Ian Simpson / Look-up.org.uk debunks chemtrails & geoengineering

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member
It'd be more accurate to say he debunks himself, exposing both the inconsistencies in his argument and his lack of understanding at the same time.

Ian has written a response - Is George Monbiot a minion? to George Monbiot's article "The contrails conspiracy is not only garbage, it's letting aviation off the hook too". Ian has created a rather rambling piece which makes some extraordinary claims. For example, accusing Monbiot of not being interested in aircraft emissions (Monbiot has written about the topic regularly since at least 2006 and the Chairman of British Airways once said of him:-

"If we find the right way to harness the support of the travelling public, we can make real progress on climate change – and isolate the George Monbiots of this world who will never be satisfied until every runway is grassed over."

He also shows an example of Facebook supposedly "censoring" his posts, which is simply because he's viewing them using the "Top Comments" filter - apparently he's simply not a top commenter!

His most damaging and extraordinary claim is this one:-

The first paragraph is taken from the UK Department Of Transport Contrail Fact Sheet, the second is Ian's response stating why they are lying.

Ian simultaneously claims that even a child knows a "fixed mass" thins as it spreads, and that substances sprayed from planes can spread and fill the sky.

I only wish I could point this out to him :(

Ray Von
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
His most damaging and extraordinary claim is this one:-

The first paragraph is taken from the UK Department Of Transport Contrail Fact Sheet, the second is Ian's response stating why they are lying.

Ian simultaneously claims that even a child knows a "fixed mass" thins as it spreads, and that substances sprayed from planes can spread and fill the sky.

I only wish I could point this out to him :(
He's actually hit on one of the clearest and simplest debunkings of chemtrails that there is. Can he really not see that?!

It's quite mind-boggling.


On a less obvious note, this claim was pretty odd too:

[bunk]The entire month of November was grey (at least over London) during the day but strangely at night – when there is no aviation – we had mostly clear skies with clean, crisp air. Even the BBC reported that November had been the “dullest month on record” so sorry George, wrong again. Fact. Check. Perhaps.[/bunk]

While it is true that November was the dullest November on record (but not the dullest month on record overall), it is nonsense to say that the skies were clear and "crisp" at night. Anyone in northern latitudes knows that clear skies at this time of year are associated with cold nights, and the nights were anything but cold. Where I live just outside London we only had two air frosts all month. The nights were remarkable for their mildness, with minimum temperatures often in double figures (Celsius)!

upload_2015-12-11_10-47-0.png

Looking at the figures for the country as a whole, it is clear that the night-time minima were extremely high, which is not what you would expect with clear nights!


(http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/anomacts)


Ian even says himself:

[bunk] Have they also failed to notice that when it is cloudy in the winter, it is unnaturally warm, and when there is no cloud it is bloody freezing[/bunk]

Another contradiction!

The reason it was so cloudy and mild is quite simple - because the wind direction was southwesterly for almost the whole month, bringing in very mild and moist air from the Atlantic. This is not an uncommon pattern for the UK, although the duration of time we have been stuck in it is quite noteworthy.


And in any case, it has mostly been a very sunny year in the UK. November was an exception. Winter 2014/15 was the sunniest on record:

upload_2015-12-11_10-44-50.png
upload_2015-12-11_10-45-12.png

April 2015 was also the sunniest April on record:

upload_2015-12-11_10-44-7.png
 
Last edited:

Henk001

Active Member
Another claim in Ian's response is about the temperature and height at which persistent contrails could form.
What does the science say? In this article (Calculations of Aircraft Contrail formation Critical Temperatures (Mark L. Schrader)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0450(1997)036<1725:COACFC>2.0.CO;2
you can find that the critical temperature drops with height (pressure). At 500 hPa (roughly 18.000 ft) it can be as high as -35°C, for a modern engine with a contrail factor of 0.039

And this isn't even about supersaturated regions (hum > 100%)
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
The -57ºC figure was quoted (incorrectly) by the UK Met Office for a time, and Ian latched onto it.
 

Balance

Senior Member
o_O you guys don't have aviation at night?
Mostly no, due to noise-abatement.

https://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2827&pagetype=90&pageid=16158
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member
o_O you guys don't have aviation at night?
Mostly no, due to noise-abatement.

https://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2827&pagetype=90&pageid=16158
There are transcontinental flights that cross the UK airspace at night.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
There are transcontinental flights that cross the UK airspace at night.
Yes, I work late hours so I am often commuting home by bike well after midnight, and I frequently see contrails on moonlit nights. (And there are infrequent late arrivals/departures at Heathrow which go roaring above the house at unsociable hours - I believe the airlines have to pay fines for such events.)

For comparison, here is the current FR24 picture (about 1.30pm), filtered to show flights above 28000ft:

upload_2015-12-11_13-38-8.png

And here it was at just after midnight last night:

upload_2015-12-11_13-39-27.png

Those ones crossing the London area are flights from America to mainland Europe, and there are plenty of them through the night, as well as some (but far fewer) in the other direction.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member
To add a bit of context, I did a quick Google of Look-Up to get some of Ian's previous claims regarding how contrails are able to grow:-

"Partly cloudy?"

"From wing to cloud"

"The Met Office wouldn't lie to us. Would they?"

Ray Von
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
His most damaging and extraordinary claim is this one:-

The first paragraph is taken from the UK Department Of Transport Contrail Fact Sheet, the second is Ian's response stating why they are lying.

Ian simultaneously claims that even a child knows a "fixed mass" thins as it spreads, and that substances sprayed from planes can spread and fill the sky.

I only wish I could point this out to him :(

Ray Von
The real point here is that a persistent contrail can grow, but it does so not by thinning, as Ian says, but rather by gathering moisture already present in the ice supersaturated air. The graphic below shows the extent for which this is possible, as reported in a peer reviewed paper decades ago.

Ice Budget.jpg

I just sent the above info to Mr. Ian so he has been informed of his error and the true state of affairs.
 
Last edited:

Chew

Senior Member
So if mass can't increase, how many aircraft would be required to cover England in aluminum nanomagicalparticulates?

England covers 130,279 km².
Cirrus clouds have a liquid water content of 0.03 g/m³.
Let's be generous and assume the "chemtrails" are only 10 meters thick.
Aluminum has a density of 2.7.
Assume a fully-laden European Boeing 747-8I only carries 10% of its fuel load so it can take-off, get to altitude, drop its load, and land. The amount of chemjuice it could carry is its max take-off weight - operating weight empty - 10% fuel load = 213,500 kg.

It would require 494 flights by 747-8Is to accomplish this task. Seems plausible.
 

Efftup

Senior Member
So if mass can't increase, how many aircraft would be required to cover England in aluminum nanomagicalparticulates?

It would require 494 flights by 747-8Is to accomplish this task. Seems plausible.
Not if you still think the Military is involved in Spraying.
Perusing the list of Active UK Military aircraft, the UK has 12 x Airbus Voyagers (based on A330), 6 x E3-Ds, 2 xRC135s ~(both based on Boeing 707), 8 x C17, 6 x A400M. 4 x Bae146 and 2 x Avro RJ That's only 40 aircraft of roughly Airbus A318 family size or bigger.

for the UK MILITARY to achieve this, they would need ALL THOSE AIRCRAFT flying 32 flights a day each for a total of 1,280 flights.

So each plane has 45 minutes to load up completely with 10% fuel and lots of chemjuice, take off, reach spray area, do the spraying and return to base and land and do it constantly for 24 hours.
 
Top