BBC: ‘Chemtrails’ To Be Recognised As New Type Of Cloud

Chemtrails to be recognised as new type of cloud

According to the BBC, chemtrails are to be officially recognised as a new type of cloud in the International Cloud Atlas. 

According to BBC meteorologist John Hammond, the trails left behind in the sky by airplanes, known by many as ‘chemtrails’, will now be added to an official cloud reference encyclopedia, solidifying their status as a scientifically recognised phenomena.

In the modern day you will look up to the sky and see clouds made by airplanes. Once they are made they can linger for days,” John Hammond says.

BBC Science reports:

Now, embracing the digital era, the new atlas will initially be available as a web portal, and accessible to the public for the first time.

The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) publishes the atlas, and also has the final say on the contents, including the addition of “new” clouds and cloud features.

This time around 12 new terms have been added. The best known of these is asperitas, meaning rough-like in Latin, as the clouds can look like the tossing of the waves at sea when viewed from below.

These clouds were first recorded over Iowa in the US in 2006, but soon a torrent of similar images from around the world began to pour in to the Cloud Appreciation Society, a citizen science body.

They began to lobby the WMO for official recognition of the cloud type. But the fact that it has now been officially included came as something of a surprise.

“Back in 2008, I thought the chances of this becoming official were really minimal,” said Gavin Pretor-Pinney, president of the society.

“At first the WMO were saying they had no plans to do a new edition, but over time I think they began to realise there is an interest among the public in clouds and there is a need for that interest to be an informed one, there’s a need for this authoritative work.”

Asperitas becomes the first addition of a new recognisable term since 1953. In addition several other supplementary features of clouds have also been added including cavum, cauda (known as a tail cloud), fluctus and murus (known as a wall cloud).

In terms of the way the WMO classifies clouds, they have also added one new “species” – the volutus, or roll-cloud, a low horizontal tube-shaped cloud mass that appears to roll about a horizontal axis.

A key element in the evolution of the atlas has been the impact of technology. People all over the world are able to capture and exchange images on their smart phones of fleeting cloud formations.

“People don’t have to be an official weather observer, they don’t have to be schooled in the finer points of the International Cloud Atlas, they just go ‘that’s amazing’ and take a picture and send it to us, and being in the centre of that network we can spot a pattern,” said Gavin Pretor-Pinney.

The atlas also includes a recognition of the processes that can lead to cloud formation, so the clouds that arise from wildfires are now classified as flammagenitus.

Similarly patches of cloud that are formed over forests and over waterfalls are classified, but also one of the most widely seen features in the sky, contrails formed from the exhausts of airplanes, are given greater recognition.

“In the modern day you will look up to the sky and see clouds made by airplanes. Once they are made they can linger for days,” said BBC meteorologist John Hammond.

“It’s one example of how crucial knowledge of cloud physics is – it’s not just an aesthetic, our knowledge of clouds is still fairly limited.”

The new atlas also recognises some weather features that not everyone might agree can be seen as clouds. These include rainbows, halos, snow devils and hailstones.

“There is a blurred edge between what is a cloud and what is a sheet of hail falling from the sky,” said John Hammond.

“There are grey areas around the edge of this. All types of optical effects can be defined as clouds, be they halos or snow devils or rainbows, but I’m a little bit old-fashioned and I struggle with the inclusion of rainbows as clouds.”

Hammond believes that there will be many new entries in the future as long as the public remains engaged in the subject and he believes the opening up of the atlas via a web portal is a very good thing towards that end.

Gavin Pretor-Pinney from the Cloud Appreciation Society agrees that opening up the atlas is a huge positive.

“The value of the atlas is that it draws our attention to the sky and by learning the name of the formations, that is the way we pay attention to and value what we see around us.

“By giving a language to the forms of our atmosphere we are helping people to value our atmosphere and to pay attention our impact on it.”

  • Black Swan

    ” In the art of propaganda by the so called experts, and in the daily business of Public Relations, a cardinal rule is if a problem emerges, it must be managed immediately. The trick is to quickly ignore it or eventually acknowledge it and gain control of the new material, mitigating the damage by re-directing it in a beneficial way. This is known in the trake craft as “Block And Bridge” Russ Baker

    • Paxman
      • Matt Roberg

        LOL contrail science is the least scientific website ever. Hahaha. Thanks for the giggle, Paxman. You just made my day 🙂

        • Tom Parsons

          Please explain why.

          • Jesster

            Hey Tom. You seem to only reply to comments about chemtrails. My guess, you a shill, boi! 🙂 Not a very good one at that either. Up your game! Try not to be so obvious about it.

          • Matt Roberg

            Do I seriously need to explain this to you? Do you see any reference to any scientific studies or tests on that website? Really, Tom? Are we really doing this?

          • Michael Houston

            Do any chemtrail websites provide references to scientific studies backing up their claims? Note, this doesn’t include referencing scientific studies and misrepresenting their findings in the knowledge that none of their chemtrail-believing readers will ever actually read them. I mean studies which actually provide evidence for the specific claims of chemtrail conspiracists.

          • Matt Roberg

            Which references did you see on the website, Michael?

          • Michael Houston

            I haven’t looked at the website for a long time, so I don’t really remember the details of its content. It doesn’t matter whether contrail science has references or not. Anybody can do a bit of research and establish for themselves that contrail persistence has been a scientifically established phenomenon since the 1940s. Only in the mid-’90s did conspiracy theorists start claiming that these trails were anything other than water vapour ice produced as a by-product of hydrocarbon fuel combustion. They provided no evidence to back up this claim, and over 20 years later they have still provided no evidence. The burden of proof lies for the existence of chemtrails lies with you and your fellow believers. The burden of proof for contrail persistence is easily satisfied both via sound theory and observation. As yet, the only thing chemtrailers can do is assert that chemtrails are real and claim that anyone who says otherwise is one of the sheeple or a government shill.

          • Matt Roberg

            Thanks for your paid time, Michael. You have been most helpful.

          • Matt Roberg

            Have a proper gander at some propaganda.

          • Matt Roberg

            I don’t need to explain anything, Tom. Any person with an open mind and a couple of working brain cells can obviously see that the sole purpose of this website is to convince mainstream sheeple that geoengineering is a conspiracy. This website is managed by controlled opposition puppet Mick West.

          • Michael Houston

            “Mainstream sheeple”. Typical conspiracy theorist rhetoric. So Matt, tell me this. What is it about you that prevents you from being one of the mainstream sheeple? Why do you possess the special ability to see through the BS, when 90% of the population doesn’t? Are you, in your opinion, intellectually superior to most of the human race?

            One thing is obvious: chemtrail conspiracists can’t provide a shred of evidence to back up their claims, which is why they invariably resort to insults when their claims are questioned.

          • Matt Roberg

            There’s one thing we need to ask here, and I’m hoping you can help me out. Has a government or higher powers ever conspired against the masses? If the answer is yes (and I believe it is yes, quite obviously) then we need to figure out why and when they stopped conspiring against the masses. If the answer is no, then I guess potentially all of the conspiracy stuff may be made up. What do you think, Michael?

          • Michael Houston

            “There’s one thing we need to ask here, and I’m hoping you can help me out. Has a government or higher powers ever conspired against the masses? If the answer is yes (and I believe it is yes, quite obviously) then we need to figure out why and when they stopped conspiring against the masses. If the answer is no, then I guess potentially all of the conspiracy stuff may be made up. What do you think, Michael?”

            Your logic is obviously fallacious. The fact that the government has done X, Y or Z in the past does not prove that chemtrails exist. By your logic, I could accuse the government of covering up the existence of dragons, and this ridiculous claim should be believed on the grounds that the government covered things up previously. You are making specific claims and you must provide evidence for those specific claims. The reason you have to cite previous examples of government malfeasance as evidence for chemtrails is because you can’t provide any actual evidence for chemtrails.

          • Matt Roberg

            Well done, Michael. Sticking to the script like a good little puppet 🙂

          • Michael Houston

            Of course you are back to the insults, because you know you can’t deny the flaw in your logic or provide the evidence necessary to back up your claims.

          • Matt Roberg

            So, are you saying there’s no such thing as geoengineering?

          • Michael Houston

            I’m saying there’s no such thing as chemtrails, and no evidence of a large geoengineering conspiracy. When deliberately misinterpret my argument in order to make it easier for you to attack (the straw man fallacy), you further advertise the weakness of your position.

          • Michael Houston

            On the subject of persistent aircraft trails (call them what you will), there has been a solid scientific explanation for this phenomenon for decades – water vapour ice resulting from hydrocarbon fuel combustion. Can I ask which aspect of this explanation you think is flawed? Do you deny that the chemical reaction which powers aircraft necessarily produces large amounts of water vapour? Do you deny that a given air mass has a limit to the amount of water vapour that it can hold, and that once this limit is breached, condensation will occur, and that the water will immediately freeze at that altitude? It’s not good enough to simply declare that it is “propaganda” because it doesn’t support what you already believe, or that it is wrong by definition because it is “mainstream”. “Chemtrails” being condensation trails fits perfectly with the known behaviour of the substances involved under the relevant conditions. The chemtrail spraying explanation is utterly superfluous. It’s like inventing a conspiracy theory to explain why things fall to Earth under gravity. We already know why it happens.

          • Matt Roberg

            Yikes, you really do love the government a LOT. There must be some reason why you trust everything they say so blindly.. Hmm..?

          • Michael Houston

            Let’s go back to the logic here. You say chemtrails exist, and you seem to believe the fact that the government (whichever government you’re referring to) won’t admit their existence is proof (or at least evidence) that they do exist.

            Let us think of some other things whose existence is not admitted by the government:

            Dragons
            Leprechauns
            Unicorns
            The Norse Gods
            Planets made of cheese

            Now I don’t believe in any of these things, and I’m guessing you don’t either. But by your own logic, your refusal to believe in them must mean you really love the government and blindly trust everything they say. So wake up and believe in dragons, you gullible sheep!

            Maybe you’d like to address my previous point: which aspect of the persistent contrails explanation do you dispute, and on which scientific grounds do you dispute it?

          • Michael Houston

            You also haven’t answered my question as to why you believe you possess a special ability to see what the “sheeple” do not. You are claiming mental superiority over most of the population here, and I think we are entitled to know the evidence for that superiority, especially given that you don’t seem to understand even the basics of what constitutes a logically coherent argument and what doesn’t.

          • Matt Roberg

            There are two criteria which we need to address in order to use logic to solve problems. First we need to look at the structure, then we need to look at the logical fallacies within that structure.

          • Michael Houston

            “There are two criteria which we need to address in order to use logic to solve problems. First we need to look at the structure, then we need to look at the logical fallacies within that structure.”

            LOL, that’s a rather pathetic attempt at sounding knowledgeable..

            Your main fallacy is clear: you make the leap from “the government has previously acted in ways which are detrimental to the interests of its citizens” to “persistent aircraft contrails are really chemtrails and are being sprayed as part of a government conspiracy”. It’s an invalid inference. You need to provide evidence that the government is engaged in the specific activity that you claim it is engaged in. You simply don’t have that evidence. It’s akin to convicting a person of an act of burglary on the sole grounds that that person has previously been convicted of burglary, even though there is no evidence to tie the person to the crime scene.

          • G4Real

            This article just proved chemtrails exist, dumbass.

          • Michael Houston

            “This article just proved chemtrails exist, dumbass.”

            No it didn’t. It proved that there are idiots who think chemtrails exist, but then we already know that.

          • G4Real

            Sorry, I was out of line calling you a “dumbass”. But I’m way past trying to explain to naysayers that chemtrails exist, because anyone who watches the sky knows they do. And yes, by giving new cloud names to chemtrails they’re basically admitting they exist…

          • Michael Houston

            No they don’t and no they aren’t. A “chemtrail” is nothing more than a condensation trail which persists due to high humidity. The phenomenon had been scientifically documented since the 1940s, and then around 1996, conspiracy theorists started claiming that they were “chemtrails” and part of a secret spraying conspiracy. Nobody has ever provided any evidence to back up these claims. If you’d learn to stop accepting everything the alt media says as unquestionably true, you’d avoid falling for this BS. And no, I don’t advocate accepting everything the mainstream media says as true, either. I advocate viewing all claims with skepticism and determining their truth based on their plausibility and the evidence presented for them.

          • Michael Houston

            No they didn’t and no they aren’t. This phenomenon has been recorded since the 1940s. Only around 1996 did conspiracy theorists start claiming that persistent contrails were really chemtrails and evidence of a conspiracy. In over 20 years, they have not provided a shred of evidence to support this claim. If you’d actually try researching objectively rather than accepting every claim of the alt media without question (practising the same credulity that conspiracy theorists sneer at others for re the mainstream media), then you’d realise that this theory is nonsensical.

            And another thing, why are people who claim not to believe anything the mainstream media says happy to cite the BBC, a pillar of the British establishment and about as mainstream as it gets, in order to support their theory? Does this sort of inconsistency not make you think that maybe these people aren’t quite as “awake” as they claim to be?

  • Mike

    This article is bullshit!

  • Paxman
  • Paxman
  • Paxman
  • Thomas

    So, why is it the ‘contrails’ from the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s only stayed in the sky for a couple hours – and in many cases you could follow with your eyes behind a jet in the sky and see the ‘contrail’ disappear – and now they stay for “days” as this article says? What has changed?

    • Earthmama36

      The contralis that stay are laced with chemicals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHm0XhtDyZA&feature=youtu.be

    • Michael Houston

      Do you have empirical evidence that the contrails of now persist longer than the contrails of 10, 20 or 30 years ago? When I say empirical evidence, I don’t mean people’s assertions. I mean a systematic study in which the dissipation times of trails were recorded and their average lifespan calculated. Can you prove that there has been a statistically significant increase in the average lifespan of a contrail?

      • Thomas
        • Michael Houston

          How does this prove that aeroplane contrails are chemtrails? Why, if this has been going on on a massive scale for two decades or more, are they launching a research program now? You people are incredibly stupid.

          • Thomas

            Doing it to cover their tracks…no pun intended. There is evidence that this has been going on, Michael. Sometimes, though, it’s best to do your own research instead of being spoon-fed support for something you could take upon yourself to prove that it is NOT happening. Best.

          • Michael Houston

            What evidence? Show me it.

            If you had the slightest idea of critical thinking you would realise that it is not possible to prove a negative, and so the burden of proof for chemtrails, or for any other claim, always lies with those making the positive statement – i.e. those who claim that it is happening. You can’t prove that fairies don’t exist, but that doesn’t make it reasonable to believe in them.

            As for being spoon-fed, that’s exactly what’s happening with you. You’ll believe literally any claim as long as it is presented as being in opposition to the government and mainstream media. You’re a typical conspiracy nut. You think you’ve got some special ability to see through the BS, but in reality you’re the most gullible people in existence.

  • Michael Houston

    It’s amusing that conspiracy theorists, who claim not to believe anything the mainstream media says, are more than happy to cite the mainstream media so long as what’s being said can be spun in such a way as to provide validation of their beliefs. Chemtrailers are pure dogmatists, and like all dogmatists they are desperate for confirmation that their beliefs are true, and will take it from wherever they can find it, mainstream or alternative.

    • Gabriel Agustin Mayor

      My dad worked as a executive chef at the airport ive always watched planes & how the con trails disapear but chem trails dont !!!they stay there then spread out blocking the sun the clouds & haze thats created looks wierd & unatruel !!!!
      Micheal your just lieing and if your in the uk like i am lets meet so you can prove to me that iys normal because those chemtrails are not normal in any way !!!

      • Michael Houston

        LOL, your dad was a chef at the airport. Well how scientific! Sorry, but you need a systematic study to prove that contrails persist significantly longer now than they did decades ago. As far as I am aware, no such study exists. Until you can provide reliable scientific evidence – and not just anecdotes about what you think the sky was like 20 years ago compared to now – your claims can be dismissed out of hand.

        • Gabriel Agustin Mayor

          Tests show that its aliminium & berelium ive it has been tested as all one has to do is get a sample .. Its obvious whats going on because they seem to spray more on clear sunny sky days ,spraying from 5 am to late afternoon , its being done around the globe .
          You cant prove its not being done & also i think your very ignorent !!! Next your going to tell us that the bbc tells us real news & that they dont add sodium flouride industrial toxic waste in the public water supply in the uk after severn trent water admiting that they do .. The only thing im not sure about is why the chem trail spraying is going on , it seems only to be blocking the sun or to cause acid rain etc their our several reasons but that stuff they spray eventually falls to the ground … Even if i got proof you would still be ignorant to the truth !!! If you would like to prove to me chem trails do not exist please meet me as i live in the uk too !!!

          • Michael Houston

            “Tests show that its aliminium & berelium ive it has been tested as all one has to do is get a sample”

            How did they get a sample? Did they send some sort of drone up to fly behind the plane and collect it? What scientific journal were the results published in?

            “You cant prove its not being done”

            I can’t prove that fairies don’t exist ,either. That doesn’t mean I believe in them.

            ” i think your very ignorent ”

            You’d be better focusing on your spelling and grammar.

            ” If you would like to prove to me chem trails do not exist please meet me as i live in the uk too !!! ”

            The fact that you repeatedly demand that I prove that chemtrails don’t exist just demonstrates how utterly stupid you really are. The burden of proof always lies with the person making the positive claim, since it is not logically possible to prove a negative.