I'm not familiar with the document, but it seems rather pointless. The current defining descriptions of turbulence don't require "looking out the window," and under those definitions, what's seen outside the window is irrelevant.
As far as determining turbulence by airspeed changes...this is a ridiculous concept. I've certainly seen very significant airspeed changes with no associated turbulence, and I've seen significant tubulence with very little airspeed change. Further, one need not be climbing or descending at several thousand feet per minute to be in severe or even extreme turbulence.
I've spent considerable time in severe and extreme turbulence while operating in strong winds very close to mountainous terrain (often with in several feet of mountainous terrain)...turbulence severe enough that the instrument panel became somewhat of a blur and at times aircraft control became very difficult. Sometimes airspeed has been jumping all over the place, but at other times not...and I can tell you that were rates of climb or descent of several thousand feet per minute necessary to experience severe or extreme tubulence, I'd be part of a rock somewhere by now. My own experiences have very clearly met the current defining criteria for various states of turbulence...but whereas I might be five or fifteen feet from the mountainside at the time, a rate of several thousand feet per minute descent is simply a poor descriptor.
With current descriptions such as "makes walking about the cabin difficult," we have a good set of criteria which have never required looking out the window at "contrails or clouds."
I haven't seen your paper, but I'm not sure it would do much to enhance how we interpret turbulence or chop.