Talk:Cirrus cloud

Untitled
Just a quick note... the link "Earth's Clouds" doesn't exist. Should we replace with just "Clouds"? --12.205.145.117 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Aviation and climate change
I have recently added a new article on Aviation and climate change which makes reference to cirrus clouds. I would like to add a reference to the new page to this one. I propose something like:

"If there are many cirrus clouds in the sky it may be a sign that a frontal system or upper air disturbance is approaching. Cirrus clouds can also be the remnants of a thunderstorm. A large shield of cirrus and cirrostratus typically accompanies the high altitude outflow of hurricanes/typhoons. Cirrus clouds have been observed to develop after the persistent formation of condensation trails from aircraft (see aviation and climate change)".Normalmouth 21:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to note, I fixed this too, but I doubt you'll see this message! ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Cirrus intortus
Cirrus intortus redirects here, but it is never talked about or even mentioned. The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Altocirrus? Seems still to be a popular name, probably outdated – or just for pest control or music? Some say: There is no "alto cirrus cloud". Could you please mention it and explain why this popular cloud has gone? – Fritz Jörn (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Inflation
OK, I've now expanded the article 5x. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a typo in the first section, re/ the text "range from 1 ice crystal per 10,000 liters (3 ice crystals per gallon) to 10,000 ice crystals per liter (32,000 ice crystals per gallon)". I think that 1 crystal per 10,000 liters (3 crystals per gallon) is intended to be 1 crystal per liter (3 crystals per gallon). However, 1 gallon is also ~3.78 liters, so the conversion of 3.2 in the second phrase (10,000->32,000) doesn't make much sense, either. I am not implementing these fixes, as I'm not a cirrus-cloud expert, just pointing out the inconsistencies. --Anon/ 3-Feb2011
 * Oops! Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Temperature notation
I mentioned this in a text note, but thought it could use a little more discussion. The article uses multiple temperature abbreviations, for example, "This raises the temperature of the lower atmosphere beneath the cirrus clouds by an average of 10 K."

In giving temperatures, the "R" abbreviation can mean the Rankine scale or the Réaumur scale. While they're both (little-used) temperature scales, they are distinctly different measures. I found myself scratching my head before I figured out just what was meant; I even thought it might be vandalism and looked around for the edit in which it (the vandalism) was committed. I would suggest some less-ambiguous abbreviation for Rankine (which I eventually figured out was what was meant), such as the "Ra" mentioned in Wikipedia. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the convert template and replaced it with 10 Kelvin (18 Rankine). Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Distinctly clearer! I suppose you could, if you like the undefined undefined form, use it after introducing the scales as the article now does... --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead and ideas for more content
Remember that the lead of the article is supposed to be a summary of the content below. For example, their formation from eyewalls in tropical cyclones is not touched upon in the lead...merely their presence near jet streams. It would be a good idea to elaborate in how they are used in short term single station weather forecasting as they precede tropical cyclones. The Cubans (and sailors) used to use this to great advantage when they forecasted (or avoided) TCs back in the late 19th century. I added a line in about it...but more could be added, if the referencing can be found. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to this tonight, but I have a lot of work to do, so things are starting to slip a bit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I enjoyed the article and its stunning collection of photographs! Amandajm (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

American English / British English / Other nationalities of English
I have removed the American English tag that was added to the discussion page today. The article as it currently stands (prior to it becoming today's FA) was a mix of American and British English. As per WP:RETAIN, a consistent usage should be retained in the article. It should not be decided unilaterally. Instead, a discussion should be held. If no consensus can be formed, then the first useage should be adopted.

Important dates for discussion: Singularity42 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The first use of a varying English word in this article was on October 5, 2004, when the word "centre" was used in a picture caption:.
 * The above instance was changed to "center" by an IP on January 24, 2006:.
 * The word "metres" was introduced on October 24, 2005:.
 * The word "characterized" was introduced on March 3, 2006:.


 * We usually disregard stubs in this context. (Otherwise, users would be encouraged to create low-value articles specifically for the purpose of locking in their preferences.)
 * Can you identify the first non-stub revision in which a particular English variety predominated or someone performing a major improvement happened to use one? —David Levy 17:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Cirrus cloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://chalk.richmond.edu/education/projects/webunits/weather/cirrus.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dri.edu/People/pat/webWPA/pdfdocs/CirrusGlory.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cirrus cloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017165021/http://www.weather.com/glossary/c.html to http://www.weather.com/glossary/c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cirrus cloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006222018/http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/%7Eliougst/Group_Papers/Liou_Yearbook_2005.pdf to http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~liougst/Group_Papers/Liou_Yearbook_2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Anybody like to update climate change section?
I hope someone might take this on. Otherwise the article should probably have a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review

Also minor points:

Should "level" be used instead of "étage"?

Does it matter that User:Headbomb/unreliable.js shows some books with warning yellow? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See User:Headbomb/unreliable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Etage" is the correct technical term. I've linked it to wiktionary, and a brief parenthetical element explaining its meaning is already in the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Unit conversions
Regarding the ice crystal concentration, I have given concentrations in both SI and US customary units so that readers from both the USA and elsewhere will be able to easily understand the density. The reason I did not give the density in particles per m^3 is because the source has it in particles per liter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry I cannot find the cite for that or the thickness. Also I suspect any readers who don't understand "liter" might also subconsciously think of water when they read "gallon" and get confused thinking the crystals melt into water. But I am not American so not sure. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Click the citation following those claims, and it'll take you to the reference list. Click on the link there to be taken the the bibliography, which shows the source to be Dowling and Radke's 1990 paper titled "A Summary of the Physical Properties of Cirrus Clouds".
 * Regarding the measurements, m^3, liters, and gallons are all units of volume. Physical density is in terms of unit mass per unit volume. In this particular case, due to the capture method, the paper gives a sort of pseudo-density in terms of particle count per unit volume. Arguably, anybody who will confuse this pseudo-density with the physical density of water (1 kg/L) would be confused regardless of the volume unit used. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Routine arithmetic is allowed. I think it would be clearer in cubic metres with cubic yards in brackets. Maybe a third party would like to comment? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't particularly care whether the volume units are in liters or cubic meters. I think it should be in liters since the source is in liters (primarily due to the sampling method used to identify the concentration), but obviously a simple 1000/1000 multiplication could be applied to get 30,000 ice crystals / m^3. US customary units should be in cubic feet, not cubic yards, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not a scientist but would https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/9/3505/2009/acp-9-3505-2009.pdf be a suitable cite? If I understand right the top of Fig. 9 is giving numbers per cubic cm Chidgk1 (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's definitely quite valuable. The paper itself is more focused on supersaturation than on bulk cirrus cloud information, and as such doesn't appear to give the mean density anywhere. However, it does give plenty of information regarding ranges of expected values for relative humidity and density, so I could incorporate some of this information into the article. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Upon further review of the article, I think that it could be a good source for a one-paragraph discussion on relative humidity and supersaturation inside cirrus clouds. That paragraph probably belongs in the description section. The article also seems useful as an additional (and more recent) source for the ice crystal density information, and I could perhaps expand a bit on the relationship between temperature and ice crystal density. However, I don't want to go full information overload on the reader. I'll try to write that paragraph tonight. Thoughts? Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent. On metric I am wondering whether Americans might think of road vehicles in terms of their cc for example a 400cc Honda motorcycle - and thus the ordinary American might be familiar with cubic centimeters - or even litres if they own some big gas guzzler? I am a Brit and in UK many older people would be familiar with cc as a volume of air like this, but would probably still think of litres as a volume of liquid as UK cars tend to be smaller or electric nowadays. As for younger people anyone born in UK from 1960 onwards would have learnt metric at school. Do all Americans learn metric at school or only those studying science? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Americans "learn" metric units in that we know that "3.3 feet = 1 meter". In my experience, outside of scientific circles, Americans do not have a concept of what metric units mean. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Should the mid-étage and low-étage paragraphs be removed?
Unless I misunderstood they don't seem to interact with cirrus? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They are under the "relation to other clouds" section to show differences between high-level clouds like cirrus and low- or mid-level clouds. I think they should stay. If I recall correctly, they were requested as part of the FAC because people wanted comparisons for what makes a cloud "high". Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Height in different parts of world?
Not sure my change from "middle latitudes" was correct. As Antarctica is mentioned in body could we say in lead tropical height and height "elsewhere"? Or as height numbers mentioned in first para can we avoid further numbers in lead and just say that they are (generally?) higher in hotter parts of the world? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Linking to either middle latitudes or temperate climate is fine, since temperate climates are found in the middle latitudes. Mentioning the altitude in temperate regions and just saying that it's higher in tropical regions in the lede is also fine. I avoided mentioning polar regions in the lede since very few people live there. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What about "Cirrus forms between 4,000 and 20,000 m (13,000 and 66,000 ft) above sea level, and tends to be higher above hotter ground"? or "Cirrus forms between 4,000 and 20,000 m (13,000 and 66,000 ft) above sea level, and tends to be higher in hotter parts of the world."? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The former is inaccurate, but the latter is alright. I don't particularly like either, though. Perhaps: "Cirrus forms between 4,000 and 20,000 m (13,000 and 66,000 ft) above sea level, and tends to be higher in tropical parts of the world." Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Article headers & infobox
This edit fundamentally breaks the article's layout. It also duplicates images in the article and adds an infobox that is generally unwanted. (See both the consensus in both the original FAC and the FAR where this article was kept as a featured article for details.) The infobox includes both inaccurate and misleading information, and the edit summary is confusing me because all this information is already included in the article's body. SuperTyphoonNoru, can you please explain more as to why you keep reverting this information back in? Reaper Eternal (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It makes it so it’s more easier to find the information without scrolling. Why do cumulonimbus clouds or cumulus clouds have infoboxes but this not? How are you gonna find the symbol?   🌀 SuperTyphoonNoru 🌀  SuperTyphoonNoru (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * By reading the article or even just the lead section. This isn't a chemistry or biology article, with a ton of specialist facts common across a wide range of chemical elements or biological species. Furthermore, it doesn't help if the information is inaccurate of misleading. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * who said it was unwanted? also what does chemistry or biology have to do with this? why do cumulonimbus have an infobox? it helps   🌀 SuperTyphoonNoru 🌀  SuperTyphoonNoru (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "who said it was unwanted?" Pretty much everybody in the consensus at FAC and again at FAR. "also what does chemistry or biology have to do with this?" Chemistry and biology articles have very distinct and discrete properties that work well with an infobox. I was giving them as an example of a counterpoint. "why do cumulonimbus have an infobox?" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "it helps[.]" I've given multiple reasons why the infobox doesn't improve this article and you have refuted precisely zero of them. Blanket statements like this aren't improving the discussion. Explain why it helps even though it gives inaccurate and misleading information. You can literally read the very talk page section above this one for one example of misleading information. Additionally, you didn't even bother fixing the layout issues you introduced when you added the infobox. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Altitude: https://www.weather.gov/key/high_clouds#:~:text=Cirrus%20clouds%20form%20very%20high,like%20feathers%20or%20horse%20tails.
 * Appearance: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/clouds/high-clouds/cirrus#:~:text=Cirrus%20clouds%20are%20short%2C%20detached,other%20cloud%20in%20the%20sky.
 * Precaptiation: forgot to remove when i copied the infobox
 * Also i don’t think there’s any layout issues   🌀 SuperTyphoonNoru 🌀  SuperTyphoonNoru (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I already removed most of the blatantly incorrect information. Furthermore, the altitude you linked in your source doesn't even agree with what you put in as the altitude! Let's go through what's in the infobox currently:
 * Picture. Duplicates one already in the article. Also, if I recall correctly, cirrus castellanus is one of the least common cirrus types, making it not particularly representative of the genus as a whole.
 * Abbreviation. Unnecessary. This is available in the very first sentence in the lead section.
 * Symbol. Inaccurate. There is more than one cirrus cloud symbol, as described in the article body.
 * Genus. Why is this here? Cirrus is the genus.
 * Species list. Unhelpful. Available in literally the first paragraph of the article body. Additionally, the body contains pictures and descriptions because the average reader does not know what cloud species are (or even that they exist)!
 * Classification / family. Unnecessary. This is also available in the very first sentence.
 * Appearance. Unnecessary. This is in both the second sentence of the lead section and a whole body section devoted to the description of cirrus clouds.
 * None of this provides any value to the reader in the infobox. At this point, I am going to ask you directly to restore the existing consensus established twice at WP:FAC and WP:FAR and remove the infobox. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, this article has roughly 140,000 readers per year. The vast majority of these do not have a technical background, so we should not bombard them with dense technical information at the very start of the article. The article fundamentally should be pleasing to read and should start with basics before gradually easing the reader into the more gritty details. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, you may revert it back.   🌀 SuperTyphoonNoru 🌀  SuperTyphoonNoru (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)