Cris,

before initiating a petition, you want to be sure that the issues you list are real.

What you need is a sample from a contrail, taken in the presence of witnesses, analyzed in a lab to show all components contained. Pointing to Youtube videos as evidence will not be enough. How do you know that the video creators got it right?

The original meme of Chemtrails is that any trail that is not short-lived must be something else, and that persistent trails are something new. As shown before, both of these are wrong assumptions.

It’s just a matter of the favorable atmospheric conditions, and has been observed since the first airplanes were able to reach high altitudes.

So why assume that persistent contrails are something evil in the first place?

By the way, HAARP and weather modification (rain making) were stacked upon the first claims only later. However, cloud seeding is known since the 1940s and has never been a secret or been applied on a larger scale.

HAARP had interacted with the ionosphere which has no influence on the troposphere far below (where the weather happens). It is being dismantled right now.

What’s left are countless images and videos of contrails, sun dogs, haze layers. Would you accept if officials tell you these are all effects of tiny ice crystals?

If not, then what would you be prepared to accept?

Leonard Clampett,

weather patterns are changing, something scientists have predicted would happen for quite a while.

How is that relevant in the debate about persistent contrails?

Hi Josh
I don’t need any more evidence. I need answers.
Why are there so many of these trails when rain is likely or predicted?
How about the people at the helm, the political minitures, sign documents at their own unlimited commercial liability saying the there is no Geoengineering happening? Lets see if they have the guts to do that. If not, why not? Is something being hidden? Why are there near 150 patents for chemical weather remediation? Lots of whys and you wish to dampen the fire of resistance. I guess fluoride and vaccinations are no problem either?
The rot must be stopped and it won’t be by sitting on our hands.
Selah
Cris

Cris,

you ask: “Why are there so many of these trails when rain is likely or predicted?”

Very good question, and one that should be answered before assuming all kinds of bad things.

Approaching fronts are the most frequent cause of rain. During their approach, they lift the current air mass. Lifting always means cooling (see “lapse rate”), and cooling means rising the relative humidity because cooler air can hold less water vapor. So even while containing the same absolute amount of water, cooling air approaches the point where the relative humidity reaches 100%.

This is the “dew point” - at that moment you get clouds because the water vapor condenses.

Now when a plane comes by and passes through the lifted moist air, shortly before the dew point is reached - then it is obviously much more likely to create a contrail because the conditions for trails are a lot better than usual, and it continuosly contributes water vapor (from the fuel combustion) along its path which adds to the existing humidity, triggering a trail and probably the start of a haze layer.*

This phase may last several hours, especially with warm fronts.

There is a nice schematics of “lifting mechanisms” on this page from NC State University.

Your next question is not quite reasonable. Why should anyone have to prove the non-existence of ongoing geo-engineering? It’s clearly required to prove its existence in the first place before making accusations. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Patents are no evidence for anything. It’s easy to get one, you don’t have to build anything or even show that your invention actually works.

I’m sure there is a lot of rot that must be stopped. I just don’t think it’s where you assume it is.

* Footnote: the whole thing gets a bit more complicated when ice comes into play.

I am drawn back to read further nonsense every time I receive a note to advise that somebody has responded to a relevant post. Rosa Koire Speech about Agenda 21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-qLUQlmBk4 When you read and hear commonsense it makes you think. For Hereward Fenton and the other government shills on this site who insist that governments can, and will, do no wrong, compare the Agenda 21 list of goals to the 8 steps of Carl Marx listed in his Communist Manifesto. None of the claims by Josh or others regarding “lingering” chemtrails stand up to scrutiny so far. Josh’s simplistic dreams about cloud formation and “lingering” contrails are just that. I note some claims about wanting a pilot to comment, but apparently my comments as an Airline Transport Pilot of 14,000 hours and Aircraft Maintenance Engineer do not suit his misinformation, or outright ignorant, position. When the realisation hits these people, I wonder if they will understand what is being done to us all in the name of the New World Order?

Leonard Clampett,

can you point out where anyone around here wrote or somehow conveyed the opinion “that governments can, and will, do no wrong”? The fact that contrails can persist and spread doesn’t have the slightest impact on the morality of governments ...

Do you doubt the basic mechanism of cloud formation that I summarized exists? Then please explain where I got it wrong - or the University of North Carolina that I linked to - or all my flight teachers and the text books for the exam - or all the guide books about clouds.
Be specific, don’t just say “misinformation” without giving any reason. By all means, show some actual “scrutiny”, along with references.

Of course I could have introduced dry and saturated lapse rate, condensation nuclei and many more sophisticated details, but that does not alter the principal mechanism of rising, cooling and increasing RH.

By the way, your credentials are not helping, I’m afraid - at least as long as you display a basic misunderstanding of central processes like combustion or supersaturation (which you claim doesn’t even exist).

Engineered Drought Catastrophe, Target California
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsYG5emdZp8#t=64
So Josh, your argument against chemtrails on all points. There is nothing to debate.

Geoengineering is Real: British Academic Reveals Size and Scope of Operation

“The term ‘Chemtrails’ is not a conspiracy theory either. The name can be traced back to the US Congress itself. House Bill 2977, Space Preservation Act 2001, Page 5, line 15, under the heading of “exotic weapons”.”

Josh,
I believe you are simply out of your depth trying to impress others with knowledge you allege to have gleaned from glider flying instructors, and, as you write, the University of North Carolina you have “linked” to, or you are a mis-informationist, a shill, a useful tool to others. Either way you are simply misguided. Your quoting of terms you have read in textbooks does you no service. Your claims about supersaturation demonstrate your lack of knowledge. You need to understand supersaturation in regard to meteorology is mainly associated with thunderheads, hail and freezing conditions way beyond the normal. Have you ever seen a cumulonimbus topping out at 60,000 feet? I can say without fear of intelligent contradiction that you have never, in a glider, experienced a micro-burst at low level because you would, or should, never have been making an approach to land in such conditions. Supersaturation can result from the internal violence associated with the updrafts inherent in a low level thunderstorm.  Being a glider pilot does not mean you have sat and passed any of the senior level meteorology examinations as I have done in both Australia and Canada. To be a private glider pilot you only need to have passed the meteorology examination for a private pilot to demonstrate you have sufficient knowledge of basic meteorology to hopefully fly safely. Did you know that urine can become supersaturated and cause kidney stones? No massive changes of freezing level temperatures there, I can assure you. No doubt you will respond with some inane theory, but if it makes you feel superior please do so. I hope you are not passing on your inanities to young glider pilots around the bar at the gliding club whilst expanding you ego at their expense. Because meteorology is more of an art than a science, using science to compose theories, I can set you an examination with particular details regarding a place, and no matter whether you answer yes or no to the question posed, I cannot mark you wrong if you back up your answer with logical reasoning. e.g. “Will there be fog in the morning at place A given the following forecast ambient conditions?” Nobody can be 100% sure of the answer and must wait and see if the forecast proves correct.

Simple physics regarding clouds from Wikipedia for your assistance. There is much more from other sources but I do not have the time to train you.
Supersaturation.
1. To cause a chemical solution to be more highly concentrated than is normally possible under given conditions of temperature and pressure.
2. To cause a vapor to exceed the normal saturation vapor pressure at a given temperature.

Cloud physics is the study of the physical processes that lead to the formation, growth and precipitation of clouds. Clouds consist of microscopic droplets of liquid water (warm clouds), tiny crystals of ice (cold clouds), or both (mixed phase clouds). Cloud droplets initially form by the condensation of water vapor onto condensation nuclei when the supersaturation of air exceeds a critical value according to Köhler theory. Cloud condensation nuclei are necessary for cloud droplets formation because of the Kelvin effect, which describes the change in saturation vapor pressure due to a curved surface. At small radii, the amount of supersaturation needed for condensation to occur is so large, that it does not happen naturally. Raoult’s Law describes how the vapor pressure is dependent on the amount of solute in a solution. At high concentrations, when the cloud droplets are small, the supersaturation required is smaller than without the presence of a nucleus.

In warm clouds, larger cloud droplets fall at a higher terminal velocity because the drag force on smaller droplets is larger than on large droplets. The large droplet can then collide with small droplet and combine to form even larger drops. When the drops become large enough so that the acceleration due to gravity is much larger than the acceleration due to drag, the drops can fall to the earth as precipitation. The collision and coalescence is not as important in mixed phase clouds where the Bergeron process dominates. Other important processes that form precipitation are riming, when a supercooled liquid drop collides with a solid snowflake, and aggregation, when two solid snowflakes collide and combine. The precise mechanics of how a cloud forms and grows is not completely understood, but scientists have developed theories explaining the structure of clouds by studying the microphysics of individual droplets. Advances in weather radar and satellite technology have also allowed the precise study of clouds on a large scale.

History of cloud physics

The history of cloud microphysics developed in the 19th century and is described in several publications. Otto von Guericke originated the idea that clouds were composed of water bubbles. In 1847 Agustus Waller used spider web to examine droplets under the microscope. These observations were confirmed by William Henry Dines in 1880 and Richard Assmann in 1884.
Formation
Rising packets of moist air

As water evaporates from an area of the earth surface, the air over that area becomes moist. Moist air is lighter than the surrounding dry air, creating an unstable situation. When enough moist air has accumulated, all the moist air rises as a single packet, without mixing with the surrounding air. As more moist air forms along the surface, the process repeats, resulting in a series of discrete packets of moist air rising to form clouds.
Supersaturation

The amount of water that can exist as vapor in a given volume increases with the temperature. When the amount of water vapor is in equilibrium above a flat surface of water the level of vapor pressure is called saturation and the relative humidity is 100%. At this equilibrium there are equal numbers of molecules evaporating from the water as there are condensing back into the water. If the relative humidity becomes greater than 100%, it is called supersaturated. Supersaturation occurs in the absence of condensation nuclei, for example the flat surface of water.

Since the saturation vapor pressure is proportional to temperature, cold air has a lower saturation point than warm air. The difference between these values is the basis for the formation of clouds. When saturated air cools, it can no longer contain the same amount of water vapor. If the conditions are right, the excess water will condense out of the air until the lower saturation point is reached. Another possibility is that the water stays in vapor form, even though it is beyond the saturation point, resulting in supersaturation.

Supersaturation of more than 1–2% relative to water is rarely seen in the atmosphere, since cloud condensation nuclei are usually present. Much higher degrees of supersaturation are possible in clean air, and are the basis of the cloud chamber.
Supercooling

Water droplets commonly remain as liquid water and do not freeze, even well below 0 °C (32 °F), because of the high surface tension of each microdroplet, which prevents them from expanding to form larger ice crystals. Without ice nuclei supercooled water droplets can exist down to about −40 °C (−40 °F), at which point they will spontaneously freeze.
Collision-coalescence
Main article: Coalescence (meteorology)

One theory explaining how the behavior of individual droplets leads to the formation of clouds is the collision-coalescence process. Droplets suspended in the air will interact with each other, either by colliding and bouncing off each other or by combining to form a larger droplet. Eventually, the droplets become large enough that they fall to the earth as precipitation. The collision-coalescence process does not make up a significant part of cloud formation as water droplets have a relatively high surface tension. In addition, the occurrence of collision-coalescence is closely related to entrainment-mixing processes.[7]
Bergeron process
Main article: Bergeron process

The primary mechanism for the formation of ice clouds was discovered by Tor Bergeron. The Bergeron process notes that the saturation vapor pressure of water, or how much water vapor a given volume can hold, depends on what the vapor is interacting with. Specifically, the saturation vapor pressure with respect to ice is lower than the saturation vapor pressure with respect to water. Water vapor interacting with a water droplet may be saturated, at 100% relative humidity, when interacting with a water droplet, but the same amount of water vapor would be supersaturated when interacting with an ice particle. The water vapor will attempt to return to equilibrium, so the extra water vapor will condense into ice on the surface of the particle. These ice particles end up as the nuclei of larger ice crystals. This process only happens at temperatures between 0 °C (32 °F) and −40 °C (−40 °F). Below −40 °C (−40 °F), liquid water will spontaneously nucleate, and freeze. The surface tension of the water allows the droplet to stay liquid well below its normal freezing point. When this happens, it is now supercooled liquid water. The Bergeron process relies on supercooled liquid water interacting with ice nuclei to form larger particles. If there are few ice nuclei compared to the amount of SLW, droplets will be unable to form. A process whereby scientists seed a cloud with artificial ice nuclei to encourage precipitation is known as cloud seeding. This can help cause precipitation in clouds that otherwise may not rain. Cloud seeding adds excess artificial ice nuclei which shifts the balance so that there are many nuclei compared to the amount of supercooled liquid water. An over-seeded cloud will form many particles, but each will be very small. This can be done as a preventative measure for areas that are at risk for hail storms.
Dynamic phase hypothesis

The second critical point in the formation of clouds is their dependence on updrafts. As particles group together to form water droplets, they will quickly be pulled down to earth by the force of gravity. The droplets would quickly dissipate and the cloud will never form. However, if warm air interacts with cold air, an updraft can form. Warm air is less dense than colder air, so the warm air rises. The air traveling upward buffers the falling droplets, and can keep them in the air much longer than they would otherwise stay. In addition, the air cools as it rises, so any moisture in the updraft will then condense into liquid form, adding to the amount of water available for precipitation. Violent updrafts can reach speeds of up to 180 miles per hour (290 km/h).[9] A frozen ice nucleus can pick up 0.5 inches (1.3 cm) in size traveling through one of these updrafts and can cycle through several updrafts before finally becoming so heavy that it falls to the ground. Cutting a hailstone in half shows onion-like layers of ice, indicating distinct times when it passed through a layer of super-cooled water. Hailstones have been found with diameters of up to 7 inches (18 cm).[10]
Cloud Classification
Main article: List of cloud types

Clouds are classified according to the height at which they are found, and their shape or appearance. There are three basic categories based on physical structure and process of formation. Cirriform clouds are high, thin and wispy, and are seen most extensively along the leading edges of organized weather disturbances. Stratiform clouds appear as extensive sheet-like layers, ranging from thin to moderately thick with some vertical development. They are mostly the product of large scale lift of stable air. Cumuliform clouds are formed mostly into localized heaps, rolls and/or ripples ranging from very small cloudlets of limited convection in slightly unstable air to very large towering free convective buildups when the airmass is very unstable. Clouds of limited convection that show a mix of cumuliform and stratiform characteristics are often grouped into a fourth category, stratocumuliform.

These categories are cross-classified by high, middle, low, and vertical altitude ranges into ten genus types. All cirriform clouds are classified as high and therefore constitute a single cloud genus cirrus. Stratiform and stratocumuliform clouds in the topmost region of the troposphere have the prefix cirro- added to their names yielding the genera cirrostratus and cirrocumulus. Similar clouds found at intermediate heights carry the prefix alto- resulting in the genus names altostratus and altocumulus. No height-related prefixes are used for the low altitudes, so clouds of these two physical categories based around 2 kilometres or lower are known simply as stratus and stratocumulus.

Vertically developed nimbostratus (deep stratiform), cumulus, and cumulonimbus may form anywhere from near surface to intermediates heights of around 3 kilometres and therefore, like the low clouds, have no height related prefixes. However, those capable of producing heavy precipitation or stormy weather carry a nimbo- or -nimbus designation. Of the vertically developed clouds, the cumulonimbus type is the largest and can virtually span the entire troposphere from a few hundred metres above the ground up to the tropopause. It is the cloud responsible for thunderstorms. Its complex structure often combining a cirriform top and stratocumuliform accessory clouds with an overall cumuliform structure sometimes result in this genus type being separated into a fifth physical cumulonimbiform category. This leaves the cumulus genus with its simple heaped structure as the sole purely cumuliform physical category type. Small cumulus is usually considered a low cloud genus, while taller cumulus is more often grouped with cumulonimbiform and deep stratiform genus types as vertical or multilevel.
The cloud chamber, also known as the Wilson chamber, is a particle detector used for detecting ionizing radiation.
File:Home Made Cloud Chamber.webmPlay media
A Home Made Cloud Chamber
Image taken in the Pic du Midi at 2877m in a Phywe PJ45 cloud chamber (size of surface is 45 x 45 cm). This rare picture shows in a single shot the 4 particles that we can detect in a cloud chamber : proton, electron, muon (probably) and alpha

In its most basic form, a cloud chamber is a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. When a charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the mixture, the fluid is ionized. The resulting ions act as condensation nuclei, around which a mist will form (because the mixture is on the point of condensation). The high energies of alpha and beta particles mean that a trail is left, due to many ions being produced along the path of the charged particle. These tracks have distinctive shapes (for example, an alpha particle’s track is broad and shows more evidence of deflection by collisions, while an electron’s is thinner and straight). When any uniform magnetic field is applied across the cloud chamber, positively and negatively charged particles will curve in opposite directions, according to the Lorentz force law with two particles of opposite charge.

Cloud chambers played a prominent role in the experimental particle physics from 1920s to the 1950s, until the advent of the bubble chamber. In particular, the discoveries of the positron in 1932, the Muon in 1936, both by Carl Anderson (awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1936), and the kaon in 1947 were made using cloud chambers as detectors. Anderson detected the positron and muon in cosmic rays.

Leonard Clampett,

I wish you could point out in one sentence or two why you think my explanation is wrong regarding increased contrail activity that precedes approaching weather fronts.

Copying and pasting heaps of loosely related paragraphs is very unconvincing.

On the good side, I see that you now seem to acknowledge that supersaturation in the atmosphere exists. Several pages earlier, you wrote: “Firstly let me iterate that there is no such thing supersaturation in the free atmosphere at any altitude.” So some advancement there.

However, you picked the wrong sort of supersaturation. Persistent contrails depend on supersaturation with respect to ice instead of supersaturation with respect to water. This occurs at much lower levels of relative humidity (with respect to water); it can happen below 70% already and is in no way limited to the vicinity of thunderstorms.

We have been through this before, you know. That’s why I’m repeating the quotes and their reference from scientic papers that I already gave you on that previous page:

From The dependence of contrail formation on the weather pattern and altitude in the North Atlantic:

Aircraft flying through cold ice-supersaturated air produce persistent contrails which contribute to the climate impact of aviation[/url]

From Cirrus, contrails, and ice supersaturated regions in high pressure systems at northern mid latitudes:

The radiosonde data showed that the upper troposphere was very often supersaturated with respect to ice.

From Formation, properties and climatic effects of contrails:

Condensation trails (contrails) are aircraft induced cirrus clouds, which may persist and grow to large cirrus cover in ice-supersaturated air

From Properties of Ice-Supersaturated Layers Based on Radiosonde Data Analysis:

While supersaturation with respect to ice is not required to form a contrail, it is necessary for the contrail to persist for long times.

From Contrail formation in aircraft wakes

[...] contrails form when the air surrounding the particles becomes supersaturated with respect to ice.

From Aviation and the Global Atmosphere:

Each of these freezing mechanisms requires that the atmosphere be highly supersaturated with respect to the vapor pressure of ice before crystals can form.

Andrew Adams,

two remarks in reply to your post:

1. The “British academic” is David Lim, a former PhD candidate at University of Reading, his subject “Construction Management and Engineering”. His field of research included urban/domestic energy concepts, like in this project.

He has dropped out in 2013 after getting involved with the chemtrail conspiracy theory (and others). He now calls himself an “independent researcher”, but unfortunately he is obviously just reurgitating some long debunked mainstream claims of the chemtrail community, like the one you quoted.

2. The original text of H.R. 2977 was written by Alfred Webre, Carol Rosin and others from the ‘Institute for Cooperation in Space’ (ICIS).

The term ‘chemtrails’ is listed under the category ‘exotic’, along with other hypothetical weapons like ultrasonic, tectonic or psychotronic ones (see original text).

Dennis Kucinich removed these ‘exotic weapons’ in a second version of the bill. It seems he hadn’t scrutinized the first version properly. He said “When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’” (Reference : Ohio Newspaper “The Plain Dealer”, 2003-03-12)

Carol Rosin later commented on the modification: “This bill will only ban space-based weapons and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit. It is NOT a bill to ban chemtrails and/or psychotronics or mind control devises or any specific weapons listed in the category of definitions in the original bill.” (Reference)

So that’s all there is to it. Apparently, you can write anything into a congressional bill; there is no obligation for reality checks (unlike with scientific papers).

Still no evidence that persistent contrails are anything but.

Josh
Pardon me iff I dont take you seriously. Chemtrails or if you like, persistant contrails, are nothing new. To suggest that because something is “exotic” means that it is hypothetical, shows your disingenuousness or your stupidity, or both.. Ive learnt long ago not to trust unqualified anonymous numpties on the internet who say things like, “Still no evidence that persistent contrails are anything but.” when all one needs to do to discredit that nonesense is to be in possession of a functioning cognisant ability, and to look up.  If thats not enough, there is plenty of scientific proof also. that shows chemtrails are actually not that exotic at all, that they have been used for decades for various purposes. It is all documented. I have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say, you have said it all, countless times already in this post. You really should get yourself a hobby, maybe go outside once in a while, unless youre scared.

Andrew Adams,

‘looking up’ does not tell you much about atmospheric physics. You can’t see that the air gets cooler with increasing altitude and decreasing density. You can’t see the wildly varying relative humidity, the pockets of ice supersaturation or the jet streams.
It takes knowledge and measurements to understand and make predictions. That’s what meteorologists and atmospheric scientists are there for, after all.

Regarding the notorious “Case Orange” text - supposedly compiled by an anonymous group of people - it is not even coming close to a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It piles up a lot of conjecture together with well-meaning statements that everybody can subscribe to. It also constantly mixes up contrails, cloud seeding and low-altitude chemical dispersion which are entirely unrelated things.

Can you point me to the best evidence in this text for the claim that persistant contrails are deliberately mixed with spraying material, as part of “large-scale geoengineering projects through commercial aviation”? I can’t find any.

What do you think is the single most important fact that supports the theory that persistant contrails are not just ice crystals? I am ready to be convinced if it stands up to scrutiny.

@ lumpen josh
what part of “I have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say, ” is too hard for you to understand?
I do not have to justify anything to you, i dont have to point you to anything, i dont have to engage you in any sort of conversation here because you have proven yourself to be of no credibility, a nonsensical bore.

nothing you can say can prove that chemtrails are a figment of the imagination of highly qualified credible people worldwide, so how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU and stop pretending you are some sort of authoritive arbiter on anything.

As admin of this site I feel I need to step in here. Andrew, if you do not not want to engage in discussion and debate that’s fine, however you have absolutely no right to tell anybody to “STFU”.

I have provided a comment section to encourage free discussion and debate. Your dictatorial and abusive tone merely demonstrates your failure to prove anything.

Since you don’t want to engage in rational debate may I suggest that you refrain from posting here?

Have a nice day!

The onus of proof is on those promoting geoengineering (David Keith, etc.Ken Caldera) to prove that what they say about the spraying, i.e. that it is a proposal, not a global reality, is true. That follows from the precautionary principle.

fenton, i didnt say i didnt want to engage in rational debate, i said i wasnt interested in engaging with an obviously mendacious shill. i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive, and as far as failure to prove anything goes, ignoring evidence does not mean evidence has not been provided, nor proof been established.

you have certainly not proven by any stretch of the imagination, that chemtrails are imaginary, and the concern of thousands of credible experts worldwide is without justification.

may i suggest if you can not prove what you are asserting, that you also take a hearty sip yourself. have a shitty day.

“i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive” - yes, you have mate. Earlier you said “how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU”. That is both dictatorial and abusive. We’ll now add “dishonest” to the list of your shortcomings. Have a nice day.

It amazes me how rational people can think that the same stuff coming out the back of a plane can one day increase to enormous size and exhibit strange transformations(usually when rain is forecast) and other days is either non existent or merely dissipates from visibility within a minute.

Andrew Adams,

I don’t claim to be an expert. However, I have read a lot about both chemtrail claims and their dissection from a scientic point of view, from sources that are accessible to everyone.

If something specific that I wrote is wrong, I certainly welcome a correction. Usually, I’m giving references from actual experts, so it’s only fair that any rebuttal should include specific references too. Also, I’d welcome if we could stay polite.

The science of persistent contrails is well established. They were observed since the early days of aviation (see also the top article), and the conditions that favour them were researched in the middle of the 20th century (Schmidt and Appleman, see for instance the introduction of this paper).

The Appleman Chart is a rule of thumb for contrail prediction. It is not very intuitive, but there is a visualization available which allows to adjust the parameters and see how the contrail properties are changing (needs Java).

Any claim that a specific persistent contrail cannot be explained with this knowledge needs to be based on very good evidence. If the evidence is reviewed and still stands, science has to be corrected. That’s the whole idea about scientific research - but the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.