Framing SRM Field Experiments
24 July 2026 | ZEROGeoengineering.com | Our biosphere is not a laboratory. If an activity adds pollutants to the commons, it is not legitimate research. Without enforceable laws protecting the atmosphere, our sky may be used as an open air chemistry lab and/or polluted with persistent emissions.
The following article, “Differentiating Solar Radiation Modification Field Experiments: Scale, Technical Characteristics, and Governance Implications,” illustrates the narrative distinction between “field experiments” and “operational deployment.” By classifying SRM activities as “research experiments,” proponents of using our atmospheric commons as a laboratory may avoid accountability and/or liability for the intentional polluting of our skies and interference with the weather via small and large-scale SRM experiments. The paper affirms the importance of public perception but omits the necessity of informed public consent for atmospheric experimentation. Finally, the foundation for climate interventions – the CO2-Global warming hypothesis, “lacks empirical substantiation”[1][2] thereby calling into question programs and policies enabling SRM and other hazardous experimentation.
From the Abstract: “The intermediate‐phase highlights that SRM research cannot be reduced to a small‐/large‐scale binary: many plausible experiments occupy a gray zone where scientific value is high, but governance remains underdeveloped. Recognizing this distinction may help prioritize governance, guide proportionate regulation, and ensure field experiments are evaluated by intent and their regulatory implications.”
Redmond Roche, B.H., Hernandez‐Galindo, I., Määttänen, A., Moore, J.C., Boucher, O., Dollner, B.M., et al.(2026). Differentiating solar radiation modification field experiments: Scale, technical characteristics, and governance
implications.Earth’sFuture,14, e2025EF007303. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EF007303
“…By presenting a cross technique typology, developed through a technical expert‐led workshop, we show how plausible field experiments span several orders of magnitude in scale and cost, yet remain distinct from operational deployment…”
Acknowledgements “…The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, CINEA, or UKRI. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them…“
Supporting Information for Differentiating Solar Radiation Modification Field Experiments: Scale, Technical Characteristics, and Governance Implications:
“Mass refers to the total quantity of injected or emitted material relevant to climate forcing (e.g., SO₂, H₂SO₄, sea salt, INPs [ice-nucleating particles]), while spatial extent refers to the horizontal extent of the perturbation downwind of injection – typically the coherent plume length or affected cloud region.”
“Experiment type: Intermediate-scale injection to observe SO₂ oxidation, aerosol growth, and plume dynamics under real stratospheric conditions.”
S23. Commercial Transatlantic Flight (e.g., Boeing 777)
• Estimated mass released: ~50–100 kg SO2 per flight.
Table S28a. Key legal and governance frameworks referenced in Figure 3.
Table S28b. Key legal and governance frameworks referenced in Figure 3, with full names and relevance for SRM
experiments.
Sources
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259098600_Does_a_Global_Temperature_Exist
[ Full Text: https://zeronotification.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Does-Global-Temperature-Exist.pdf ]
“There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the equation of state governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the implications cannot be avoided by substituting statistics for physics.”
[2] https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Grok-3-Review-V6.pdf
“The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as Mann, Schmidt, and Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. This analysis integrates unadjusted observational data and recent peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate that the assertion of human CO₂ emissions as the primary driver of climate variability since 1750 is not substantiated. Instead, natural processes—including temperature feedbacks, solar variability, and oceanic
dynamics—provide a more consistent explanation for observed trends.”
Related
2003 Letter from California Congressman Confirms Contrails are Polluting Emissions
‘‘Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Reauthorization Act of 2026’’
Thiel-Backed Cloud Seeding Firm Moves to Block State Legislation