dem Weltklimagipfel in Doha) zunehmend diskutiert. Da die Maßnahmen für die angestrebten Klimaziele bisher nicht greifen, wird Climate Engineering als alternative Hilfe in Betracht gezogen.





Umweltaktivistin und Trägerin des alternativen Nobelpreises Dr. Rosalie Bertell, berichtet in Ihrem Buch »Kriegswaffe Planet Erde« über die Folgewirkungen und Auswirkungen diverser (Kriegs-) Waffen..


Bild anklicken
Bild anklicken


Dieses Buch ist ein Muss für jeden Bürger auf diesem Planeten.


..Indessen gehen die Militärs ja selbst gar nicht davon aus, dass es überhaupt einen Klimawandel gibt, wie wir aus Bertell´s Buch wissen (Hamilton in Bertell 2011).


Sondern das, was wir als Klimawandel bezeichnen, sind die Wirkungen der immer mehr zunehmenden


und Eingriffe ins Erdgeschehen mittels Geoengineering, insbesondere durch die HAARP-ähnlichen Anlagen, die es inzwischen in aller Welt gibt..


Bild anklicken
Bild anklicken



Why in the World are they spraying 


Durch die bahnbrechenden Filme von Michael J. Murphy "What in the World Are They Spraying?" und "Why in the world are the Spraying?" wurden Millionen Menschen die Zerstörung durch SRM-Geoengineering-Projekte vor Augen geführt. Seitdem bilden sich weltweit Bewegungen gegen dieses Verbrechen.



Die Facebook Gruppe Global-Skywatch hat weltweit inzwischen schon über 90.000 Mitglieder und es werden immer mehr Menschen, die die Wahrheit erkennen und die "gebetsmühlenartig" verbreiteten Lügengeschichten der Regierung und Behörden in Bezug zur GE-Forschung zu Recht völlig hinterfragen. 


Bild anklicken: Untertitel in deutscher Sprache
Bild anklicken: Untertitel in deutscher Sprache





SRM Programme - Ausbringung durch Flugzeuge 




Die Frage die bleibt, ist die Antwort auf  Stratosphärische Aerosol- Injektions- Programme und die tägliche Umweltzer-störung auf unserem Planeten“




Die Arbeit von Brovkin et al. (2009) zeigt für ein Emissionsszenario ohne Emissionskontrolle, dass der Einsatz von RM für mehrere 1000 Jahre fortgesetzt werden muss, je nachdem wie vollständig der Treibhausgas-induzierte Strahlungsantrieb kompensiert werden soll.




Falls sich die Befürchtung bewahrheitet, dass eine Unterbrechung von RM-Maßnahmen zu abruptem Klimawandel führt, kann sich durch den CE-Einsatz ein Lock-in-Effekt ergeben. Die hohen gesamtwirtschaftlichen Kosten dieses abrupten Klimawandels würden sozusagen eine Weiterführung der RM-Maßnahmen erzwingen.







Neben den Studien von CSEPP (1992) und Robock et al. (2009), ist insbesondere die aktuelle Studie von McClellan et al. (2010) hervorzuheben. Für die Ausbringung mit Flugsystemen wird angenommen, dass das Material mit einer Rate von 0,03 kg/m freigesetzt wird. Es werden Ausbringungshöhen von 13 bis 30 km untersucht.





Bestehende kleine Düsenjäger, wie der F-15C Eagle, sind in der Lage in der unteren Stratosphäre in den Tropen zu fliegen, während in der Arktis größere Flugzeuge wie die KC-135 Stratotanker oder KC-10 Extender in der Lage sind, die gewünschten Höhen zu erreichen.



SRM Protest-Märsche gleichzeitig in circa 150 Städten - weltweit.


Geoengineering-Forschung als Plan B für eine weltweit verfehlte Klimapolik. 


Bild anklicken:
Bild anklicken:


Staaten führen illegale Wetter-Änderungs-Techniken als globales Experiment gegen den Klimawandel durch, geregelt über die UN, ausgeführt durch die NATO, mit militärischen Flugzeugen werden jährlich 10-20 Millionen Tonnen hoch giftiger Substanzen in den Himmel gesprüht..


Giftige Substanzen, wie Aluminium, Barium, Strontium, die unsere Böden verseuchen und die auch auf Dauer den ph-Wert des Bodens deutlich verändern würden. Es sind giftige Substanzen, wie Schwefel, welches die Ozonschicht systematisch zerstören würde. 






Weltweite  Protestmärsche gegen globale Geoengineering Experimente finden am 25. April 2015 in all diesen Städten gleichzeitig statt:




AUSTRALIEN - (Adelaide)

AUSTRALIEN - (Albury-Wodonga)

AUSTRALIEN - (Bendigo)

AUSTRALIEN - (Brisbane)

AUSTRALIEN - (Byron Bay)


AUSTRALIEN - (Canberra)


AUSTRALIEN - (Gold Coast)


AUSTRALIEN - (Melbourne)

AUSTRALIEN - (Newcastle)

AUSTRALIEN - (New South Wales, Byron Bay)


AUSTRALIEN - (Port Macquarie)

AUSTRALIEN - (South Coast NSW)

AUSTRALIEN - (South East Qeensland)

AUSTRALIEN - (Sunshine Coast)


AUSTRALIEN - (Tasmania)

BELGIEN - (Brüssel)

BELGIEN - (Brüssel Group)

BRASILIEN - (Curitiba)

BRASILIEN - (Porto Allegre)


Kanada - Alberta - (Calgary)

Kanada - Alberta - (Edmonton)

Kanada - Alberta - (Fort Saskatchewan)

Kanada - British Columbia - (Vancouver Group)

Kanada - British Columbia - (Victoria)

Kanada - Manitobak - (Winnipeg)

Kanada – Neufundland

Kanada - Ontario - (Barrie)

Kanada - Ontario - (Cambridge)

Kanada - Ontario - (Hamilton)

Kanada - Ontario - (London)

Kanada - Ontario - (Toronto)

Kanada - Ontario  - (Ottawa)

Kanada - Ontario - (Windsor)

Kanada - Québec - (Montreal)

KOLUMBIEN - (Medellin)


KROATIEN - (Zagreb)

DÄNEMARK - (Aalborg)

DÄNEMARK - (Kopenhagen)

DÄNEMARK - (Odense)

ESTLAND - (Tallinn)

Ägypten (Alexandria)

FINNLAND - (Helsinki)




DEUTSCHLAND - (Düsseldorf)




Ungarn (Budapest)

IRLAND - (Cork City)

IRLAND - (Galway)

ITALIEN - (Milano)

Italien - Sardinien - (Cagliari)

MAROKKO - (Rabat)


NIEDERLANDE - (Groningen)

NEUSEELAND - (Auckland)

NEUSEELAND - (Christchurch)

NEUSEELAND - (Hamilton)


NEUSEELAND - (New Plymouth)



NEUSEELAND - (Wellington)

NEUSEELAND - (Whangerei)




PORTUGAL - (Lissabon)

SERBIEN - (Glavni Gradovi)



SPANIEN - (Barcelona)

SPANIEN - (La Coruna)

SPANIEN - (Ibiza)

SPANIEN - (Murcia)

SPANIEN - (San Juan - Alicante)

SCHWEDEN - (Gothenburg)

SCHWEDEN - (Stockholm)

SCHWEIZ - (Bern)

SCHWEIZ - (Genf)

SCHWEIZ - (Zürich)

UK - ENGLAND - (London)

UK - ISLE OF MAN - (Douglas)

UK - Lancashir - (Burnley)

UK - Scotland - (Glasgow)

UK - Cornwall - (Truro)

USA - Alaska - (Anchorage)

USA - Arizona - (Flagstaff)

USA - Arizona - (Tucson)

USA - Arkansas - (Hot Springs)

USA - Kalifornien - (Hemet)

USA - CALIFORINA - (Los Angeles)

USA - Kalifornien - (Redding)

USA - Kalifornien - (Sacramento)

USA - Kalifornien - (San Diego)

USA - Kalifornien - (Santa Cruz)

USA - Kalifornien - (San Francisco)

USA - Kalifornien - Orange County - (Newport Beach)

USA - Colorado - (Denver)

USA - Connecticut - (New Haven)

USA - Florida - (Boca Raton)

USA - Florida - (Cocoa Beach)

USA - Florida - (Miami)

USA - Florida - (Tampa)

USA - Georgia - (Gainesville)

USA - Illinois - (Chicago)

USA - Hawaii - (Maui)

USA - Iowa - (Davenport)

USA - Kentucky - (Louisville)

USA - LOUISIANA - (New Orleans)

USA - Maine - (Auburn)

USA - Maryland - (Easton)

USA - Massachusetts - (Worcester)

USA - Minnesota - (St. Paul)

USA - Missouri - (St. Louis)

USA - Montana - (Missoula)

USA - NEVADA - (Black Rock City)

USA - NEVADA - (Las Vegas)

USA - NEVADA - (Reno)

USA - New Jersey - (Red Bank)

USA - New Mexico (Northern)

USA - NEW YORK - (Ithaca)

USA - NEW YORK - (Long Island)

USA - NEW YORK - (New York City)

USA - NORTH CAROLINA - (Asheville)

USA - NORTH CAROLINA - (Charlotte)

USA - NORTH CAROLINA - (Greensboro)

USA - Oregon - (Ashland)

USA - Oregon - (Portland)

USA - Pennsylvania - (Harrisburg)

USA - Pennsylvania - (Pittsburgh)

USA - Pennsylvania - (West Chester)

USA - Pennsylvania - (Wilkes - Barre)

USA - SOUTH CAROLINA - (Charleston)

USA - Tennessee - (Memphis)

USA - Texas - (Austin)

USA - Texas - (Dallas / Metroplex)

USA - Texas - (Houston)

USA - Texas - (San Antonio)

USA - Vermont - (Burlington)

USA - Virginia - (Richmond)

USA - Virginia - (Virginia Beach)

USA - WASHINGTON - (Seattle)

USA - Wisconsin - (Milwaukee)


Bild anklickem: Holger Strom Webseite
Bild anklickem: Holger Strom Webseite


Der Film zeigt eindrucksvolle Beispiele, beginnend beim Einsatz der Atombomben mit ihren schrecklichen Auswirkungen bis hin zu den gesundheitszerstörenden, ja tödlichen Hinterlassenschaften der Atomenergienutzung durch die Energiewirtschaft. Eine besondere Stärke des Films liegt in den Aussagen zahlreicher, unabhängiger Fachleute. Sie erläutern mit ihrem in Jahrzehnten eigener Forschung und Erfahrung gesammelten Wissen Sachverhalte und Zusammenhänge, welche die Befürworter und Nutznießer der Atomtechnologie in Politik, Wirtschaft und Militärwesen gerne im Verborgenen halten wollen.


Prof. Dr. med. Dr. h. c. Edmund Lengfelder



Nicht viel anders gehen Politiker/ Abgeordnete des Deutschen Bundestages mit der hoch toxischen riskanten SRM Geoengineering-Forschung um, um diese riskante Forschung durch die Parlamente zu bekommen.


Es wird mit gefährlichen Halbwissen und Halbwahrheiten gearbeitet. Sie werden Risiken vertuschen, verdrehen und diese Experimente als das einzig Richtige gegen den drohenden Klimawandel verkaufen. Chemtrails sind Stratosphärische Aerosol Injektionen, die  illegal auf globaler Ebene stattfinden, ohne jeglichen Parlament-Beschluss der beteiligten Regierungen.


Geoengineering-Projekte einmal begonnen, sollen für Jahrtausende fortgeführt werden - ohne Unterbrechung (auch bei finanziellen Engpässen oder sonstigen Unruhen) um nicht einen Umkehreffekt  auszulösen.


Das erzählt Ihnen die Regierung natürlich nicht, um diese illegale hochgefährliche RM Forschung nur ansatzweise durch die Parlamente zu bringen.


Spätestens seit dem Atommüll-Skandal mit dem Forschungs-Projekt ASSE wissen wir Bürger/Innen, wie Politik und Wissenschaft mit Forschungs-Risiken umgehen.. Diese Gefahren und Risiken werden dann den Bürgern einfach verschwiegen. 



Am 30. September 2012 ist eine neue Internetplattform zu Climate Engineering online gegangen  


Die Plattform enthält alle neuen Infos -Publikationen, Veranstaltungen etc. zu Climate-Engineering.





Gezielte Eingriffe in das Klima?

Eine Bestandsaufnahme der Debatte zu Climate Engineering

Kieler Earth Institute



Climate Engineering:

Ethische Aspekte

Karlsruher Institut für Technologie



Climate Engineering:

Chancen und Risiken einer Beeinflussung der Erderwärmung. Naturwissenschaftliche und technische Aspekte

Leibniz-Institut für Troposphärenforschung, Leipzig


Climate Engineering:

Wirtschaftliche Aspekte 

Kiel Earth Institute



Climate Engineering:

Risikowahrnehmung, gesellschaftliche Risikodiskurse und Optionen der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung

Dialogik Stuttgart



Climate Engineering:

Instrumente und Institutionen des internationalen Rechts

Universität Trier



Climate Engineering:

Internationale Beziehungen und politische Regulierung

Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung




Illegale Atmosphären-Experimente finden in Deutschland  seit  2012 „täglich“ am Himmel statt.


Chemtrails  -  Verschwörung am Himmel ? Wettermanipulation unter den Augen der Öffentlichkeit


Auszug aus dem Buch: 


Ich behaupte, dass in etwa 2 bis 3 mal pro Woche, ungefähr ein halbes Dutzend  von frühmorgens bis spätabends in einer Art und Weise Wien überfliegen, die logisch nicht erklärbar ist. Diese Maschinen führen über dem Stadtgebiet manchmal auffällige Steig- und Sinkflüge durch , sie fliegen Bögen und sie drehen abrupt ab. Und sie hinterlassen überall ihre dauerhaft beständigen Kondensstreifen, welche auch ich Chemtrails nenne. Sie verschleiern an manchen Tagen ganz Wien und rundherum am Horizont ist strahlend blauer ...
Hier in diesem Buch  aus dem Jahr 2005 werden die anfänglichen stratosphärischen SRM-Experimente am Himmel beschrieben... inzwischen fliegen die Chemie-Bomber ja 24 h Nonstop, rund um die Uhr.





Weather Modification Patente


Umfangreiche Liste der Patente











Von Pat Mooney - Er ist Gründer und Geschäftsführer der kanadischen Umweltschutzorganisation ETC Group in Ottawa.


Im Jahr 1975 tat sich der US-Geheimdienst CIA mit Newsweek zusammen und warnte vor globaler Abkühlung. Im selben Jahr wiesen britische Wissenschaftler die Existenz eines Lochs in der Ozonschicht über der Antarktis nach und die UN-Vollversammlung befasste sich mit identischen Anträgen der Sowjetunion und der USA für ein Verbot von Klimamanipulationen, die militärischen Zwecken dienen. Dreißig Jahre später redeten alle - auch der US-Präsident über globale Erwärmung. 


Wissenschaftler warnten, der Temperaturanstieg über dem arktischen Eis  und im sibirischen Permafrost könnte in die Klimakatastrophe führen, und der US-Senat erklärte sich bereit , eine Vorlage zu prüfen, mit der Eingriffe in das Klima erlaubt werden sollten. 


Geo-Engineering ist heute Realität. Seit dem Debakel von Kopenhagen bemüht sich die große Politik zusammen mit ein paar Milliardären verstärkt darum, großtechnische Szenarien zu prüfen und die entsprechenden Experimente durchzuführen.


Seit Anfang 2009 überbieten sich die Medien mit Geschichten über Geoengineering als "Plan B". Wissenschaftliche Institute und Nobelpreisträger legen Berichte und Anträge vor, um die Politik zur Finanzierung von Feldversuchen zu bewegen. Im britischem Parlament wie im US-Kongress haben die Anhörungen schon begonnen. Anfang 2010 berichteten Journalisten, Bill Gates investiere privat in Geoengineering-Forschung und werde bei Geoengineering-Patenten zur Senkung der Meerestemperatur und zur Steuerung von Hurrikanen sogar als Miterfinder genannt. Unterdesssen hat Sir Richard Branson - Gründer und Besitzer der Fluglinie Virgin Air - verkündet, er habe eine Kommandozentrale für den Klimakrieg eingerichtet und sei für alle klimatechnischen Optionen offen. Zuvor hatte er 25 Millionen Dollar für eine Technik ausgesetzt, mit der sich die Stratosphäre reinigen lässt. 


Einige der reichsten Männer der Welt (z.B. Richard Branson und Bill Gates ) und die mächtigsten Konzerne (z.B. Shell , Boeing ) werden immer beteiligt.


Geoengineering Karte - ETC Group


ETC Group veröffentlicht eine Weltkarte über Geoengineering-Experimente, die groß angelegte Manipulation des Klimas unserer Erde.  Zwar gibt es keine vollständige Aufzeichnung von Wetter und Klima-Projekten in Dutzenden von Ländern, diese Karte ist aber der erste Versuch, um den expandierenden Umfang der Forschungs-Experimente zu dokumentieren. 


Fast 300 Geo-Engineering-Projekte / Experimente sind auf der Karte vertreten, die zu den verschiedenen Arten von Klima-Änderungs-Technologien gehören.

Einfach anklicken und vergrößern..
Einfach anklicken und vergrößern..


Aus der Sicht der reichen Länder (und ihrer Unternehmen) erscheint Geoengineering einfach perfekt. Es ist machbar. Es ist (relativ) billig. Und es erlaubt der Industrie, den Umbau unserer Wirtschaft und Produktionsweise für überflüssig zu erklären.


Das wichtigste aber ist: Geoengineering braucht keinerlei internationale Übereinkunft. Länder, Unternehmen, ja sogar superreiche Geo-Piraten können es auf eigene Faust durchziehen. Eine bescheidene >Koalition der Willigen< genügt vollauf, und eine Handvoll Akteure kann den Planeten nach Belieben umbauen.


Damit wir es nicht vergessen:


Seit 1945  führten die USA, die UdSSR, England, Frankreich und später auch China mehr als 2000 Atomtests durch – über und unter der Erde und ohne Rücksicht auf die zu erwartenden Auswirkungen auf Gesundheit und Umwelt weltweit. Niemand wurde um Erlaubnis gefragt. Wenn das Weltklima zu kippen droht, werden sie da wirklich vor einseitigen Entscheidungen zurückschrecken? 




Warum ist Geo-Engineering nicht akzeptabel..?


SRM Geoengineering kann nicht im Labor getestet werden: Es ist keine experimentelle Labor-Phase möglich, um einen spürbaren Einfluss auf das Klima zu haben. Geo-Engineering muss massiv eingesetzt werden.


Experimente oder Feldversuche entsprechen tatsächlich den Einsatz in der realen Welt, da kleine Tests nicht die Daten auf Klimaeffekte liefern.


Auswirkungen für die Menschen und die biologische Vielfalt würden wahrscheinlich sofort massiv und möglicherweise irreversibel sein.





Hände weg von Mutter Erde (HOME) ist eine weltweite Kampagne, um unserem kostbaren Planeten Erde, gegen die Bedrohung durch Geo-Engineering-Experimente zu verteidigen. Gehen Sie mit uns, um eine klare Botschaft an die Geo-Ingenieure und die Regierungen weltweit zu senden, dass unsere Erde kein ein Labor ist.



Liste der (SRM) Geoengineering-Forschung

Hier anklicken:
Hier anklicken: research funding 10-9-13.xls


Weltweite Liste der Geoengineering-Forschung SRM Forschungs Länder: 


Großbritannien, Vereinigte Staaten Amerika, Deutschland, Frankreich, Norwegen, Finnland, Österreich und Japan.



In "NEXT BANG!" beschreibt Pat Money neue Risikotechnologien, die heute von Wissenschaftlern, Politikern und mächtigen Finanziers aktiv für den kommerziellen Einsatz vorbereitet werden:


Geo-Engineering, Nanotechnologie, oder die künstliche >Verbesserung< des menschlichen Körpers.


"Die  Brisanz des Buches liegt darin, dass es zeigt, wie die Technologien, die unsere Zukunft bestimmen könnten, heute zum großflächigen Einsatz vorbereitet werden – und das weitgehend unbemerkt von der Öffentlichkeit. Atomkraft, toxische Chemikalien oder genmanipulierte Organismen konnten deshalb nicht durch demokratische Entscheidungen verhindert werden, weil hinter ihnen bereits eine zu große ökonomische und politische Macht stand, als ihre Risiken vielen Menschen erst bewusst wurden.


Deshalb dürfen wir die Diskussion über Geoengineering, Nanotechnologie, synthetische Biologie  und die anderen neuen Risikotechnologien nicht länger den selbsternannten Experten überlassen. Die Entscheidungen über ihren künftigen Einsatz fallen jetzt - es ist eine Frage der Demokratie, dass wir alle dabei mitreden."


Ole von UexküllDirektor der Right Livelihood Award Foundation, die den Alternativen Nobelpreis vergibt



Vanishing of the Bees - No Bees, No Food !


Verschwinden der Bienen  - Keine Bienen, kein Essen !






Solar Radiation Management = SRM

Es ist zu beachten, dass SRM Maßnahmen zwar auf kurzer Zeitskala wirksam werden können, die Dauer ihres Einsatzes aber an der Lebensdauer des CO-2 gebunden ist, welches mehrere Tausend Jahre beträgt.


CDR- Maßnahmen hingegen müssten über einen sehr langen Zeitraum (viele Jahrzehnte) aufgebaut werden, ihr Einsatz könnte allerdings beendet werden, sobald die CO2 Konzentration wieder auf ein akzeptables Niveau gesenkt ist. Entsprechende Anstrengungen vorausgesetzt, könnte dies bereits nach einigen Hundert Jahren erreicht sein.


CDR Maßnahmen: sind relativ teuer und arbeiten viel zu langsam. Bis sie wirken würden, vergehen viele Jahrzehnte


Solar Radiation Management SRM Maßnahmen: billig.. und schnell..



Quelle: Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung






Solar Radiation Management = SRM


Ironie der Geoengineering Forschung:


Ein früherer SRM Abbruch hätte einen abrupten sehr heftigen Klimawandel zur Folge, den wir in dieser Schnelligkeit und heftigen Form nie ohne diese SRM Maßnahmen gehabt hätten. 


Das, was Regierungen mit den globalen GEO-ENGINEERING-INTERVENTIONEN verhindern wollten, genau das wären dann die globalen Folgeschäden bei der frühzeitigen Beendigung der SRM Forschungs-Interventionen.


Wenn sie diese hoch giftigen SAI - Programme  aus wichtigen Gründen vorher abbrechen müssten, droht uns ein abrupter Klimawandel, der ohne diese GE-Programme nie dagewesen wäre. 


Das bezeichne ich doch mal  als wahre  reale Satire..