How you can type this comment and not even for a second reflect on what you’re actually saying is baffling. Contrails are caused by moisture in the air being compressed by the movement of a plane’s wing through it. A fighter jet has an extremely thin wing allows it to move very quickly through the air with very little resistance at the cost of lift. A tanker’s wing is many times larger and thicker than a fighter jet’s wing and is designed to generate as much lift as possible. This means a taanker will generate a contrail that is not only larger when viewed from underneath, but is also far more thick than the one produced by a fighter jet and will take longer to disperse.
Protip if you don’t understand how something works, try to fully comprehend the “accepted” explanation before jumping down the conspiracy hole. So in this case when you’d ask yourself “what might cause different types of planes to produce differently behaving contrails” the next step would be reading about planes and aerodynamics, not “well obviously one of those planes is dispersing a chemical agent”.
This was on a hot, low-humidity day in San Diego. Those contrails should not have lasted for hours.
There is lots of air traffic in San Diego and I haven't seen large passenger 747s producing the effect. It's these military aircraft dispersing something which lingers in sky and gradually forms a very long and wide haze with an color hue that doesn't seem to suggest water vapor. Days where the RH is 10-20. It only happens every so often with no discernible relation to temperature or moisture. It's not something that I noticed more than 10+ years ago.
You linked a retracted paper full of objectively incorrect data as listed in the retraction.
Military planes and passenger planes fly at different speeds and altitudes.
This may come as a shock, but the temperature and humidity at ground level does not reflect the temperature and humidity experienced by planes during flight.
The author disputed the retraction which seems politically motivated.
The authors site (http://www.nuclearplanet.com/) and his response http://www.nuclearplanet.com/explainretractions.pdf
(post is archived)