Talk:Cloud/Archive 1

I'm skeptical that Cumulonimbus with mammatus and pileus should be in the high altitude section rather than in section D. Can someone with greater authority in the area look this over? Dr. Z 19:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

can someone who knows about clouds add Coalescence, Ceilometer and Cloud base into this article so that Coalescence ceases from being an orphan? Kingturtle 23:09 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 19:47, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)) Done.

--

This from a duplicate page. some bits may need merging:

Cloud Types

 * cumulus, stratus, cirrus, nimbus
 * fair weather cumulus, cumulonimbus
 * altocumulus, altostratus
 * nimbostratus, stratocumulus
 * cirrostratus
 * mammatus, orographic clouds, pileus clouds

Cumulus clouds are usually created through thermal convection or frontal lift.

See meteorology.

-- Tarquin


 * And which page is it from? I Wiki-searched and Googled without results. --Menchi 09:06 30 May 2003 (UTC)


 * These cloud types aren't even mentioned on the Cloud page. And they all have existing pages for themselves. What's up with that? I'm no cloud expert, but when "cirrus" isn't on the cloud page, I am concerned. Seems to me every cloud type that has its own page ought to be referenced here. If the terminology is old, it'd be service to note it. Jeff kuta (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting topic that should be included.
I came across an interesting cloud question, and I think this arctile should cover this.

How much does a cloud weight?

here is one answer (detailed): http://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.cloudweight.html

Apparently there may be a connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation. It is not mentioned in the article. Here is one source that talks about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133.stm

The content on cloud types appears to be used without reference from NOAA's website here: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~io/WEATHER/clouds.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a problem as all work by US Government employees is in the Public domain.- Running On  Brains  20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

More photographs available
I am an amateur photographer and have taken many cloud pictures. Anyone with an interest in adding more pictures to the right places may feel free to use my photographs. You can find them at my web site. I don't know what Wikipedia requires, but I will provide whatever is necessary to ensure release into the public domain.

--JeremyCole 09:01, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Why do clouds stay aloft?
I came across a page that describes fully (and I believe correctly) why clouds stay aloft here: http://www.amasci.com/miscon/miscon4.html#cld

It appears that the Wikipedia and his reasoning are in conflict. In the Wiki article, you claim in the same paragraph that clouds wiegh several million tonnes and that updrafts keep all those tonnes of water up there. I don't know any updraft capable of holding that much water airborne. If there were such a thing, we should build a generator of one and build a city in the sky ;)

Joking aside, there is a very easy counter-example to site to disprove the 'small droplet' explanation. A cloud machine, like you see in the mall. Those small water dishes that generate 'clouds' The material doesn't rise and it certainly isn't slowed down by it's size (much).... it races to the floor!

The reason clouds remain aloft is that they are warmer inside than the surrounding air, so they float just like a hot air balloon! Simple.

Some of the dynamics sited in the article are certainly valid, such as the dynamic processes within a cloud. However they sidestep the reason millions of tonnes of water stay up there (and how.)

I have also noted the absence in many explanations of the source of cloud updrafts. Many people describe the strong updrafts within a thunderstorm and thier effects on a hapless pilots who may navigate them, but what it the source? It is a second proof of the temperature explanation of cloud bouyancy. Updrafts occur when the warmer air between water droplets is separated from the droplets and the warmer air shoots upward.

In other words, I can prove hot air is keeping the cloud up there. Because when it rains, hot air shoots skyward! It also shoots out of my mouth.

Mark DiNubila


 * Those "small droplets" produced by humidifiers and similar devices are huge relative to the droplets within clouds. If you doubt the power of air currents within clouds to maintain lift, go outside on the next foggy day and notice the effect of microturbulence on real droplets. Get a pair of binoculars and look at the edge of a cumulus cloud if you think rising air can't manage to keep droplets aloft. You may also check http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2005-06/1117621104.Es.r.html for an answer to the question in your title. Denni &#9775; 00:12, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)


 * Please give evidence for your above assertion that "those 'small droplets' produced by humidifiers and similar devices are huge relative to the droplets within clouds." I suspect it's wrong.   If typical cloud droplets fall at a few mm/second, then humidifier droplets must be far smaller, rather than larger: observe a bowl full of humidifer fog.  The individual droplets fall much more slowly than a few mm/second.  However, because sufficiently small droplets are essentially "stuck" in the surrounding air, a group of small neighboring droplets is able to drag the air between them downwards far faster than the droplets would fall individually.  Droplet-filled air of sufficient density acts like a dense uniform gas, and will organize itself into a density current if given the opportunity to flow downwards.  A similar effect is commonly seen in volcano plumes, where the rising cloud of hot gas and ash sometimes becomes more dense than surrounding air and therefore descends to form a ground-hugging pyroclastic surge.  A flow of humidifier steam is analogous to a pyroclastic surge, where the individual particles may descend slowly, but the particle-laden air can flow downwards extremely rapidly.   (This, though fog, is considerably warmer than the surrounding air!  Same as volcanic surge.)  So, why does the droplet-laden air within clouds *NOT* form a descending plume? --Wjbeaty 02:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One more point, and please check my following math. If ten grams of droplets condense in a cubic meter of air, they release 23 kJ of heat energy, which warms the KG of air by 23C degrees.  But the presence of the droplets increases the average density of the air by 1%. This increased density is the equivalent of cooling the air by 3C degrees to increase it's density.  Therefore, as droplets condense, the expansion of heated cloud wins out over the added weight of droplets by a factor of about 7:1!   Compared to the bouyancy of the heated air, the added weight of droplets is usually insignificant.  I suspect that this is why textbooks don't mention the added density of droplets.  Yet if we want to say why clouds stay up, we must explicitly explain these issues, and not just pretend that the density contribution of droplets is magically insignificant. --Wjbeaty 08:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

MD
 * What is the difference between fog and clouds? One thing... temperature differential!
 * What is the source of the 'updrafts' keeping clouds up there, at the edge of clouds? There is no external updraft! The forming of cloudstuff on the edge of clouds is the result of water vapor going from a gas to a liquid and heating the surrounding air, keeping it bouyant, even rising. There is no big fan on the edge of clouds blowing the material up holding it there.

Its a combination of many different factors - hence the many different types of clouds. Some clouds stay aloft, some don't, and some are 80,000 metres above the ground (noctilucent clouds), some are 500. -- Natalinasmpf 23:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point... my explanation on http://amasci.com/miscon/miscon4.html would apply to "typical clouds" and cannot be universal. For example, lenticular clouds and mountain wave clouds remain stationary in strong wind because they simultaneously condense at their leading edge and evaporate at their trailing edge.  They are not physical objects at all, they are patterns, therefore the weight of the droplets is irrelevant.  Another issue: the density of air is about 1.1KG/M^3, and if the added density contributed by the cloud droplets is insignificant compared to that of existing air, then no downward density current should arise, and the cloud should remain aloft simply because the individual droplets fall very slowly.  (Similarly, if the temperature of a region of air is insignificantly lower than that of surrounding air, no downdraft should form.)  What then is "insignificant?"  If typical cloud-stuff increases the air's average density by about 1%, that's similar to making the air denser by cooling it by roughly 3 degC.   Will a cloud-sized region of cold air form a downdraft if it's only 3 degC cooler than its surroundings?  If so, then by analogy the increased density caused by cloud droplets must create a downdraft ...unless the condensation-warmed air in the cloud produces a compensating bouyant force. --Wjbeaty 03:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Some Images
I uploaded these images,, and , (image references obvious by their filename) - which are high altitude photos of clouds from Mount Kinabalu, and I was wondering if it would be appropriate to insert them in either the Mount Kinabalu Article or the Cloud article, because I know both of them are already image saturated. The thing is that I'm not too sure of all the cloud formation classifications (although it fascinates me) to insert them in specific pages either. -- Natalinasmpf 23:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cloud edges
The NY Times this morning (July 20) had a Q&A about why clouds have edges: "Q. Why do droplets of water form defined clouds rather than dispersing evenly into the atmosphere?" This is a common and interesting question, which sparks thought if it's the first time you've wondered about it. The response is provided by Geoff Cornish, a Penn State meteorologist: "... Clusters of millions of cloud droplets form in the updrafts. Over a larger area, Mr. Cornish continued, air cannot move upward without compensating subsiding air. This results in the clearly defined edges seen in cumulus clouds. The bottoms of clouds are where the parcel of air becomes saturated, and the top is where the upward impulse dies out, he said." A statement along these lines would fit in nicely here, especially if it could be expanded somewhat. -- Archie Paulson 16:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

High cloud heights
Both the Canadian MANOBS and say that high clouds can form lower in polar regions. CambridgeBayWeather 09:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Cloud article names
I suggest that the titles of cloud articles be changed to end with "cloud" so that they're consistent, with redirects from the previous names. -- Kjkolb 06:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Cloud Identification
I'm really at a loss here. I have my Field Guide for North American Weather out, but I'm still not sure. What kind of cloud does this look like to you?

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/7718/cirrostratusnebulosus7va.jpg

I was thinking Cirrostratus nebulosus, it certainly resembles the picture they have, but it also resembles several other pictures, especially the altostratus pictures. The description for cirrostratus says "Uniform, generally featureless, thin to thick, white or light gray ice-crystal clouds" and the description for altostratus says "Thin or thick, gray to pale blue, mainly water-droplet clouds at middle levels." The picture kind of fits both of those. The clouds seem somewhat whispy, so I'm leaning towards cirrus, but I'd rather have someone more knowledgeable say for sure.

PiccoloNamek 21:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed your question. It's pretty hard to identify three dimensional clouds from a two dimensional picture. However, it looks as if there are at least two and maybe more cloud types in the picture. If you look at the cloud that is against the blue of the sky then I would say that it's Cirrus. The larger cloud mass above it (in the picture) may well be Cirrostratus but it woukld think that it's Altostratus. It appears to be lower in the sky than the centre Cirrus and looks a little too dark to be Cirrus. If you look at the bottom right just above the tree tops, there appears to be a third cloud. This could be a fractus of lower cloud or ACC forming. There's no way to judge the hight of it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I say the same, with my authoritative military experience, two high - middle stratus, so As with Cs. 91.153.58.207 07:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nature claims 5 errors
Nature disputes the accuracy of this article; see http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html and External_peer_review. We're hoping they will provide a list of the alleged errors soon. —Steven G. Johnson 01:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So what! :P  - Hard Raspy Sci 04:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nature is a highly respected scientific publication that's what!--Deglr6328 22:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct
The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum


 * Under 'Cloud formation and properties', cloud formation happens when air is cooled below its saturation point, not to its saturation point.
 * Under 'Cloud formation and properties': 'The air stays the same temperature but absorbs more water vapour into it until it reaches saturation'. No. Droplet or ice particle formation requires supersaturation. Water vapour can only be added to bring the air to saturation.
 * Omission: Cloud can however be formed by the mixing of two subsaturated air masses. Examples of this are “breath” condensation on a cold day, arctic sea-smoke and aircraft contrail formation.
 * 'This method of raindrop production … typically produces smaller raindrops and drizzle'. Tradewind and tropical cumulus clouds are capable of producing drops of several millimetres in diameter.
 * Under 'clouds in family A': A contrail is a long thin cloud which develops as the result of the passage of a jet airplane at high altitudes. (any type of aircraft is capable of forming a contrail – not just jets. They result when mixing of the engine exhaust which contains unsaturated water vapour mixes with the unsaturated environmental air to produce a mixture which becomes temporarily saturated).

Why do cloud droplets not display rainbows?
When a cloud is composed of droplets, why don't they show as a rainbow when seen from the right direction? Are the droplets too small (compared to light wavelength)? I have a photo where a rainbow seems to be partly hidden behind clouds. (It was cold that day, almost freezing.) Abu ari 09:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say because the water droplets are too densely packed. For an ideal rainbow to form, each light ray must be refracted by one, and only one, water drop.  If a lot of the light makes it through without hitting a water drop, then you will get a pale rainbow.  If each light ray is refracted by multiple drops of water, the colors will be randomly distributed all over the sky, with the net effect being white (or black if there are so many droplets that they actually absorb the light).  Notice that you don't see rainbows in the midst of a serious rainstorm, either. StuRat 12:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Only a thin layer on the sunny side of the cloud is exposed to direct parallell rays from the sun. That layer does form a rainbow, but because the layer is thin, the intensity of the rainbow is too low to be seen. Abu ari 09:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong. It's because of diffraction, because the droplet size is too small.  The best rainbows are caused by large raindrops, and as the raindrop size decreases, the colors blend together and numerous diffraction stripes appear within the curve of the rainbow.  See cloudbow --Wjbeaty 03:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, without putting in numbers, it must be diffraction, due to the small size of the drops. The drops can't be too densely packed or the cloud would fall.  A rainbow is a geometric optics effect involving reflection and refraction.  Cloud particles are too small to be well described by geometric optics, as rain, and too large to be well described by Raleigh scattering, as air.  (Since liquid cloud droplets are nearly spherical, they are well described by the Mie series).   There are colored rings around the sun due to thin clouds.  This may be a diffraction effect, more like Raleigh scattering.  David R. Ingham 18:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Colors of clouds
I am not convinced that the explanation of dark clouds is correct. At best it is incomplete. David R. Ingham 17:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Some questions that the article could include
Here are some questions that I feel the article could answer a little more explicitly: - Why is there a layer of clear air between a cloud and the ground? - Why do water clouds have very sharply defined edges? - Why are the bottoms of cumuliform clouds pretty flat and uniform, when the tops are lumpy? - Why is there liquid water in clouds that reside in air up to 30 degrees below freezing? Some of the answers are hinted at, others aren't answered at all, but I think all are good questions, worthy of an answer in this article. Annihilatenow 11:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Contrail dispute
I don't think that contrail should be listed along with the naturally occuring cloud formations in this article. It is a form of pollution, more akin to smog than to true clouds. — Morganfitzp 02:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Banner clouds
I came to know of banner clouds from Talk:Matterhorn. There is also a link to a photo of a banner cloud in the discussion there. But I couldn't get any info on a banner cloud in this article or a mention of it in List of cloud types. Is there a technical name by which banner clouds are known ? Jay 08:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
This is the first paragraph of the introduction as of 11/09/2006:

"A cloud is actually an assortment of dead jews this comes from WW2 times. Before this there were no clouds and afterwords clouds were there thanks to the burning dead jews.droplets jew tears or frozen crystals suspended in the atmosphere above the surface of the Earth or another planetary body. The branch of meteorology in which clouds are studied is nephology."

I have no wiki experience, and I am not an expert nephologist by any means but this definition is ridiculous. If someone who has a greater scientific knowledge than myself has the time to offer a founded, definition for a cloud (or revert the vandalism) I think the article would be better for it. ngschmidt

Rename this article to Nephology?
Hi. Since this article is studying clouds, would it seem reasonable to rename this article to Nephology, with Cloud redirecting to it? Or perhaps rename the cloud disambiguation page to Cloud which would then include a link to Nephology? --Rebroad 23:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is not a great idea. Virtually all the people who want to find out about clouds will search for "cloud". I see no point in making this a redirect. I would suggest that rather some mention be made in the article that the study of clouds is called nephology. Denni talk 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever observed clouds on a dwarf planet?
I heard that Pluto and Charon sometimes have evaporations of gases from their surfaces, thus forming atmospheres. This makes me wonder if any clouds have been observed or hypothesized on dwarf planets. 68.36.214.143 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Cosmic Rays
Why is there no discussion of the suggested link between cosmic rays and cloud cover? After watching a DVD criticising the anthropogenic climate change movement, I was left wanting to look further into one of their key arguments: the relationship between cosmic rays (solar activity) and cloud cover - would've been great to see some discussion on the validity of this link here.

203.109.205.183 21:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous Images
Doesn't it seem that the article currently has too many images? The images at the bottom have actually pushed three edit links into the "see also" section. Also, some of the lower images seem superfluous. - K ULSHRAX 16:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, instead of removing the images, perhaps they could be moved into an image gallery, where they wouldn't disrupt the page layout so much and would be more organized? The images don't really seem to tie into any specific cloud types, so some may need to be moved to the section about that specific could type, if they aren't all grouped together in a gallery. - K ULSHRAX 19:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

More detailed classification of clouds
Is there a reason why the WMO catagories are not used? Spritzie 00:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC) NO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.86.174.25 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Global Dimming/Global Brightening
I would argue that these two segments should be combined, and their contrary viewpoints should be mentioned. As currently displayed, it is implied that both are occuring simultaneously. If that is the case, it should be made clear, if it is not the case, THAT should be made clear. To the layman, the intended reader, the article is confusing in this regard. 74.171.7.70 (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Cloud Feedback
There doesn't seem to be a reason to keep that article separate from this one. Comments? Torc2 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The cloud article is more or less stating uncontroversial material. This is needed because Cloud feedback is (or should be) a rapidly moving field of research. High albedo cloud (non Bergeron process?) could save us from solar ravages and encourage more precipitation. CSIRO say 1% increase in cloud could knock back climate to pre-industrial levels. This all needs to argued out from a sound knowledge base and it might be better to keep the articles separate. We just don't know enough about cloud thermodynamics eg see Cloud condensation nuclei. I have used cloud simulation models but I'm not a cloud person. Can anyone help? Much needs doing to bring all this together, more refs etc.--Nick Green (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

cry


Vanished cloud
Hi, re this image since removed. In March, encouraged here a nice image of daylight cloud iridescence went up but now it's gone, so I'm adding my vote to having a gallery happening. Could this image go in it, please? The page is stunning, by the way. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that those images are on the Cloud iridescence page, where I think they belong. I'm against galleries in articles in general; I feel they detract from the information we are trying to convey.  While the pictures are pretty, I don't think they're important enough for inclusion on this page.  It's quite a broad topic, so space is tight, and I think including pictures of more general cloud formations/phenomena is the way to go.- Running  On  Brains  04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cloud type?`
What type of cloud formation is this considered? It seems rather strange and none of the Wikipedia descriptions seemed to quite describe it. RobertM525 (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a perfect example of clouds caused by a gravity wave.- Running On  Brains  03:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

6,000 m ???
what is "m" is that Miles or Meters or Monkeys or what? Can we replace "m" with whatever m stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.75.227 (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Overlink (see note 2), it is generally understood that english-speaking people know what common abbreviations such as "m" and "ft" stand for. Here it means meter, or metre if you hail from the UK.- Running  On  Brains  03:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many images?
I think I brought this subject up on the Mammatus cloud talk page as well, but I can't help but feel that not all those images are necessary. I was thinking particularly of the 'cumulus cloudscape' (Image:Cumulus_clouds_panorama.jpg). Any opinions? And yes, I know this was brought up before. I c eUnshattered  [ t ] 19:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Classification of cumulus clouds
Cumulus clouds can be classified either as low or as vertically developed.

The correct classification depends on the size of the individual cloud, but I don't see this mentioned in the sources. Nevertheless, I am moving cumulus mediocris to family D, the vertically-developed clouds. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about cloud formation?
I find it surprising that the cloud article doesn't specifically mention how a cloud forms! I'll add the section for precipitation, although it is unsourced. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The right word
Whats the right word to use for claudy weather? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.232.65 (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends. For full cloud cover, the term "overcast" is used.  If there are breaks in the clouds, the sky is considered "mostly cloudy", or "partly cloudy" if the cloud/clear sky ratio is around 50/50.- Running  On  Brains  13:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Indicator
Can it be mentioned that the occurence of low clouds usually indicate precipitation or possible precipitation ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.49.3 (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dawn/Dusk clouds
Im not sure what to call the way clouds form here; I live in Kentucky. What happens is there is a huge, spectacular cloud chain in the mornings and evenings. They rarely last more than 15 minutes. At evening, I've seen them form a loooong curve across the whole sky, dissipating rapidly. And just this morning I saw another cloud type that I cant identify; a bunch of very long lines, fairly thick but not very white, spreading out from a central point to the northish with almost identical spacing between each strand. they stretched over the whole sky. In mere minutes however, the a much whiter cloud, also in the same direction came, bringing an overcast front wiht it and 'erasing' the previous clouds.

Considering the rather astounding phenomenon that occur in the mornings and evenings, should we dedicate a specific section to that? Cause I dont know what I just saw, but if my camera couldve picked it up id have it all over. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Types of clouds
Is there any good reason to explain that the File:Wolkenstockwerke.png was removed? I think it was bringing a very useful and synthetic information about the different types of clouds… maybe a caption describing the informations would be nice? Calimo (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[[Media:center]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.230.226 (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been returned. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Improvement
Created an actual lead section and added a referenced version of cloud formation into the article, for starters. References were also added for clouds in other worldly atmospheres. The gallery had to be removed, per changes that have occurred within the Manual of Style since this article's creation (they are essentially verboten). Some additional picture/section rearrangement also occurred. If anyone else wants to help, the content within this article needs more references, or it will never be elevated above C class. As it stands, only one-third of the current sections of the article (4 of 16) are fully referenced. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Referencing issues
References 19, 21, 28, 32 and 35 need to be filled out with more information. In the case of refs 28, 32, and 35, when you use that format, one would hope the main referencing would be further up the article/reference section, so it can be easily figured out. I didn't see that occur in these cases. Also, we have several dead links which need fixing. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't actually edit/write all the sections for which I attempted to provide additional citations after your promptings to do so. I followed links to earlier Wiki articles to see what citations I could trace.  Some articles were well sourced & I was able to provide strong or complete citations.  Others were poorly sourced & this was reflected in the quality of the citations I dug up, incl. those you have flagged.  I did write most of the sections with the WMO International Cloud Atlas citations.  I can provide publication dates if that will strengthen the citations.  However, the atlas is compiled by a WMO committee, so no one or two specific authors can be named.  Cloud atlas text likely written by anon. technical writers.
 * I'm still on a learning curve when it comes to citations, but with time & experience I think I can do better than many of my predecessors on this cloud article, many of whom were sloppy & negligent. I find many technical instructions provided by Wikipedia hard to follow, but I will keep on with it.  Any tips you can offer are welcome.  I'll see what I can do about the suggestions you've already made.User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 23:25, 02 February 2011 UTC


 * Having to take a break from this for awhile because I'm very buzy with other things, but will get back to this referencing stuff on a time permitting basis. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 23:00, 04 February 2011 UTC


 * Added more info to citation 19. Don't know if it's enough. Thegreatdr or someone please specify if still more info needed. Citations 28, 32, & 35 not my work, so don't think I can improve them. They & related sentences/paragraphs may have to be removed to restore integrity of 'Cloud' article, but I don't want to be the one to make that decision.User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 22:45, 05 February 2011 UTC
 * Does the WMO book have an ISBN number? What pages were the content from?  Those are the missing pieces there.  If we can't expand the citation out, we'll have to find new ones that source those sections before a GAN attempt can take place.  The dead links also have to be replaced by someone, probably us if we want this to become a good article in wikipedia's eyes.  It takes a significant amount of work to get a larger article like this to good article status, especially if the content written is not your own.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your imput. Most of what I've added to the article over the past few months taken from notes I made from a borrowed copy of WMO cloud atlas a couple of years ago. At the time, I was doing it for my own intertest, & new nothing about citations & writing university-level articles.  I'll have to see if I can borrow another copy, either from an airport weather station or a library.  My original goal last year was to try and get the article to a B rating.  Improving it to GA status will be a towering assignment for someone with my modest academic background.  Whatever I can achieve from here on will take awhile as I'm heading into a period of major home renos that will keep me busy & distracted.User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 01:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll get used to the referencing on here. The differences between B class and GA class criteria are practically indistinguishable.  Both require just as much content and referencing.  The only difference is the peer review (through GAN) to get to GA class.  Do a search online for that atlas.  It's possible the ISBN number is findable, even if you don't have the book on you.  As long as you know the author, title, and year of publication you should be able to find the ISBN.  Thegreatdr (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Might ref 28 be to Michael Gadsden and Pekka Parviainen, Observing Noctilucent Clouds, ISBN 0-9650686-0-9? The link is to a 2006 reprint. Peter M. Brown (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll check out the Michael Gadsden link. Meanwhile, I've expanded the International Cloud Atlas citation to everything except page numbers.  I've found only 1 site which ostensibly offers a complete download of pages, but the website is a complete hot mess & I think I screwed up my registration. Will see this week if their customer service line can help.  Otherwise, I'll likely have to track down an actual printed copy of the book if page references are required to get more than a C grade for this article. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 00:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Provided an inline citation #21 for "WMO classification of clouds". Triple checked formatting but "Cloud" article server treats it as a "dead link", even though the server for the "List of cloud types" articles finds the link very much alive. I'll leave this one for the Great Weather Doctor to fix.  If someone who actually knows how to do inline citations doesn't fix this fairly soon, I'm going back to my original plan A & find a hard copy of the WMO cloud atlas and cite it the old fashioned way.  User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've heard about the devil being in the details, but Wikipedia citations takes this to extremes. Link to "WMO classification of clouds" seemed dead because I missed a space before a vertical bar in citation text.  Now I've got that figured out, I've resumed my work upgrading citations but it's still taking awhile because of limited time available for long pain-staking precedures.  User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 03:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite having almost no time to do so, I'm slowly continuing the editorial overhaul of this article that began in late July 2010 with the regrouping of cumulus and nimbostratus into a "low to middle" height range family D1 that recognizes the wide range of altitudes at which these genera may be found. This family has more recently been retitled "low to middle with some vertical extent" to indicate cloud tops that can be as high as 20,000 ft.  The family originally designated as "vertical" is now "low to middle with considerable vertical extent" (family D2) to indicate an equally wide range of base heights and cloud tops that typically exceed 20,000 ft.  I hope these seemingly radical edits won't be seen by a peer review as "original research", but as an attempt to achieve the ultimate in Wikipedia neutrality.  For example, nimbostratus has been variously classified as low, middle, and vertical by different authorities cited in the article, so the height range title I've offered takes all three designations into account.  The book from which I've obtained cloud top specifications is a Canadian government publication that has no ISBN number, so I will look for another source to cite as I try to improve various other citations in this article.  User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 19:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The names for families D1 and D2 have been shortened; the previous titles were a bit of a mouthfull! The low to middle base height characteristics of these clouds have been moved from the titles to the text.

Why do clouds remain intact?
Many clouds have rather distinct borders (even if slightly fuzzy). In such a lengthy article, there should be more attention to basic physics rather than just to empirical classification schemes. Logically, random diffusion should cause the water droplets or ice crystals to spread apart and disperse uniformly (the effects of entropy). There must be some reason why this does not typically happen on readily observable time scales. Perhaps there is a local cause of formation (temperature gradient, updrafts, etc.) and the random motion is just too slow because of the large particle masses involved. Nonetheless the physics of this should be explained based on the work of experts (including simple quantitative calculations where appropriate). There might be a temperature gradient that tends to hold them together in some fashion.

Related to this question, what are the physical properties of the air in a cloud? Does its temperature differ from surrounding air? Is there turbulent motion inside a cloud? What is the nature of the boundary with surrounding air?

Another related question is why (physically) clouds cause "bumps" for airplanes flying through/into them? Or do they? How are they associated with turbulence? Does the impact of an aircraft's wings on the water droplets/ice crystals have any noticeable effect?

I hope that some of these more basic questions can be addressed. Enginerd201 (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is, by design, mostly a beginner-level introduction to clouds. Its main focus is visual identification and classification with some basic explanations of processes of cloud formation. There is a separate Wikipedia article "Cloud physics" that should be dealing with the more advanced and mathematical aspects of cloud formation and dynamics.  If the questions raised by Enginerd201 aren't sufficiently dealt with there, that would me a matter to be taken up with the editor(s) of that article.  I'm adding a cross-referencing flag to this article to direct readers wanting more advanced information to the cloud physics article.  ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (User talk:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31]]) 19:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I find all of Enginerd's questions eminently reasonable, and it doesn't seem to me that they demand detailed quantitative analysis. "What is it like inside a cloud?", "What marks the boundary between a cloud and the sky?", "Why doesn't the wind 'blow the cloud away', like a pile of dust?" These seem like exactly the kinds of question that a page like this should answer. I suspect that the answer to the question of why clouds remain intact is related to the reason they don't fall: the diffusion coefficient is tiny. http://lamp.tu-graz.ac.at/~hadley/whydontcloudsfall.html Flies 1 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just an update to indicate I added some info about clouds remaining intact some time ago and have today added an enhanced description/definition of convergence. For my particular edits and contributions, I'm continuing my policy of not introducing mathematical equations directly into the text.  I think all parts of the article should be understandable to beginners.  I'm on the lookout for scholarly articles for more advanced readers/users that I can hyperlink to this article.  User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 00:30, 03 June 2013 UTC

Why are clouds not falling from the sky?
Shouldn't we offer some kind of explanation why "clouds are not falling from the sky"? In other words, why water droplets forming clouds - having a larger density than the surrounding air - can hover (until they fall as rain or disperse)? Joostdhw (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for that is that it is very windy and turbulent high in the atmosphere were clouds are. The wind blows them about and they can't fall because they're moving. However, if the atmosphere was perfectly calm, with no wind at all, I suppose they would sink to the ground, although if they did, they wouldn't fall like rocks, they would slowly drift down like balloons. (Sometimes they do, in the from of fog. Fog never forms on windy days.) --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 18:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

your questions is good! your answer is in another good one. what is the weight of clouds? special guest contribution / been here before REAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.198.54 (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Clouds do not fall from the sky, they float down slowly. E=MC2 eisten or some dude... / been here before REAL

The above explanation is inadequate. Objects can certainly fall when they are moving (e.g., a baseball). To keep a cloud from falling, there must be some upward-directed force on the water droplets to counteract the downward force of gravity (and viscous forces can not prevent a fall, they can only control the rate of descent). Random winds can not do that, there must be a net updraft (e.g., due to convection). The physics should be clarified by citing expert work on this subject. A related question is why clouds do not quickly disperse (see new heading). Enginerd201 (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the question of why clouds don't fall from the ground is a very interesting one that deserves a concise answer. Clearly, thermal motion and air pressure are sufficient to keep the atmosphere aloft/diffuse, and I suspect that something similar is at work with clouds, but such a simple question as Joost's deserves a clear answer.  The article does describe several mechanisms that cause masses of air to rise, but the connection between these phenomena and this question remains vague.  Flies 1 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A brief stint on Google produces the following link: http://lamp.tu-graz.ac.at/~hadley/whydontcloudsfall.html. The drag on a water droplet is sufficient to slow the terminal velocity to about 1/3 of a meter per year.  Flies 1 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've elaborated on the explanation of cloud boyancy already in the main article and used the link to "whydontcloudsfall" as a citation. I'm continuing to stick to using fairly simple language without mathematical equations for the main article and using the links and citations to provide readers with access to more advanced and scholarly articles.  I'm slowly getting a better understanding of other issues that have been raised on this talk page and will work on a time permitting basis to make further improvments.  ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (User talk:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31|talk]]) 21:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good!Flies 1 (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A big effect is that water vapor is lighter than air. It's because in a gas, the density is proportional to the molecular mass; so water, H2O, in vapor form is lighter than the N2 and O2 molecules that the air is made of. So water-vapor rich air tends to rise up and expand/cool until some of it starts to condense, and then the average density of a block of air increases markedly (since water is about a 1000 times denser than air) so buoyancy neutralizes and it then tends to stops rising.Teapeat (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We call a block of air containing tiny droplets of water, 'a cloud'.Teapeat (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Term "convergence" not properly defined.
Hello. As a non-expert, I have repeatedly jumped into pages (Wikipedia and others) where terms like 'convergence' suddenly appear but are never defined per se. Here, I am going to pick on the term 'convergence.' As a non-expert, I still do not understand what this term really means.

I would like to suggest that the term 'convergence' specifically - and more generally any terms like it - be clearly defined at least once in an article. Early on is of course best, and more than once is probably OK, as long as the multiple definitions are consistent with each other. (I would not recommend a series of partial definitions, unless one really has a good reason to do this.) And of course if there is a single definition, it would be good to hyperlink to it, though I know it is a lot of work to consistently achieve this. In fact, it is a often hard for an expert to even recognize when a term needs to be defined, but this is why not just anyone can write encyclopedia entries.

What's more, do not assume that 'implicit definition' (using the term enough that it comes to be defined by usage) is adequate; it is not. Many intelligent and imaginative people waste time and energy trying to derive the meaning of something that would best be set out explicitly at the beginning. While I recognize that not all writing can work this way, certainly the authors of a scientific article in an encyclopedia ought to try hard.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely, DrTLesterThomas (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As the major contributer to this article, it took me some time to figure this out. Convergence hasn't been one of my specialities and there seems to be very little about it on the internet, especially as it applies to meteorology. I hope this bit I've added to the article is of some help. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 00:00, 03 June 2013 UTC

User ratings
It may be time to close out the user rating feature at the bottom of the article. It seems to serve no function other than to provide naysayers and vandals a place to vote ridiculously low scores. The article isn't perfect but it's improving over time. Unconstructive feedback is NOT welcome. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 12:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk • contribs)

Cloud Caption Request
I am requesting that a science editor (cloud expert) reply with exactly what type of clouds these are, so I can caption the photo correctly. They are approximately 2 miles above Central Florida. Thanks in advance. Pocketthis (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The smaller clouds pictured here are cumulus humilis and the larger clouds are cumulus mediocris. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 11:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.181.45 (talk)

dead link
link 33 is dead here's another one

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk/?n=cloud_classification -- Idonthav etimefor thiscarp 19:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing edits and referencing; family affiliation of nimbostratus
Due to a chronic lack of time and the slow tedious nature of the process, I'm currently far behind in providing citations for material I've added over the past 12 months or so. This includes re-amalgamation the moderate and towering vertical families into a single family that identifies the tall verticals as a sub-group; also moving fair weather cumulus fractus and humilis (synop code CL1) from vertical back to low family while keeping Cu mediocris and congestus (synop code CL2) in the family of vertical clouds. I believe these changes are easier to cite from accredited authorities, albeit at glacial speed on my part.

I've also expanded the number of physical categories from 3 to 5 citing NASA as my source. Cross-classifying the 4 altitude families against 5 (instead of only 3) physical catgories yields just one genus type for each cross-classification. I believe this returns the process of deriving genus-types to the simplicity and purity of Luke Howard's original method, which has become a bit muddied by some later methods where a single cross-classification can sometimes produce two genus types (e.g. WMO cross-classification of stratiform category with middle altitude family to produce altostratus AND nimbostratus; or ICAO cross-classification of stratiform category with low family to produce stratus AND nimbostratus. And why is it these two "authorities" can't agree about the altitude classificaion of nimbostratus, which is obviously a multi-level cloud with significant vertical extent (Please be assured this NASA-inspired modification still yields the same ten basic genus-types as always).

One thing I'm not sure about is if a family of vertical clouds that includes nimbostratus is better termed 'multi-level' rather than 'vertical'. For some authorities, the latter implies the vertical extent of a cloud should equal or exceed its horizontal extent, which would tend to exclude this otherwise very thick stratiform genus-type even when it has the vertical extent of the larger cumulus types. This limitation apparently doesn't apply to the alternate term 'multi-level' which may make the latter preferable for including nimbostratus (a family affiliation for which I've already provided several inline references). I welcome any user and editor commments about anything I've written here. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 02:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
There has been a significant and ongoing spike in vandalism of this article in recent months. Although they're usually reverted quickly, they are still a major nuisence and a waste of our time to keep dealing with. Other articles have been provided with special ongoing protection as a result of frequent targeting by vandals, but so far this article has never been provided with anything more than brief periods of protection. I think it's time to shield this article on a long term basis, either by restricting editing to registered users, or by making all edits subject to moderation or review by an authorized wikipedian before being posted. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 11:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Requesting peer review
I have been trying to raise the cloud article from a C-grade to at least a B-grade for a long time. I need very specific comments about the content and writing style that may be undermining my efforts. I believe the introduction is good according to one senior editor who has commented on this discussion page and says this should now be a B-grade article. Apart from the intro, I think most other sections of the article are in need of a PR, although I think I've taken a balanced and neutral approach to the section on forms, etages, and cross-classification into genera.

I don't seem to be having any success following the instructions to create a new peer review discussion page. I just keep getting sent back to this page. This whole process needs to be made more user friendly. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 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://www.morris.umn.edu/~sboyd/weather/cloudsystems/Clouds_files/speciesandvarieties.htm

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 17:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Eliminated Gallery

 * I don't recall seeing a gallery until this morning. As you all know, our "watchlist" is far from perfect, and many edits are missed. There were two photos there. Both had issues. One was a phone photo, not cropped, house roof was sticking out, and the resolution was under 100 KB. The other was attractive, but the resolution was only 25 KB. I know, as a photographer, that folks want to have their photos published, however, over the years, the quality (resolution) and composition, has set extremely high standards. Since the photos in any given article reflect upon the quality of our site, amateur photos of poor quailty and composition should be kept out of major articles. Also, and I know this is POV, but, I personally don't think we need a gallery in this article. There are many fine photos in the article, and anyone can point their iphone at the sky at any given time to snap a cloud. It's something we see every day, and would invite countless photos to eventually drown the article. I understand...as always, that not everyone has the same opinion here on any subject. Please feel free to add your two cents. Of course, as always, I will go along with the consensus. Thanks - Pocketthis (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Article restructure
I've decided to remove the "throughout the homosphere" section altogether and merge its parts with the tropospheric, polar stratospheric, and polar mesospheric sections. The introductory sections of the article remain pan-homospheric in scope, but the sections that follow are now arranged in the sequence of tropospheric, stratospheric, mesospheric, and extraterrestrial. I hope this creates a more logical structure and flow. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:42, 01 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed removal of history section from cloud article
I'm proposing that most of the section about the history of cloud science and nomenclature be remove from the Wikipedia article 'Cloud', and maybe turned into a separate article with links to the original. The C-rated cloud article is a fair bit longer than other meteorological articles that have received a GA or FA rating. Some senior editors have suggested the cloud article has to be made more concise to be considered for a GA or FA rating. I cut quite a bit of secondary content from this article 2 years ago, and I don't know what additional cuts I can make except to remove this section. The higher rated articles about the other meteorological elements don't have a history section, and I suspect most users who check out the article for a better general understanding of the subject don't need the history part either. I'll wait a while for editor feedback, and if the proposal receives no significant opposition in the next few weeks, I'll give it a try.
 * Sounds like a plan to me Chris. 'You Da Man' - Pocketthis (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I've now carried out the planned removal/transfer/reduction of the history section. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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/20111116001457/http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/AboutEUMETSAT/Publications/ConferenceandWorkshopProceedings/2010/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p57_s7_08_devalk_v.pdf to http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/AboutEUMETSAT/Publications/ConferenceandWorkshopProceedings/2010/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p57_s7_08_devalk_v.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121221005913/http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14269/css/14269_20.htm to http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14269/css/14269_20.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225074154/http://www.knmi.nl/~hurkvd/Loco_workshop/Workshop_report.pdf to http://www.knmi.nl/~hurkvd/Loco_workshop/Workshop_report.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) 16:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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/20130518082044/http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14269/css/14269_27.htm to http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14269/css/14269_27.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502055741/http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/~wintelsw/MET1010LOL/chapter06/ to http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/~wintelsw/MET1010LOL/chapter06/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220230524/http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8e.html to http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8e.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225074155/http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~fovell/AS3downloads/saturation.pdf to http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~fovell/AS3downloads/saturation.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.congrex.nl/09a05/1010_Montmessin.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) 22:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20081031003710/http://www.iugg.org/IAGA/iaga_pages/pdf/ONC_Sep06.pdf to http://www.iugg.org/IAGA/iaga_pages/pdf/ONC_Sep06.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) 14:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20130511051600/http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/60-seconds/increasing-cloud-reflectivity/ to http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/60-seconds/increasing-cloud-reflectivity/

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) 17:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Article upgraded
The GAN for this article is taking awhile to go through, so as a member of WikiProject Meteorology, I've reviewed the article against the criteria for a B-class rating and believe it has now been improved to this standard. I have accordingly raised the article's rating from C to B. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20110512161339/http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?p=1&query=radiational+cooling&submit=Search to http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?p=1&query=radiational+cooling&submit=Search

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) 01:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Aristotle and Theophrastus
Under Etymology and history of cloud science and nomenclature/Aristotle and Theophrastus, the claim is made: "For the first time, precipitation and the clouds from which precipitation fell were called meteors". No reference is given, and I can find no trace of this anywhere. Liddell & Scott doesn't mention any such usage (nor does the very much shorter Wiktionary entry under "μετέωρο"). Is there in fact any evidence for this claim? --87.114.237.245 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * My apologies for the slow reply. Comments on this page have become few and far between since about a year ago, so I don't always check it as often as I probably should. It appears the source article cited in that section has been altered or replaced at the source, so it no longer contains anything about Aristotle or his contributions to meteorology.  I have found an on-line article by the American Meteorological Society about his meteorological writings which appears, at a quick glance, to back up the statements in the Wikipedia article.  I will check the new source out more carefully and modify or remove anything in the Wikipedia article that can't be substantiated by the replacement article.  Thank you for bringing this to my attention.  Your vigilance is very much appreciated and helps us in our efforts to achieve a high standard for this article.ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)