The MET Office wouldn’t lie to us. Would they?
Last updated 15.09.2015
When we speak to people on the streets about what is going on we find the following ratios time and time again:
A. IDS sufferers*, deniers and angry, brainwashed people – 5%
B. “It’s a load of conspiracy nonsense and we are all paranoid and delusional” – 5%
C. Indifferent and simply walk on – 20%
D. “Interesting but I’m sceptical. I will read up on it” – 50%
E. “I know all about this” Stop and talk to us – 20%**
We could break down the groups further to explain their makeup and why we think they react in these ways, and we may do as part of another article, but here we simply deal with why some people can’t put 2 and 2 together and get 4. There seems a deeply ingrained tendency in many people to try to explain it away, dismiss it or simply not believe it, despite very clear evidence to support it.
Here we present a video that shows very clearly aircraft flying over Brighton leaving persistent trails that spread to form ‘clouds’.
If one were to travel further inland they would see these trails spread so far that they eventually join and form a grey layer covering the entire sky. Indeed we regularly see a completely clear, blue, dawn sky turned grey in exactly this way, and entirely as a result of ’emissions’ from aircraft, so we are puzzled as to what exactly it is that people don’t believe? Maybe it is that this could actually be happening.
There is a term for this state: Cognitive dissonance
According to Festinger, we hold many cognitions about the world and ourselves; when they clash, a discrepancy is evoked, resulting in a state of tension known as cognitive dissonance. As the experience of dissonance is unpleasant, we are motivated to reduce or eliminate it, and achieve consonance (i.e. agreement).
Because accepting our information means accepting that something very big and potentially very bad is happening, and worse still that whoever knows it is happening is trying very hard to cover it up, it causes a great deal of confusion, emotion and even anger in people when they first learn about it. The easiest way to re-instate a sense of consonance is to diminish the importance of such information in one’s mind, so as to make it less intrusive and disruptive.
Put another way, we all live in a virtual nest that we have built in our minds. It is a comfortable construct of our lives, relationships and the information that we are exposed to. On the whole we can cope with small shifts and changes, but if someone comes along and starts to chop down the entire tree in which our nest is built then some of us panic and refuse to accept it is happening because we are incapable of reacting in any way or simply don’t know how to react. The only remaining course of action is to ignore the chopping and pretend it isn’t happening.
The film you have just watched is a perfect example of this. It proves beyond doubt 2 things.
1 Aircraft are making clouds. They never used to but they do now. An increase in air traffic cannot explain why modern, super-clean jet engines are behaving differently to how they used to so something has changed or something is happening that did not happen 30 years ago.
2. The MET Office are at lying to us. We know this because they have named these new types of clouds while failing to mention they are created by aircraft, in an attempt to mislead the public into believing they are naturally occurring. At the same time they try to claim that aircraft can produce cloud cover, particularly Cirrus, but do not make any link between that inference and the new cloud types they have invented. By doing this they are clearly trying to cover all bases while admitting to nothing. That is commonly known as deception or subterfuge.
Fortunately for you there are people such as ourselves who are clever enough to catch these people out and show what they are really up to. We will be exposing the full extent of the rather stupid and coarse attempt by the MET Office to pull the wool over our eyes in a further, more detailed examination of new cloud types invented in the last few years. In that article we will dissect the latest disinformation publication by the MET Office:
In said document the MET try to insinuate that all these cloud types are not only naturally occurring, but that they have always existed. They don’t state this directly but they infer it by not mentioning the truth, which is they have all been created in the last 10 years, and are almost all exclusively formed as a result of substances released from aircraft.
Here are just a few examples of the strange, newly created cloud formations we now see. All images are from the new document – An Introduction to Clouds
In the forthcoming article we will show more time-lapse footage and film of almost all of the newly created cloud types forming directly from stuff pumped out by commercial passenger aircraft. When you see the entire process from wing to huge cloud bank covering vast areas, suddenly the enormity and bitter reality of this situation becomes abundantly clear, as does the fact that the MET Office are clearly on the back foot and trying desperately to cover the tracks of the airlines involved in weather modification.
Recent news also claims the BBC have axed the “climate change obsessed MET Office“. No wonder; maybe they have realised something is very deeply wrong with what they are publishing.
In an attempt to expose further their subterfuge, we sent this image to the MET recently, which is a still from the film above and asked them to name the ‘clouds’ we see in it.
Here is the record of correspondence from a MET Office weather desk employee and a meteorologist:
———————– Original Message ———————–
From: Ian Simpson <—details removed—>
To: ‘Enquiries’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:12:53 +0100
Subject: Unusual clouds?
I was in Brighton this weekend just gone and photographed some unusual cloud formations. Having looked on your website I was unable to identify them and wondered if you might assist.
Thank you for your email regarding clouds.
Please find below a response from one of our meteorologists:
“Thank you for your question.
Unfortunately the cloud formations you’ve photographed are not hugely unusual just various types of cirrus clouds at differing levels, we could classify it as “confused”. The more dense bands are contrails and it looks like some patches of cirrocumulus developing from them, that is rare but not unusual.
For more explanations of clouds, types and , please see the link to the learning pages of the Met Office website;
I trust this explanation helps.”
— Name removed —
Weather Desk Advisor
We would suggest that it is the MET Office meteorologist that is confused:
“The more dense bands are contrails and it looks like some patches of cirrocumulus developing from them, that is rare but not unusual.” We often encounter this type of duplicity when trying to get explanations from them about aircraft induced clouds. Forgive my illiteracy, but I do not believe something can be both rare and not unusual.
Also interesting is the fact that one sentence begins Unfortunately – “Unfortunately the cloud formations you’ve photographed are not hugely unusual just various types of cirrus clouds at differing levels, we could classify it as ‘confused‘ “. It is certainly unfortunate for us as it is basically aircraft pollution being dumped on us nearly every day. Secondly the formations we see are not at different levels at all; they have all been released by aircraft traveling at roughly the same altitude, and all the formations reside at similar altitudes. Last but not least from this incredulous email, to use the term confused is laughable and tantamount to admitting they have no idea what to say anymore, because on many days the sky is such a bloody mess from an array of weird formations from difference chemical trails that attempting to classify them becomes almost futile. That is why the document contains in excess of 40 cloud types, whereas when I was at school there used to be about 9 or maybe 12, and none of them came from planes !
The other glaring problem here is that we did follow the link, but there is no mention on that page that this type of cloud could be produced by substances sprayed from aircraft as he readily admits in the email (hence the 3rd email from us). Indeed, there is also no mention of the fact that this cloud type is exclusively produced by aircraft, and in fact, we think only by one single type of aircraft – Airbus A319/320/321. Why is none of this mentioned in the MET Office publications, website or communications?
Why also are the MET referring to these types of formations as rare, when they are the dominant cloud type in our sky almost every day and everywhere?
If this phenomena is natural why the secrecy. Why are ‘contrail-induced clouds’ not talked about openly and featured in our weather forecasts every day? Most days our weather is dominated by, or even completely defined by trails from aircraft. Why is this never mentioned, and why are aircraft not being routed away from populated areas so as to give us all a bit more sunshine? In fact the opposite seems to be true, we have shown that most air traffic in Europe is deliberately routed, sometimes hundreds of miles out of course, to fly over densely populated areas and cities. Why?
We know why obviously, but we might suggest you consider these points carefully before dismissing this topic out of hand. The MET Office are being very shady indeed. They are clearly hiding something, being evasive and non-committal, and quite simply trying to deceive us.
Unfortunately the cloud formations you’ve photographed are not hugely unusual
We could not agree more MET Office. Why are we seeing rare cloud formations in our skies almost every day that are produced by aircraft? Why are you not concerned by this or even acknowledging it?
So we wrote back to them:
Thank you for responding promptly.
I read with interest your response and wondered why, in the description of that types of cirrocumulus cloud to which the link included below directs me, it does not say that it is produced by aircraft as you suggest? Does it also occur naturally or is it exclusively a cloud formation resulting from aircraft emissions?
I look forward to your further response.
Thank you for your email regarding cloud formations.
In answer to your questions, cirrocumulus does form naturally and as stated in our previous response it is rare but not unusual for this cloud type to form from contrails. Our online cloud guide covers the most common causes of clouds.
For more in-depth detail regarding cloud formation please see our clouds factsheet;
We hope this has further answered your question.
If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please let us know. Our Weather Desk team are available to assist you 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Simply reply to this email or give us a call on 0370 900 0100 and one of our advisors will be happy to help.
— Name removed
Weather Desk Advisor
Our email contained very important and direct questions about why there is no mention of the fact that these cloud types are derived entirely from aircraft emissions. It seems clear from the conversation that they are not willing to address this rather crucial discrepancy. It is not surprising really, because by doing so they would be admitting that their latest publication – An Introductions To Clouds – is a blatant attempt to mislead the public into believing that these cloud types are naturally occurring and thereby encouraging them to ignore the fact that substances sprayed from commercial aircraft now define our daily weather.
Lewis I read with interest your further reply.
Firstly I would like to point out that you mention these types of clouds are rare, and yet they clearly are not as we see them almost every day and pretty much everywhere over the UK. In fact they are, along with induced Cumulus, the dominant cloud type nowadays and seem to form exclusively from contrails, so I am not sure why you refer to them as rare?
I have read the document An Introduction To Clouds in great detail, from cover to cover. The thing that struck me most was the fact that I have filmed almost every cloud type featured in that publication forming from aircraft trails. I have photographs, time-lapse films and normal HD video of many of the formations evolving directly from contrails. Oddly though, despite many hundreds of hours of research I have never seen Cirrocumulus form independently of air traffic or contrails.
Can you please also explain why there is not a single mention of aircraft in the document, and the fact that most of the types of cloud formations featured in An Introduction To Clouds are formed as a result of aircraft emissions. Furthermore there seems to be no mention of the fact that most have also existed for a limited time, having been identified and named only in the last 10 years?
Can you please also confirm why contrail clouds are not a regular feature of weather forecasts and meteorological data published by the MET Office?
It all seems very confusing to me that on the one hand you are trying to suggest, by way of naming these new cloud-types and releasing publications describing them all, as in the An Introduction To Clouds, that they are natural, and yet at the same time, when questioned, you are admitting that these types of clouds are the result of aircraft emission. It seems strange and confusing to me that if aircraft had always ‘made clouds’ then it would be a topic openly discussed in weather reports and yet there is no mentions of the fact that aircraft emissions now dominate our weather on your website or published data. Why not?
Most days now start off clear, and end up grey due to contrails clouds. Is that normal? Has that always happened? Are you, individually or as an organisation, concerned by this at all? Are there any plans to start to admit publicly that all the new cloud formations are made by aircraft, or at best derived from aircraft emissions, and to discuss this fact in weather reports or weather data?
As I am so concerned by your vagueness and confusing response I would be grateful if you would take the time to respond in detail to my individual points so I can get clear answers from you about the relationship between aircraft and clouds.
I am nearly 50 and I remember aircraft never used to affect our weather in any way, so why are they now? Simply claiming there are more aircraft makes no sense obviously, as I’m sure a learned person as yourself will realise, so something else must be going on.
I look forward to your detailed response.
Dear Mr Simpson,
Thank you for your email regarding cirrocumulus cloud from aircraft emissions.
I have contacted one of our scientists who specialises in cloud physics. Please see their response below;
“1) Correlation does not imply Causation. Figure 2 of Fact Sheet 1 contains some important information that relates to the behaviour of both natural cirrus clouds and aircraft contrails. This is that there is a significant difference in the saturation vapour pressure over liquid water and over ice at sub-zero temperatures. It is possible to find conditions in the atmosphere that are supersaturated with respect to ice but sub-saturated with respect to liquid water. Spichtinger et al. (2005) discuss one such example (Spichtinger, P., K.Gierens, and H.Wernli.; 2005, A case study on the formation and evolution of ice supersaturation in the vicinity of a warm conveyor belt’s outflow region. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol.5, Pp 973-987).
Where normal atmospheric dynamical processes and the availability of suitable nucleating aerosol enable natural cirrus to form in such regions, then the ice particles can clearly grow since the environment in which they are formed is supersaturated with respect to ice. Similarly, if an aircraft contrail is formed in such conditions, then the ice particles formed in the contrail are able to grow and evolve.
Hence the co-location of natural cirrus cloud forms and persistent aircraft contrails are both symptoms of the same thing – suitable conditions of temperature and humidity in the environment. Correlation does not imply Causation.
2) The notion that most of the cloud type names have somehow only been coined within the last 10 years is a curious one. I have personally been employed in the Met Office for 37 years now and I recognize all of those names from my early instruction in observing cloud types. I am aware that we are accused of inventing the term “cirrus uncinus” as part of this alleged process. Even the most casual inspection of the scientific literature would identify this paper from 40 years ago:
Andrew Heymsfield, 1975: Cirrus Uncinus Generating Cells and the Evolution of Cirriform Clouds. Part I: Aircraft Observations of the Growth of the Ice Phase. J. Atmos. Sci., 32, 799–808. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032<0799:CUGCAT>2.0.CO;2
The National Meteorological Archive holds early editions of publications such as “Cloud Types for Observers (1962)” that will also demonstrate the longevity of the majority of the names in the classification, in addition to the several publications referenced on page 4 of Fact Sheet 1.
3) Just an additional comment on the subject of “Most days now start off clear, and end up grey due to contrails clouds”. This is clearly an exaggeration. However, there is a simple explanation that applies to some days when it does occur. Reference to the historic “Norwegian model” of a frontal weather system tells you that the first sign of an approaching warm front is commonly the appearance of high cirrus cloud that is effectively the sign of moisture being advected into the region from the frontal system upstream. Such conditions are clearly also conducive to the formation of persistent contrails. The natural evolution of cloud that is then expected in such as case is to see a gradual thickening and appearance of cloud layers at lower altitudes as the warm front approaches.
4) On the notion that persistent contrails are more frequently observed now. There are simple grounds for this to be true. It is not simply related to an increase in air traffic, but also to an increase in the thermal efficiency of modern high-bypass turbofan engines. There is a well-established body of work by Schumann and others (see references in the attached note) that explains why this is so. Modern engines can trigger contrail formation in environmental conditions where earlier generations of engines would not have done so.”
I will be drawing a line here and ceasing correspondence regarding this enquiry. We have provided our publicly available data as well as that from one of our scientists. We cannot offer you anymore information regarding this enquiry and we will not be responding to any future enquiries via email or phone call that are of this nature.
Well, once again lots of technical sounding stuff that diverts from the questions and the lack of answers to those questions. The observable and provable fact is that all the cloud types we have referenced as being derived or induced from aviation emissions, leaving aside whether they are sprayed or natural for now, are described in the Fact Sheet – An Introduction To Clouds – without a single mention of the fact that they are indeed exclusively as a result of aviation emission. Despite Lewis and Co trying to suggest these types of cloud form naturally as well as from aircraft emissions, observation does not support this. We have been watching the sky daily for 3 years and not once have we witnessed the many new types of clouds form independently of aircraft. Aircraft or contrails are not mentioned once in the document, and that is the point we are trying to get the MET Office to explain and yet they won’t or can’t but it amounts to the same thing. They refer to Figure 2 having some important information, but again, no mention of aircraft or contrails. Lewis insinuates that the information applies to both, but there is no mentions of contrails.
They are lying to us. And like naughty children who have been caught out, to cover their lies they are telling more lies. It is an incomprehensibly stupid tactic because anyone can simply go outside and see this. We are not dealing with subtle clues in far away lands or things on other planets, we are dealing with bloody great big lines that come from aircraft right above our heads which spread out over huge areas and turn into thin cloud cover. That never used to happen, but it does now, and virtually every day. Our sky is now dominated on most days by these new, induced cloud types. To prove this we have compiled a gallery for your viewing pleasure. We rang the MET back to ask them to comment on this gallery that clearly shows that over several days our sky is dominated by stuff that came from aircraft, but they refused to comment, preferring to pass it onto to others to view and get back to us. We await their further response to our gallery.
All the images in the gallery below have been taken over London in the past 3 days. There is not one single cloud formation that is not as a result of aviation emissions. As each day progresses the sky becomes increasingly full of spread out trails until the sky is just a hazy streaky mess . In the recorded telephone conversation with the weather desk adviser we stated she quite arrogantly states:
Sarah-Jane Harris – MET Office weather desk adviser:
The fact sheet doesn’t actually say that the clouds are only made from vapour trails it say they can be made from vapour trails (there is no mentions of aviation at all at any stage in the fact sheet thereby insinuating the clouds are natural)
Us: Most of the cloud that we see in our sky now is forming from emissions from aircraft.
Sarah-Jane Harris – MET Office weather desk adviser:
I can fundamentally tell that is an incorrect statement.
We beg to differ !
Have a nice day, and enjoy the err… sunhaze or whatever other bizarre condition they have created for us today.
*IDS – Irrational Defense Syndrome – a term we coined to describe people who cannot resist trying to explain everything we present in great detail with complex scientific-sounding explanations, but which make very little sense. Generally we let them speak and then ask them how they know all that, and mostly they have absolutely no idea. It is as though the information had been put there somehow. We expand on this elsewhere on the site.
**this depends to some extent on the location. Brighton, for example, is full of intelligent people who don’t watch much TV and walk along the seafront regularly and so are much more likely to have noticed and be knowledgeable about this topic. If you were to be in a Croydon shopping mall the percentage would likely be considerably lower, with a compensating rise in group C.