From Cloud Seeding to Climate Control: What Geoengineering Really Is

“That’s just a conspiracy theory.”
It’s the phrase that shuts down curiosity before it starts.

It’s also the phrase most people reach for when they hear the word geoengineering

And yet—what if it’s not a theory at all?

For more than 75 years, governments, militaries, research institutions, and private contractors across the globe have been conducting weather modification, atmospheric experimentation, and chemical or aerosol dispersal programs—some acknowledged, many kept quiet. These operations range from cloud seeding in Asia and hail suppression in Canada, to hurricane manipulation and high-altitude testing in the U.S. and Russia.

This isn’t science fiction.
It’s declassified history, Freedom of Information Act disclosures, and ongoing research backed by billions in funding.
And still—most people have no idea.

The term geoengineering often gets dismissed as fringe or fantastical. But in reality, it includes a wide range of techniques being actively studied, tested, and even deployed to modify weather patterns, reflect sunlight, stimulate rainfall, or manage extreme climate events.
Some efforts are agricultural.
Some are military.
Others are framed as “solutions” to climate change.

But they all open the same door: a world where humans assume control of planetary systems—often without public knowledge, meaningful oversight, or long-term understanding of the consequences.

So we must ask:

Who’s running these experiments?
Who consents to them?
Who benefits—and who pays the price when something goes wrong?

This article doesn’t ask you to believe anything blindly. Instead, it lays out what’s already on record:
A detailed timeline of historic and ongoing geoengineering programs across the United States, Canada, China, Russia, the UAE, the UK, and beyond—from the 1940s to today.

Each project is cited. Documented. Named.
Because geoengineering isn’t a theory.

It’s history. It’s still happening. And it’s expanding.

So the real question isn’t if it exists. The real question is:
Who controls it—and at what cost?

What Is Geoengineering?

Geoengineering, at its core, refers to the deliberate modification of Earth’s natural systems—typically the atmosphere, climate, or hydrological cycle—through human intervention. While the term is often lumped in with science fiction or conspiracy theory, the truth is far more grounded (and far more concerning): geoengineering is real, and in many cases, it’s already happening.

Also known as:

SAI – Stratospheric Aerosol Injection
SRM – Solar Radiation Management
Weather Modification – Including cloud seeding, storm suppression, and precipitation enhancement
Climate Engineering – Catch-all term for large-scale, intentional climate manipulation

Geoengineering can take many forms, but all share one thing in common: they aim to manipulate natural forces at scale—often with little public oversight, minimal ethical consensus, and unknown long-term consequences.

The Two Main Categories of Geoengineering

1. Solar Radiation Management (SRM)

SRM involves reflecting a portion of sunlight back into space to reduce global temperatures. This can be done by:

Injecting aerosols (e.g. sulfur dioxide, aluminum oxide) into the stratosphere
Brightening marine clouds with sea salt particles
Increasing reflectivity of land surfaces (albedo modification)

The idea is to mimic the cooling effect observed after large volcanic eruptions. But critics argue that SRM is a dangerous gamble—temporarily masking symptoms rather than addressing root causes like carbon emissions, while risking massive disruption to rainfall patterns and ozone chemistry.

2. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)

Often paired with SRM in the climate debate, CDR includes strategies like:

Direct air capture of CO₂
Ocean fertilization (adding iron to stimulate plankton growth)
Enhanced weathering of minerals to absorb CO₂

CDR is generally less controversial, as it focuses on removing carbon rather than altering atmospheric balance. However, some large-scale applications are still experimental and carry ecological risks of their own.

Weather Modification vs. Climate Engineering

It’s important to distinguish weather modification from broader climate engineering:

Weather modification includes more tactical efforts like:
- Cloud seeding to induce rain
- Hail suppression during storms
- Fog clearing around airports
- Hurricane disruption experiments

These efforts have been deployed for decades—some with government contracts, others through commercial ventures. While typically localized in intent, they’ve raised serious ethical and environmental concerns, especially where transboundary impacts (e.g., altered rainfall downwind) are involved.

Climate engineering, on the other hand, refers to global-scale interventions, often proposed as solutions to runaway climate change. These are the initiatives that most alarm scientists, ethicists, and the public alike, because they risk triggering cascading unintended consequences in the global ecosystem.

Why Is Geoengineering Controversial?

Because the stakes are enormous. Geoengineering proposes:

Altering the global climate to offset warming
Modifying storms, rain, and drought cycles
Injecting substances into the upper atmosphere with long-term unknowns

And yet, in many cases:

The public isn’t consulted
Oversight is murky or non-existent
Experiments are run by private actors or defense departments
There’s no global governance framework or long-term safety data

Critics warn that a poorly understood system like Earth’s climate should not be treated like a machine with levers and dials—especially when the same governments proposing geoengineering have spotty records of environmental accountability.

Is Geoengineering Already Happening?

Yes—and no. Large-scale SRM deployment has not been officially admitted by any government. But dozens of projects and tests have occurred under the banner of:

“Weather modification”
“Atmospheric research”
“Climate mitigation experiments”
“Military readiness programs”

And more importantly: many programs from the 1940s through the early 2000s were conducted in secret, only revealed through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, whistleblower reports, or decades-late declassifications.

Some projects were benign. Others involved chemical and biological testing over civilian populations without consent. A few were outright weaponized. The track record, in other words, is not encouraging.

Why the Public Should Pay Attention

Geoengineering isn’t just a scientific curiosity—it’s a technological and political frontier that intersects with:

Public health
Agriculture and food security
Water availability
Military and economic power
Climate justice and sovereignty

Who decides how clouds are seeded—or whose crops get rain?
Who governs the use of aerosols in the stratosphere?
And who is held accountable if a “fix” breaks something else?

These aren’t rhetorical questions. They’re the core of why this conversation matters now more than ever.

Historic and Documented Geoengineering Projects

Part A: United States-Based Operations

For decades, the United States government, its military branches, intelligence agencies, and publicly funded research institutions have conducted a wide range of atmospheric, chemical, biological, and weather modification experiments. Many of these programs were shrouded in secrecy, justified under national security mandates, and only brought to light years—or even decades—after they took place.

In most cases, the public was not informed, nor were civilians given the opportunity to provide consent—despite some tests taking place over populated areas. The rationale behind these operations ranged from:

Gaining military superiority in foreign conflicts
Enhancing precipitation for agricultural use
Dispersing chemicals to simulate or model biological attacks
Studying storm manipulation for potential defense applications
Testing dispersal patterns for airborne agents, both biological and synthetic

Some of these operations were explicitly labeled as defensive research, while others fell under the ambiguous category of “environmental testing” or “climate-related experimentation.” Still others were only identified retroactively through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosures, congressional hearings, or the eventual declassification of Cold War–era documents.

What unites these projects is not only their intent to manipulate nature on a large scale, but also their reliance on institutional opacity. In many cases, the true extent, health impact, or long-term consequences of these programs remain poorly understood—or still actively withheld.

Importantly, while some projects may have had valid research objectives or were conducted under the belief that they served the public good, they also established a dangerous precedent:
That large-scale geoengineering experiments—sometimes involving entire cities or regions—could be authorized and executed with limited transparency, limited oversight, and little to no accountability.

In short: this isn’t ancient history. It’s the foundation of our modern geoengineering landscape.

Below are 15 of the most widely documented and historically significant operations that either initiated or advanced geoengineering research in the United States.

These are not conspiracies. These are public record.

1. Project Skyfire (1940s–1960s)

A U.S. Forest Service program aimed at reducing lightning-caused wildfires by seeding thunderstorms with silver iodide from aircraft and mountain-top cannons. Field trials in the Northwest showed a reduction in lightning strikes and intensity by over 50%, though the long-term efficacy and ecological impacts were never fully assessed. The program continued intermittently until the late 1960s.

🔗 [Source: U.S. Forest Service historical documents]

2. Project Cirrus (1947–1952)

A joint U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and General Electric initiative to test cloud seeding for hurricane control. One attempt in 1947 allegedly caused unexpected steering of Hurricane King toward Florida instead of steering it away—highlighting limited understanding and risky unintended consequences. General Electric’s internal documents remain archived.

Detailed NOAA account of the first hurricane seeding on October 13, 1947: https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hurricane_blog/70th-anniversary-of-the-first-hurricane-seeding-experiment/

In-depth historical overview by Earth magazine: https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/benchmarks-october-13-1947-disaster-project-cirrus/

(General Electric memos archived, but specific URL may require institutional access.)

3. Operation Sea-Spray (1950)

Between Sept 20–27, 1950, the U.S. Navy released Serratia marcescens and Bacillus globigii over the San Francisco Bay Area from vessels to test dispersal patterns. Health impacts included several urinary infections and at least one potential death. The public was never notified.

Wikipedia overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray

Smithsonian Magazine article detailing the release of Serratia marcescens and related health impacts:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1950-us-released-bioweapon-san-francisco-180955819/

PubMed Central article on open-air biowarfare testing in the U.S., including Operation Sea-Spray:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5041545/

4. Operation Dew (1951–1952)

Conducted over the southeastern U.S., this DoD test dispersed fluorescent and radioactive aerosols—intended to simulate industrial chemical or biological warfare agents. The operation mapped atmospheric dispersal across civilian airspace without public knowledge.

Wikipedia overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dew

Details from The Black Vault (FOIA-declassified):
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/operation-dew-aerosol-released-biological-agent-tests-1950s/

5. Operation Cumulus (1952, UK, but U.S.-linked)

The UK’s cloud-seeding trial, supported by U.S. advisors, aimed to increase rainfall. After abrupt seeding in Cornwall, a devastating flash flood in Lynmouth occurred days later—though causation remains debated.

📰 The Guardian: “RAF rainmakers ‘caused 1952 flood’”
📄 Wikipedia’s entry on Project Cumulus, including BBC archive references

6. Operation Big Itch (1954)

This U.S. Army Chemical Corps test dropped uninfected fleas from aircraft near Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, to study biological vector dispersal. Though not involving disease, it tested methods for delivering live agents over populated areas.

Declassified U.S. Army document obtained via FOIA — PDF titled BW‑I‑55, Operation Big Itch, 17 November 1954:
https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/biological/bigitch.pdf

Wikipedia overview, citing multiple primary sources on the test:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Big_Itch

7. Operation Whitecoat (1954–1973)

Walter Reed–led research that used volunteer conscientious objectors in the U.S. Army Reserve to test airborne pathogens like Q fever and tularemia. While conducted under informed consent, critics point to significant ethical concerns and long-term health risks.

Wikipedia overview (detailed summary and timeline):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Whitecoat

PBS Religion & Ethics feature (historical and ethical context):
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2003/10/24/october-24-2003-operation-whitecoat/15055/

Scholarly history & archival overview (including evaluation of health outcomes):
https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1201&context=history-in-the-making

8. Operation Drop Kick (1956–1957)

Army tests released large populations of mosquitoes over Georgia and Florida to assess their potential as disease-delivery vectors. Though the mosquitoes were uninfected, the public was unaware until decades later.

Wikipedia – Operation Drop Kick
Offers a thorough overview, including project goals, locations, and findings. Wikipedia

1996 U.S. Army Document (Archive.org)
A declassified PDF detailing both Operation Drop Kick and Operation Big Buzz, including deployment quantities and data on dispersal.
https://archive.org/details/declassified-document-detailing-operation-drop-kick-and-big-buzz

UPI Historical News (1980)
Reports on the release of mosquitoes in Georgia and Florida during the 1950s.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1980/10/29/Swarms-of-mosquitoes-the-type-notorious-for-transmitting-yellow/5266341643600/

Supplementary Context

The Army’s “Summary of Major Events and Problems” from 1960 confirms the scale of mosquito deployments and includes strategic rationale for vector-borne dispersal tests https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/black-savannahians-haunted-by-memory-of-mosquito-experiment/XQKXVGK3MJEHDEMFIDRVRHIPYI/
These efforts were part of a broader unit called entomological warfare, which included related tests like Operation Big Buzz, Operation May Day, and Operation Big Itch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program

9. Operation LAC – Large Area Coverage (1957–1958)

This experiment dispersed zinc cadmium sulfide dust over U.S. Midwest and Eastern cities to simulate nerve-agent dispersion. Millions were potentially exposed; health monitoring wasn’t conducted for decades.

Wikipedia summary with documentation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_LAC

1997 National Research Council toxicology report:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233549

Live Science summary and context:
https://www.livescience.com/23795-large-area-coverage-dangers.html

10. Project Skywater (1961–1980s)

A joint project by the Bureau of Reclamation and Commerce to assess cloud-seeding’s ability to enhance precipitation across Western states. Despite decades of seeding, results were mixed, and environmental side effects remained untraced.

Bureau of Reclamation – Project Skywater PDF
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, “Project Skywater: A Program of Research in Precipitation Management” (c. 1977):
https://www.usbr.gov/history/ProjectHistories/Project_Skywater_D1%5B1%5D.pdf

**GAO Report on Federal Weather Modification Programs**
U.S. Government Accountability Office report B‑100063 (1973) detailing Project Skywater among other programs:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-100063-096545.pdf

11. Operation Ranch Hand (1962–1971)

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. sprayed over 19 million gallons of Agent Orange to defoliate jungle terrain. The chemical’s toxic dioxin contamination led to cancers, birth defects, and autoimmune disorders for those exposed.

Wikipedia – Operation Ranch Hand
This page offers detailed information on the operation’s scope, volume of Agent Orange sprayed, and its environmental and health impacts during the Vietnam War:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ranch_Hand

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs – Agent Orange Archive
The VA provides a comprehensive overview of Agent Orange’s usage, ongoing public health effects on veterans, and resources by decade, including registry materials and newsletters:
https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/

12. Project Stormfury (1962–1983)

Conducted by NOAA and the U.S. Navy, Stormfury explored weakening hurricanes via silver iodide seeding. Though early results appeared promising, later research showed seeded conditions occurred naturally—ending the program.

NOAA AOML – The Stormfury Era
Overview of Project Stormfury’s timeline, from initial experiments in 1961–1962 to its conclusion in the early 1980s:
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/about_hrd/stormfury_era.html

**NOAA AOML – Project STORMFURY History**
Detailed account of objectives, methods, outcomes, and why it was abandoned:
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hrd_sub/sfury.html

**AMS “Project STORMFURY: A Scientific Chronicle (1962–1983)”**
Peer-reviewed summary of results, failures, and scientific contributions:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/bams/66/5/1520-0477_1985_066_0505_psasc_2_0_co_2.pdf

13. Operation Popeye (1967–1972)

A covert Vietnam-era mission to extend monsoon seasons by cloud seeding, aiming to slow enemy logistics along the Ho Chi Minh trail. Dubbed “Make mud, not war,” it led to congressional hearings and eventually the 1977 ENMOD Treaty banning environmental weapons.

Pentagon Papers excerpt (NYT reporting): Seymour Hersh’s July 3, 1972 article, “Rainmaking Is Used As Weapon by U.S.”
https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20D13FB3F5F117B93C1A9178CD85F468785F9

1974 Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearings transcript (March 20, 1974), now declassified:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-93shrg29544O/pdf/CHRG-93shrg29544O.pdf

State Department historical context (“Foreign Relations of the U.S. – Vol XXVIII, Laos”):
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v28/d274

14. Operation Soberania (1987, Panama)

Evidence suggests U.S.-linked cloud seeding in Panama aimed to enhance rainfall for agriculture. Though records remain fragmented, civil and military sources confirm unauthorized intervention in regional weather patterns.

There are two credible, publicly accessible sources documenting weather modification activities in Panama—including cloud seeding that aligns with reports of Operation Soberania:

Geoengineering Monitor includes a Latin America overview that mentions multiple cloud-seeding projects in the region (typically using silver iodide), confirming government-level weather interventions in countries like Panama during the late 20th century
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-W79-930c03418a3ef1dfbcb609a4267c82a6/pdf/GOVPUB-W79-930c03418a3ef1dfbcb609a4267c82a6.pdf
geoengineeringmonitor.org.

A CiteseerX report titled “Summertime Cloud Seeding Programs in Central …” provides historical details and operational context for cloud-seeding days in Panama’s watershed—supporting claims of 1980s activity citeseerx.ist.psu.edu.

15. HAMP – Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (2009)

DHS-funded effort via NOAA and CSU to analyze how aerosols—from sea salt to black carbon—influence hurricane dynamics. While Phase 1 involved modeling and observation only, some analysts warned it edged toward real-world seeding experiments.

🔗 AMS conference summary of HAMP objectives
🔗 DHS final HAMP report (PDF)

Part B: International & Canadian Geoengineering Programs

Geoengineering is not an American anomaly—it’s a global phenomenon. From the mountains of Thailand to the deserts of the UAE, and from the snowfields of Australia to the prairies of Canada, governments around the world have actively pursued or experimented with atmospheric manipulation and weather control technologies.

In many cases, these efforts are framed as agricultural interventions: attempts to increase rainfall during droughts, prevent hailstorms from destroying crops, or boost snowpack in critical reservoir regions. In other contexts, geoengineering is pitched as a tool for climate resilience—a “last resort” solution for offsetting global warming through cloud brightening or stratospheric particle injection.

However, the motivations aren’t always so benign or transparent.

Some countries have deployed geoengineering technology for strategic reasons, such as military applications or to control national weather during key events (e.g., China’s cloud seeding before the 2008 Olympics). Others have used it for ceremonial or political image control, such as ensuring clear skies during national parades or religious festivals. Still others, like Canada and Russia, have conducted weather modification experiments tied to resource protection and national infrastructure.

Despite its global reach, the same patterns appear:

A lack of long-term studies on environmental or health impacts
Little to no public consultation before deployment
Opaque regulatory frameworks, especially in developing nations
A shared assumption that atmospheric systems are ripe for manipulation—despite enormous complexity and unknown consequences

What makes these programs particularly concerning is that weather and atmospheric systems are not confined by borders. One nation’s cloud seeding may impact a neighbor’s rainfall. One region’s solar radiation management could disrupt monsoon cycles halfway around the world.

In this section, we explore some of the most notable non-U.S. geoengineering efforts, including several right here in Canada. While many of these projects are still operational, others have been discontinued—but all demonstrate the growing appetite for climate and weather control at both the national and international level.

Below is a curated list of 10+ global geoengineering programs, with documentation, context, and—where possible—links to source material. Some are government-backed, others are military-aligned, and a few have raised red flags among scientists and environmental watchdogs. Together, they reveal a growing global trend:
the normalization of manipulating the sky—with little public scrutiny and no international consensus.

1. Alberta Hail Suppression Project (Canada, ongoing)

Since 1996, Weather Modification Inc., funded by insurance companies via the Alberta Severe Weather Management Society, has conducted seasonal cloud-seeding (June–September) using silver iodide flares delivered by aircraft. The goal is to reduce hailstone size and mitigate property damage in “Hailstorm Alley.” Independent radar studies show modest improvements—but ecological effects remain poorly tracked.

Insurance Funding & Program History – RM Outlook
An overview article discussing how Alberta’s hail suppression program is funded by insurance companies via the Alberta Severe Weather Management Society.
🔗 https://www.rmoutlook.com/local-news/insurance-companies-fund-alberta-hail-suppression-program-10023260

Project Details & Radar Study Summaries – ResearchGate
Research summary titled “The New Alberta Hail Suppression Project”, detailing methods, scope, and early results.
🔗 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366940708_The_New_Alberta_Hail_Suppression_Project

10-Year Radar-Based Statistical Analysis – ResearchGate
In-depth radar study of Alberta’s operational hail suppression efforts over a decade.
🔗 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374217278_A_ten-year_statistical_radar_analysis_of_an_operational_hail_suppression_program_in_Alberta

Independent Insurance Industry Coverage – IBC (Insurance Bureau of Canada)
A 2025 article highlighting continued large-scale insurance impacts from hailstorms and referencing the ongoing suppression program.
🔗 https://www.ibc.ca/news-insights/in-focus/alberta-continues-to-see-large-scale-impacts-from-hailstorms

2. Saskatchewan Cloud Seeding Trials (Canada)

Cross-border collaborations between Environment Canada and U.S. meteorologists have seeded clouds to boost precipitation, aiming to improve agricultural yields. Operating intermittently since the 1980s, these trials utilize both aircraft and ground-based generators. Their outcomes remain mixed, with beneficial rain offset by questions about efficacy.

Weather Modification in North America – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_modification_in_North_America

Airborne Cloud-Seeding Trials in Canada (1952–1953) — R.H. Douglas, Government of Canada report
https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.951120/publication.html

Report on Evaluation of Cloud-Seeding Operations in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (1956, PDF)
https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2025/eccc/en57/En57-56-230-1956-eng.pdf

Hail Climatology for Canada – An Update — PDF
https://www.iclr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/hail-climatology-for-canada-an-update.pdf

3. China Weather Modification Program (2000s–present)

The world’s largest, with 30,000–37,000 personnel, the program uses rockets and anti-aircraft guns to disperse silver iodide or dry ice. It has been used to clear skies for the 2008 Olympics, reduce pollution, alleviate drought, and boost precipitation across 5.5 million km²—supported by ~$200M/year in government funding with $168M invested just in 2017.

Scale & Goals: “China sets aside $30 million for weather modification program” — Reuters, July 14, 2016: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/china-sets-aside-30-million-for-weather-modification-program-idUSKCN0ZU0CD/

Transboundary & Legal Concerns: “Transboundary Implications of China’s Weather Modification Programme” — Cambridge University, Nov 2023: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/transnational-environmental-law/article/transboundary-implications-of-chinas-weather-modification-programme/1165CCF111AD9F356EA7969F0F689B64

4. Russian Cloud Seeding (1990s–present)

Russia employs aircraft to disperse silver iodide and cement into clouds to suppress rain and snow during national events, such as Victory Day parades, or to reduce snowfall in urban areas.

Moscow Times — Russians use cloud-clearing techniques ahead of Victory Day

“Russia commonly uses cloud‑seeding techniques to control weather conditions on the most important national holidays.”
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/04/29/moscow-ready-to-use-cloud-clearing-techniques-on-victory-day-a34859

Universe Today — Cement chunk falls from failed cloud seeding

This article reports a 2008 incident where a cement sack, dropped during a Russian cloud-clearing operation, damaged property when it failed to disperse as planned.
https://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/01/when-cloud-seeding-goes-wrong-cement-chunk-falls-from-the-sky/

RT / ScienceAlert — Russia using climate tech to fight Siberian wildfires

Describes Russian operations dispersing silver iodide into clouds to induce rainfall during wildfire season.
🔗 https://www.russiantechnews.com/russia-uses-weather-modification-to-battle-wildfires/ (paraphrased based on RT article)

Wikipedia — Cloud Seeding overview confirms use in Russia

States that “cloud seeding is used in a variety of drought‑prone countries, including … Russia,” providing a summary of common practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

5. UAE Rain Enhancement Program

The UAE flies more than 200 cloud-seeding missions annually using drones, salt flares, and aircraft over desert regions. The goal: improve water security and recharge aquifers.

UAE Research Program for Rain Enhancement Science (UAEREP) — The official site by the UAE government: https://www.uaerep.ae/

Cloud seeding in the United Arab Emirates — Wikipedia article covering methods, history, and technology (mentions drones, salt flares, funding details): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates

Wired article “The New Gods of Weather Can Make Rain on Demand—or So They Want You to Believe” — In-depth coverage of UAE’s cloud-seeding program, budget, drone usage, and more: https://www.wired.com/story/new-gods-weather-rain-cloud-seeding-emirates/

6. SPICE – Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (UK, 2011)

A British-led research study proposed releasing reflective particles via balloon to test controlled stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). Intense public debate led to its cancellation in 2012 due to ethical and environmental worries.

UK Research Council project overview
“SPICE: Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering” — detailing aims, delivery methods, and environmental modelling:
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-decision-not-to-launch-the-1km-balloon-as-part-of-the-spice-geoengineering-research-project-2/

Royal Society’s 2009 Geoengineering report
“Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty” — background to particle injection strategies like SPICE:
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/

SPICE project flyer (PDF)
Outlines project objectives, governance concerns, and technical challenges:
https://www3.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh1/SPICE/papers/SPICEflyers.pdf

News coverage of SPICE cancellation
The Guardian article – “Geoengineering experiment cancelled due to perceived conflict of interest”:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/16/geoengineering-experiment-cancelled

Expert reaction
Science Media Centre coverage featuring comments from project scientists on the field trial’s cancellation:
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-decision-not-to-launch-the-1km-balloon-as-part-of-the-spice-geoengineering-research-project-2/

7. SCoPEx – Harvard Solar Geoengineering Program

Harvard’s Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) aimed to release calcium carbonate into the stratosphere via balloon. Funded in part by the Gates Foundation, it was paused after concerns from Swedish scientists and environmental groups.

Program review – Reuters:
“Planned Harvard balloon test in Sweden stirs solar geoengineering unease” – Reuters

Source: Harvard University / Additional context:
Keutsch Group at Harvard – SCoPEx official page

Source: Swedish Space Corporation cancelation & broader context:
“Sweden rejects pioneering test of solar geoengineering tech” – Reuters

8. India’s Cloud Seeding in Maharashtra

Triggered during monsoon failure, Maharashtra seeds clouds using aircraft and ground generators, guided by ISRO’s satellite meteorology. Initiated in the early 2000s and ongoing intermittently.

Indian cloud seeding history – Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

NDTV coverage of Maharashtra cloud-seeding efforts:
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/planes-to-carry-out-cloud-seeding-reach-maharashtra-weather-official-2074206

Further NDTV report on artificial rain in Maharashtra:
https://www.ndtv.com/video/the-secret-behind-artificial-rain-488694

9. Thailand Royal Rainmaking Project (1955–present)

Established by King Bhumibol in 1955, this project uses both aircraft and ground-based dispersal of dry ice and silver iodide. Featured patented techniques and remains active within the Department of Royal Rainmaking and Agricultural Aviation.

Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rainmaking_Project

Mandala Project: https://mandalaprojects.com/royal-rain-note.pdf

Relevant Patent(s): https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050056705A1/

10. Snowy Mountains Cloud Seeding (Australia, 2004–2016)

Operated by Snowy Hydro Ltd. and CSIRO, this program seeded clouds in the Snowy Mountains to increase snowpack for hydroelectric power. Studies noted “modest but consistent” increases in snowfall.

Snowy Hydro Cloud Seeding Overview
https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/generation/cloud-seeding/

Mid‑term Review of the Snowy Mountains Trial (PDF) (Natural Resources Commission, NSW, Oct 2010)
https://www.nrc.nsw.gov.au/Mid-term%20review%20-%20Cloud%20seeding%20trial%20-%20October%202010.pdf

Snowy Hydro Cloud Seeding Flyer (PDF)
https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/CS_Flyer_2011_web.pdf

ResearchGate – The Snowy Precipitation Enhancement Research Project: a description and preliminary results
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266469382_The_Snowy_Precipitation_Enhancement_Research_Project_A_description_and_preliminary_results

Section 4: Risks, Ethics, and Oversight Gaps

For all its scientific intrigue and technological ambition, geoengineering is not a neutral tool—it’s a high-stakes intervention with global consequences. What might seem like a clever fix for one crisis could easily trigger cascading disruptions elsewhere. The climate, after all, is not a machine—it’s a living, dynamic system of interconnected ecosystems, species, weather patterns, and energy flows. Tampering with one part, even with the best intentions, can ripple into unexpected and irreversible outcomes.

Despite this, geoengineering has quietly moved from the margins of theoretical science into the mainstream of climate policy and military research. Conferences are held. Patents are filed. Test flights are launched. And in many cases, this is happening with minimal public awareness, limited independent oversight, and little to no democratic input.

From unintended ecological side effects to international legal grey zones, from long-term health concerns to deep ethical dilemmas about who gets to control the planet’s thermostat, geoengineering raises more questions than answers—many of them uncomfortable.

And yet, the momentum behind these technologies is accelerating.

What was once dismissed as sci-fi or conspiracy is now a topic of serious discussion among world governments, billionaires, academic institutions, and military planners. Quietly, steadily, geoengineering is being normalized—not just as a backup plan, but in some cases as a frontline solution to planetary crises.

The problem?
We’re normalizing it faster than we’re understanding it.

Before these tools are adopted on a larger scale—whether by governments, defense agencies, or private enterprises—we need to confront the most important and least asked question:

Should we be doing this at all?
And if so—who decides, who benefits, and who takes the risk when it all goes wrong?

Environmental Uncertainty

The climate system is incredibly complex, interlinked, and sensitive. Efforts to manipulate weather or cool the planet could trigger:

Disrupted rainfall patterns, leading to droughts or floods in unintended regions
Ocean acidification from excessive CO₂ drawdown or artificial algae blooms
Ozone layer depletion from stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI)
Damage to ecosystems and pollinators through chemical dispersal
Feedback loops that could spiral into even more instability

A 2018 paper in Nature Ecology & Evolution warned that large-scale deployment of solar geoengineering could “radically reshape global climate patterns, with widespread risks to biodiversity and human livelihoods.”
And that’s assuming it “works.”

Public Health and Human Exposure

Many past geoengineering operations—especially during the Cold War era—involved unconsented exposure of civilians to chemical, biological, or radioactive agents:

Zinc cadmium sulfide
Barium and aluminum oxides
Biological tracers like Serratia marcescens
Herbicides like Agent Orange

While modern proposals tend to favor “safer” dispersal compounds, few long-term toxicity studies exist. The health effects of breathing nanoparticulate aerosols or ingesting chemically altered rainwater are poorly understood and rarely monitored, especially in vulnerable populations.

There is still no universal health protocol or diagnostic standard for detecting environmental exposure to geoengineered materials—something that, in any other industrial sector, would be unacceptable.

Lack of Oversight and Accountability

Perhaps the most glaring issue is this:
There is no binding international treaty, governing body, or citizen input process for geoengineering experiments.

This means:

National governments can greenlight sky-altering experiments with no global consent
Private corporations and defense contractors may run programs behind closed doors
Citizens exposed to airborne materials often have no legal recourse
“Research-only” programs can easily become de facto deployment in practice
Whistleblowers and journalists often face stonewalls or retaliation

While the United Nations has called for precautionary measures and equity-centered discussion, no enforceable international mechanism exists to regulate geoengineering. It is, for all intents and purposes, a policy vacuum.

Geopolitical Risk

Geoengineering may begin as a climate solution—but it has clear potential as a weapon.

Who controls the sky controls:

Crop yields
Rainfall patterns
Floods and droughts
Hurricane strength
Sunlight intensity
Global albedo (reflectivity)

If one country were to unilaterally launch a large-scale geoengineering program, it could alter weather in neighboring regions, cause mass migration, or destabilize food systems—whether intentionally or as collateral damage.

In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity called for a moratorium on large-scale geoengineering due to “unpredictable transboundary impacts.” Still, enforcement remains nonexistent.

The concern is not only hypothetical. In 1977, the ENMOD treaty (Environmental Modification Convention) was signed to prevent hostile weather manipulation during wartime—an explicit acknowledgment that weaponized geoengineering is real and potentially destabilizing.

Ethical Dilemmas

Even when well-intentioned, geoengineering forces us to ask:

Who gets to decide how the climate should be “corrected”?
Who benefits—and who bears the risk?
Is it ethical to tamper with ecosystems that billions depend on, without universal consent?
What happens when short-term fixes create long-term dependency on artificial intervention?
Are we trying to solve a problem… or mask the symptoms of our own destruction?

The danger lies not just in failure, but in success.
If a geoengineering solution “works” at reducing global temperatures, it may reduce pressure on fossil fuel divestment or delay needed systemic reforms—turning the planet into a managed, synthetic climate system indefinitely.

Summary: What Makes Geoengineering So Dangerous?

Risk Area	Concern
Environmental	Rain disruption, ecosystem imbalance, ozone damage
Health	Unknown toxicity, nanoparticle exposure, lack of safety studies
Legal/Political	No global governance, no consent mechanisms, no public accountability
Military Use	Potential for weaponization or coercion between nations
Ethics	Control of nature by unelected institutions; long-term ecological debt

Geoengineering isn’t inherently evil. But in the wrong hands—or even the right ones—it may become a technological gamble with planetary consequences.

Which brings us to the final, most important section:

How can we know what’s real? Who is telling the truth? And where can we find sources we actually trust?

Public Cautions and Questions for Accountability

By now, it should be clear: geoengineering isn’t speculation—it’s a documented global practice. And whether you believe it offers climate hope or existential risk, one truth remains: the public has been largely excluded from the conversation.

While geoengineering advocates often speak of “climate emergency response” and “controlled deployment,” most of these technologies—past and present—have been:

Funded without democratic consent
Deployed without public knowledge
Overseen by military or private institutions
Framed as “experiments” without follow-up accountability

This should concern everyone—regardless of political beliefs, environmental views, or scientific background. Because when you interfere with the sky, the oceans, the rainfall, or the food chain, you’re not just tweaking nature. You’re rewriting the conditions for life itself.

And yet, for all the scale and seriousness of these interventions, public discourse remains an afterthought—if it happens at all.

Caution #1: Don’t Dismiss Something Just Because It Sounds Wild

It’s easy to hear terms like “solar radiation management”, “stratospheric aerosol injection”, or “atmospheric modification” and assume it’s fringe science or internet fiction. But these are mainstream research priorities for some of the world’s largest governments and institutions, including:

Harvard University (SCoPEx)
China Meteorological Administration
U.S. Department of Energy
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The Royal Society (UK)
UN bodies like the WMO and IPCC

Dismissal is easy. Critical inquiry takes work.
But history has shown us—again and again—that the public is often the last to know when experiments move from the lab to the sky.

❗Caution #2: Don’t Confuse “Research” With Safety

Many programs claim to be “research-only”, but research is never neutral when it involves massive environmental variables and open-air testing. Stratospheric particles, artificial cloud formations, and ionospheric manipulation have real-world consequences, even in “small-scale” trials.

And yet:

There are no public health baselines to track impacts
There is no required third-party audit or citizen review board
There is no universal mechanism to notify, involve, or protect the populations exposed

If you heard a chemical was being sprayed into the sky near your home, would it matter whether it was called “an experiment”?
Wouldn’t you still want a voice in the process?

❗Caution #3: Beware of “Emergency Framing”

One of the most common rhetorical tools used to justify geoengineering is the “climate emergency” argument. While climate change is indeed a pressing global issue, we must be cautious of how crisis language is used to bypass consent and fast-track untested solutions.

History shows that governments have often used fear—whether of war, disease, or disaster—to roll out experimental programs quickly, quietly, and with minimal resistance.

Yes, we need climate action.
But action without accountability is just authoritarianism in a lab coat.

Untangling Geoengineering and Climate Change

Geoengineering and climate change are often confused—sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally. It’s an easy trap to fall into, especially in a world where science communication is fragmented and conspiracy theories circulate faster than evidence.

Let’s be clear: climate change is real, measurable, and overwhelmingly driven by greenhouse gas emissions from human activity—not by cloud seeding or stratospheric aerosols. This isn’t based on models or ideology. It’s confirmed by direct observations: rising global temperatures, melting ice, more frequent heatwaves, ocean acidification, and shifting rainfall patterns, all detailed in reports by NASA, NOAA, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Geoengineering, by contrast, is a response to that crisis—one that is increasingly being explored (and in some cases, quietly deployed) by governments and institutions around the world. It includes technologies like solar radiation management, carbon dioxide removal, and weather modification. Its goal is to mitigate or offset some of the damage—but it brings serious risks of its own, from unintended ecological side effects to the ethical dangers of planetary-scale interventions without global consent.

The confusion arises when people conflate the cause (fossil-fueled industrial activity) with the response (geoengineering experiments). And while some concerns about secretive programs and weaponized weather have basis in declassified history, that should not be used to dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus on how climate change actually works.

In short: climate change is real. Geoengineering is also real. They are not the same thing—but they are now part of the same conversation.

We owe it to ourselves—and to the planet—to keep that conversation honest, informed, and rooted in evidence.

Questions Every Citizen Should Be Asking

What geoengineering programs are currently active in my country?
Who authorizes them, funds them, and monitors their safety?
What materials are being dispersed—and who decides what’s “safe”?
Have there been health studies, soil tests, or water analyses in affected regions?
Is there a public review or appeals process?
Are these programs subject to environmental impact assessments (EIAs)?
What happens if there’s harm? Who is accountable?
If the atmosphere is being modified, who controls the data—and the narrative?

What You Can Do

Educate yourself using verifiable, peer-reviewed, and historical sources
Ask your elected officials about current or planned geoengineering operations in your region
Demand transparency from environmental and regulatory bodies
Push for legislation requiring full disclosure and public consent before any form of atmospheric modification
Support ethical science that includes oversight, human rights, and environmental justice

This isn’t just about science—it’s about sovereignty. It’s about who controls the commons: the air, the rain, the sun, and the climate we all share.

Before You Share or Dismiss: Key Considerations

We live in a time where truth is often overshadowed by tribalism, and where complex scientific topics are either weaponized or ridiculed before they’re understood. Geoengineering is a prime example of that divide.

So before you scroll past, roll your eyes, or hit “share,” here are a few things to sit with:

If someone calls geoengineering a “conspiracy”…

Ask them why governments, universities, and multinational agencies have been issuing weather modification patents, funding open-air particle dispersal trials, and publishing white papers on how to dim the sun.

Ask them why we have:

Declassified documentation of cloud seeding and chemical dispersal from the U.S. military
Weather modification treaties signed at the United Nations
Global programs underway in China, Russia, the UAE, Canada, and the U.S., with many openly acknowledged
A long history of experimentation on unwitting populations—from San Francisco to Vietnam

Conspiracies don’t come with line items in federal budgets.
This is documented history. And the fact that it remains so widely unknown is part of the problem.

If someone embraces geoengineering as climate salvation…

Ask them what happens when a few nations decide to “fix” the climate for everyone else—and get it wrong.

Ask them who pays the price if solar radiation management accidentally disrupts monsoons in Asia, or reduces crop viability in Africa, or triggers extreme drought in the American Midwest.

Ask them if they believe ecosystems are machines, with dials we can adjust without consequence.
Ask if they’ve considered the possibility of geo-political control over weather—and what that would mean for sovereignty, democracy, and basic human rights.

Science can be noble. But when rushed, commercialized, or militarized, it becomes indistinguishable from risk—and sometimes, from harm.

Truth is not a side.

It’s a lens—and geoengineering needs a lot more light through it.

We don’t need hysteria.
We don’t need blind trust.
We need transparency, accountability, and the courage to look up and ask harder questions.

Because if we lose the right to question what’s happening in our skies,
we may one day lose the ability to reclaim them.

Sources, References, and Recommended Resources

Everything discussed in this article is grounded in verifiable records, declassified documents, published studies, and publicly acknowledged research programs. The goal is not to promote fear or speculation—but to make facts accessible, evidence digestible, and critical questions unavoidable.

Here is a curated list of sources to back the information presented across all six sections of this article:

Declassified U.S. Government & Military Records

U.S. Senate Hearing – Weather Modification (1974):
Link to full transcript (PDF)
ENMOD Treaty (1977): Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
UN Treaty Text
Project Popeye Documents:
Pentagon Papers Excerpt – NYT
Operation Sea-Spray Coverage:
Smithsonian Magazine

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature

Robock, A. (2008). 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Keith, D.W., et al. (2010). The case for research into solar geoengineering.
Science Journal
Jones, A. et al. (2013). Aerosol effects on rainfall.
Nature Climate Change

International Programs and National Projects

China’s Weather Modification Program:
Reuters |
China Meteorological Admin
Canada’s Hail Suppression & Cloud Seeding (Alberta):
Alberta Severe Weather Management Society
UK SPICE Project Cancellation:
The Guardian
Harvard SCoPEx Program:
Harvard Solar Geoengineering Research Program

Documentaries & Investigative Journalism

The Dimming (2021) – Produced by GeoengineeringWatch.org
Watch Full Documentary
Frankenskies (2017) – Directed by Matt Landman
Film & Source Materials
BBC Horizon – The Secret Science of Climate Change
BBC Documentary Archive

Weather Modification Databases & Agencies

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) – Weather Modification Activities Reports
WMO Reports Portal
U.S. Patent Database – Atmospheric Modification Technologies
Search for patents including:
- US5003186A (Weather modification using space-based reflectors)
- US6315213B1 (Method for artificially modifying rainfall)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Weather Modification Research
NOAA Weather Modification Reports

Operations Sources & Further Information

Program / Operation	Source URL
Project Skyfire	Arnold1964_op.pdf
Project Cirrus	NOAA Cirrus Overview
Operation Sea-Spray	Smithsonian Magazine
Operation Dew	PMC Article
Operation Cumulus	BBC News
Operation Big Itch	Wikipedia
Operation Whitecoat	Wikipedia
Operation Drop Kick	Wikipedia
Operation LAC	PMC Article
Project Skywater	Wikipedia
Operation Ranch Hand	VA Public Health
Project Stormfury	NOAA Project Page
Operation Popeye	New York Times
Operation Soberania	Latin American Studies
HAMP	AMS Conference Paper
Alberta Hail Suppression Project	RM Outlook
Saskatchewan Cloud Seeding	Wikipedia
China Weather Modification	The Guardian
Russia Cloud Seeding	Wikipedia
UAE Rain Enhancement	Wikipedia
SPICE (UK)	Royal Society
SCoPEx	Harvard SCoPEx
India Cloud Seeding	Wikipedia
Thailand Rainmaking	Wikipedia
Snowy Mountains	Wikipedia
WMO Weather Modification DB	WMO Official Site

0 Shares

Tags:

From Cloud Seeding to Climate Control: What Geoengineering Really Is—and Why You Should Care

“That’s just a conspiracy theory.”It’s the phrase that shuts down curiosity before it starts.