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.-RunningOnBrains 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☯ 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)

• 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.

MD

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, [1], [2] and [3], (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 [4] 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 Wikipedia:External_peer_review#Nature. 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. -KULSHRAX 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. -KULSHRAX 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

<removed as vandalism - if there was more of a reason for this comment, please restore it. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)>

Vanished cloud

Hi, re this image[5] since removed. In March, encouraged here[6] 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.-RunningOnBrains 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.-RunningOnBrains 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.-RunningOnBrains 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. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 19:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

References

It appears the article has not one reference. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumacdon (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 September 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.-RunningOnBrains 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 --Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 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 C_L1) from vertical back to low family while keeping Cu mediocris and congestus (synop code C_L2) 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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cloud/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite a few dead links for this article. Ref 21, 27, 30, 40 and 101. Ref 120 is forbidden. Should be fixed. Some of the references like "Cloud Dynamics" link to a Google book page which is completely hidden, so a page reference would be immensely helpful for verification.

The article has numerous typos and possibly vandalism with "homoosphere" as an example. The article provides no concise overview is filled with dozens of obscure words that are too-technical for most non-experts. This is compounded by a complete lack of proper introduction. Terms like "troposphere" should be linked. I remember reading a high school text book with a chapter on clouds that actually provided a two page summary that set up the pieces before plowing into the complexities covered on this page. Since we aim for high school readership or low college, I believe that this is required for a Good Article.

The key issue is that entire paragraphs going unsourced. What is sorta upsetting me is the fact that the cloud types are thrown up on the page without much introduction and sorting and are more complete than their respective pages. Source 49 and 50 is not the source for a lot of this information. So much of the information is unsourced, questionably sourced or just not matching. I do not think this should have been nominated at this time. It requires an almost complete re-write and restructuring to be coherent. A structure similar to Sea would be a great starting point. I've placed the article on hold, but there is so many issues that I feel this could be impossible within even a month of active working. Also the nominator does not seem to be a major contributor to this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: the critique above

I will deal with the dead links on a time-permitting basis. Links die all the time on an article with over 100 references. They are very hard to keep up with.

Why is ref 120 forbidden? What does that even mean?

I will try and deal with links to hidden Google book pages on a time-permitting basis.

Typos identified in the "Bugs" section of "Revision History Statistics" have been fixed. If there are any others, please specify, or better still, fix them yourself.

The article has an intro/overview which may or not be sufficiently concise or proper. Is it too long or too short? What should be put in and what should be taken out?

I have been adding new references with the goal of achieving at least one for each paragraph. This takes time and I'm hampered by the fact I work slowly and I have a life outside Wikipedia.

The term "troposphere" has been linked for a long time. I try to provide links or all technical terms I use. Which terms did I miss? A few examples will suffice.

It looks to me like you're more than "sorta" upset with this article. You're so bugged-out that parts of your paragraph 3 are missing words or are somewhat incoherent. I have no idea what you mean by the cloud types not being "introduced" or that they are supposedly "more complete than their respective pages". However, I'll check out sources 49 and 50 to see what the problem is with them. As for a complete rewrite, good luck with that; nobody at Wikipedia (including myself) has the time or resources to do anything so radical or ambitious. The sections might not be in perfect order, but I believe they follow a logical sequence. If you believe otherwise, please outline what you think the sequence should be based on the order of the titles and subtitles in the article's index. I've checked out the article Sea, but it's a completely different kind of subject that follows its own logic. I couldn't discern much in the article's structure that would be applicable to the cloud article.

That all said, I agree this can't be dealt with in a few days and the article should not yet be nominated for GA. I've been the major contributer to this article since 2010, but I have no illusions I can ever achieve GA quality by myself. I have a good technical knowledge of the subject, but I'm not a skilled writer or editor. Maybe I should never have taken this project on, but if I hadn't, there would only be the short, sketchy, outdated, sometimes inaccurate, and almost completely unreferenced version that existed for most of the decade before 2010. I started off hoping for a team effort with other editors with better writing skills than myself, but I can now see Wikipedia doesn't work that way. There's a very good article on the internet called "The decline of Wikipedia" which points out its dog-eat-dog way of doing business. There is little or no mentoring of newbies like myself by senior editors who seem content to carp and take pot-shots from the sidelines, maybe to try and scare us off. For better or worse, I'm not so easily intimidated by the establishment. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk)13:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not upset with the article, but more annoyed that someone who has not done work on the article decided to nominate it anyways. This is a vital article - it is really important to Wikipedia. I will help you, but it will also render me unable to pass this article. I like to think of myself as a good editor, so I will summarize (more clearly) the problems that need to be fixed.

• Ref 120 was given a 403 Forbidden - meaning it cannot be accessed. The introduction is probably about correct for an article of such large scope.
• There should be no unsourced paragraphs.
• The cloud genus descriptions on this page exceed some of the coverage on their own stand-alone pages. An exception exists with Cirrus cloud which is a featured article.
• The article is currently being pulled in all directions and doesn't have a clear way to give the information to the reader. "Formation in the homosphere: how the air becomes saturated" is a very technical section. Other parts seem to be relatively accessible in stark contrast.

I'm going to ask a very experienced editor to help set a path for this article's development and reorganization - because it is likely out of my league too. The same editor who made sea and desert. I tend to do really small topics on civic matters and historic buildings. This is a vital article, it is going to be extremely difficult, but working together people can accomplish great things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I repaired a few deadlinks and reformatted dates to conform with the existing style. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your clarification and other help; glad to know you're not as down on the article as I first thought. I guess that first exchange was an occasion for both of us to blow off some steam, and now we can continue our discussion in a more constructive way. I hope your colleague who did the Sea article will be willing to help as well. I now understand your frustration over this premature GA nomination. However, maybe something good will come out of it if it ultimately leads to the cloud article finally achieving the rating that any vital article should have. It's astounding to me this article has languished for so many years as a C-grade, but it looks like this is the first time a contributer who has a good knowledge of meteorology (but not editing) may be linked at least for a while with another who has a strong scientific background and is also an accomplished editor.

If the article aims at low college as well as high school, I think there has to be some technical content (or at least adequate links to same); it's just a question of how much. I've seen some of the meteorology that is taught at high school level, and it's pretty basic. It's in high school that many if not most students decide what their real life interests are, and I believe they need to have easy access to articles with content that goes beyond what's in their school textbooks. Still, if there's a concensus that parts of the cloud article are too technical even for this demographic, I'm very open to scaling it back. However, I think it should be kept in mind there is also a Wikipedia cloud article in simple English for elementary school students and anyone else who wants only a basic introduction to this topic.

If it may help at all, you can tell your colleague I'm a bit of a slow learner and a slow worker (keyboard-challenged!) when it comes to Wikipedia editing, but I'm committed to co-operating to the best of my ability, even if it means accepting guidelines that might sometimes go against my own (faulty) instincts. I was initially negative about the prospect of doing a complete rewrite of the article (as opposed to simply rearranging sections, paragraphs, and/or sentences which would be fairly easy), but if it should prove necessary, I'll be willing to take that on as long as I have the time and the patient editorial help I need to accomplish it. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 12:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• The other editor declined on the technical aspect - this is a matter that is more complex than a general topic. The problem lies in that the nominator is not a contributor and someone else is now bearing the issues for it. Not exactly fair, now is it? It is obvious that it needs a lot of work, but the question is - how do we accomplish it? I think we should take what we can from Desert and start with the etymology of "Cloud" and I would extend this to the major types of clouds as we seek to first ground the readers knowledge of source terminology while educating them on some preliminary topics. I think we should then move into the history of cloud science as a brief overview of the subject to mark era and details for those who are unfamiliar with clouds and earth science, then we move the classification of the clouds (genus and type), then we actually get into the formation and so on and so forth until we get to the extraterrestrial clouds. Tropospheric classification could be its own article in all actuality, but that does not stop us from providing a strong and concise overview either - this will be the key section as it represents the core subject when most people look up in the sky. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Improvements in progress

• • • So far, I've restructured the article along the lines you suggested so that the sections about cloud formation and distribution come AFTER the sections about classification instead of before. The main article after the intro now has a short referenced paragraph about the etymology of the word 'cloud' which I can maybe expand a bit more if that would improve it. The section about history of nomenclature has some info I've added about etymology of some cloud types, but I need to expand it a bit and add some references. I have the beginnings of a section about the history of cloud science that I'm working on in my sandbox. I've been looking at the Wikipedia meteorology timeline for some ideas, and the article has a few parts that relate specifically to clouds, but many of its inline references are rather poor and some are stone dead. For me, modern cloud science begins with Luke Howard who invented the basis of modern classification in 1802-03, but it might be worth including that analytical writings about the subject may date as far back as C.3000 BCE if I can find adequate references. My next priority after that is to get at least one inline reference into each paragraph of the main article, then we can look at where to go from there. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 00:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, don't you feel that the article is a lot stronger now from that restructure? The reading is grounded so much better! It may not seem like much, but this new structure will allow for better nuance and splitting off for more analysis on separate pages in the future. Also, sections like "Formation in the stratosphere" and "Formation the mesosphere" could be combined to "Polar stratospheric" and "Polar mesospheric" since they already have a "Formation and distribution" sub heading. The article has made absolutely wonderful progress and I won't feel guilty about jumping in with fixes of my own at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a note, the English Wikipedia has superior standards for content on broad topics than our foreign language counterparts, do not "reinvent the wheel" if you do not have to. I dislike the Swedish page for depth and poor use, but the German page has something worth transferring over! The reliance on covering cloud symbols should be pushed to another page and summarized here, allowing for not only a chance a Featured List - but also being a practical appendix serving specialized use for those seeking additional information. This article is much larger and more in-depth than our counterparts, but remember it is okay to split off excessive detail on this page to sub-pages that can be expanded with almost unfettered detail. "Formation in the troposphere: how the air becomes saturated" is probably one of those sections that can be put back to Cloud formation (a redirect as of this post). I'd love a great overview of how clouds are formed, but let's see what we have to work with first huh? Size is not such an issue once everything is in a proper place and perspective, but organizing it can do wonders. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your very positive, encouraging, and helpful feedback! Actually, the text about polar stratospheric and mesospheric clouds got split up because I got a bit overzealous with your suggestion to put the formation and distribution text after the classification text. I reorganized it so that classification of clouds above the troposphere were in the same broad section as tropospheric classification, so that stratospheric and mesospheric formation appeared lower down the article after tropospheric formation. This might have been justifiable if the sections about the very high clouds were as large and extensive as for tropospheric clouds, but they are very much smaller and therefore not served well by being split up. I now have a compromise arrangement that starts with tropospheric classification followed by tropospheric formation and distribution, then repeating the same pattern for clouds above the troposphere.

Even before you suggested making the article more concise by splitting off some text to other pages, I was thinking at least parts of that big section called "summary of etages, forms, genera, species" etc. could be moved to the "List of cloud types" article (especially the cloud code numbers and symbols) while descriptions of the species, and other subtypes could be me moved to the individual Wikipedia articles for each major cloud type, and the descriptions of the genus-types could be moved further up the article and merged with the section "Etages and cross-classification into genera". I have higher priorities right now like improving and increasing the number of inline citations and doing a few other things you've emphasized, but it's something we can talk about in more detail and make some decisions as this project progresses. One part of the article I've already made more concise is the table of contents. I've reduced the TOC limit and reformatted some of the titles/subtitles.

I'm wondering if maybe we should have any further discussions about this on our user pages rather than the talk page, at least while we're talking more about the finer points of what I'm doing. I guess it depends on how much of what we're saying to each other might be of interest to others and how much of it is only of interest to us. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 12:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31: this is technically a GA review so my hands are tied unless I fail this, but it is a major improvement and I think it is getting there. I just can't be on the fence and play both roles. Should I fail it and join in or keep on as reviewer? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: I've continued to make improvments since your Dec. 1 message. I've gone over some broken or incomplete citations to check and make alterations when text doesn't properly fit citation. I've now reached the milestone of having at least one citation for each paragraph or equivilent in the article. But of course there often need to be several in a paragraph because of the subject matter, even when it's not controversial, but just in need of sourcing for the sake of good editing, So these improvments are still ongoing. I think I'm largely finished the new sections on Etymology and history of cloud science, the second of which I've tried merging with the next section about the history of nomentclature. I think I might be finished with the "heavy lifting" before the end of this month and be able to get more into the fine tuning and polishing. Of course, I'm getting into Christmas rush, so that may impact my progress somewhat.

As for your question about your own future role in this project; I'm in favor of whatever protocol would allow me to finish this upgrade by no later than Jan 2015, and then have it reviewed by an authorized senior editor who could pass it, fail it, or maybe bring it up 1 level to a B grade. Your help has been vital for my progress and I thank you for it. If this unfortunately means you cannot give the final review, then maybe another senior editor should do that and you could continue to monitor my progress without any conflicts of interest and offer me, if I need it, that final assist that could push the article over the top! My concern is if the article doesn't pass this nomination, it might be very hard to renominate it again to another reviewer who might not be keen to look at it again so soon after a recent unsucccessful nomination. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk)12:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll watch over it and maybe fix and make tweaks, I just cannot be a significant or major contributor before reviewing or radically departing from a role as a reviewer. I checked, a few reviews done by people when I was inactive involved copyeditings to other minor tweaks. Restructuring content and rewriting or adding significant chunks of content sorta crosses the line. This is going to be your Good Article, and you are working hard for it. It is a very different article from when this page was nominated by some random passerby, but that is a good thing. Though a bit of a note on development of the article "See also" has a lot of links and maybe you could work the relevant side topics into the article. Mist being one such article. Though remember, do not try to do everything, the clouds have their own pages for a reason and Cloud should simply summarize the details or risk being overly long. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

On the home stretch

If I'm understanding you correctly, maybe you haven't quite crossed the line that would prevent you from giving the article its final review. Definitely I would prefer to have you as my reviewer because you've taken the most interest in my work and you know the most about what I'm doing and the strengths and weakness's I bring to this epic task. You make a very good point about creating a "see also:" for the subject of mist. For some reason, mist has never been mentioned in the article, and it never occurred to me to mention it either. It has been my approach for quite awhile to create links between key points in the main article and other "pages" or articles by using double brackets in the edit text, the "see also:" which I've used in one place to create a link to the "List of cloud types", and of course the inline citations. The latter is a skill I've taken a long time to figure out, and I'm still very slow at it. I know there are even other ways to create links including "main article:" and at the bottom of the page, "external links:". For me, knowing which type of link to use with each relevent theme or point can be a bit tricky at times. I can see that sorting out the main themes from the side themes is a vital part of that process. I'll make it a high priority to work in a reference to "mist", and maybe "haze" and "smoke" as well, since they can all be involved in the creation of clouds, or can appear as surface-based layers or layers aloft in their own right. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 00:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, some of the terms are weird. When in doubt, copy the formats that you like. Most are actually really simple. Take a look at Template:Further. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My work has continued, with a good part of my efforts over the past 3 weeks being centered on shifting text from this article to other more appropriate linked articles in order to make this article more concise and cloud-centered. I've added a few words about mist as an elaboration of the text about fog with particular reference the visibility criteria for each. So far, I haven't included haze or smoke because neither are hydrometeors. If you think I should include them anyway (both are sometimes observed or encountered as layers aloft), I can do so as long as I include that particular qualification. I think I have an approach to doing citations/references that I'm comfortable with. I'm still rather slow at it because I don't have good keyboard skills (I took keyboard, then known as "typing", as an optional subject in my first year of high school and bombed my second term with a mark of 28%!!). However, I'm slowly but semi-steadily adding new citations as I find new sources using Google. I've had a look at the German language article and it has some interesting graphics. I don't know enough German to be able to evaluate any of the text unless I undertake the rather cumbersome process of running it all through Google translate. If there are some particular parts of the German article you think I should take a close look at, I'll have to ask you to specify which sections you have in mind. I'm taking a few days off for Christmas, then resuming again to try and have this beast in the cage by or before the end of January, the time objective I set for myself soon after we started our dialogue. I wish you all the best for the holiday season and thank you again for your ongoing assistnce! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 12:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

To all involved in this review, with no activity taking place in the past 20 days, if no further progress is made within 48 hours I will close the review. The whole point of putting an article on hold is to fix issues within 7 days...this article has been on hold for 51 days....--Dom497 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I am now closing this review.--Dom497 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Cloud GA review fiasco

Well here we go again. This time my efforts are being panned by a senior editor who doesn't appear to have much idea what I've really been up to. No activity on this article for the past 20 days?? REALLY???? Perhaps this editor should take a look beyond the discussion page to the actual article and the edit history and see just how much activity there's really been. If this article still isn't quite up to GA standard, that's one thing, but don't falsely cite me for indolence!!

I've been told by one senior editor that the article has come a long way in the past 51 days, but now another tells it has all been for nought so far. I've been told the article need more citations, so I've added more citations. I've been told the article needs sections about the origin of the word 'cloud' and a concise history of cloud science, and I've added both. I've been told the article needs to be more concise so I've made it more concise. I've been told the article needs to be restructured with the sections about classification ahead of the sections about formation, and I've done that. Now I'm being told by another senior editor it still isn't good enough.

So please, somebody, tell me what do you want me do do next. Is the article in its present form still only a C-grade like it was back in 2010 when I did my first edits? The article was very incomplete then and was using an outated classification system abandoned by the WMO back in the 1950's!! I think it must be closer to a B-level by now. If an A-grade is beyond my competence, is there anything I can do to bring it at least to a B level? ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 23:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Temporary (or permanent) moving of faulty cloud classification table

An elaborate but out-of-date classification table has been moved at least temporarily to this page to see if it can fixed. Details to follow. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 12:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Clouds Atlas2.png

Cloud chart using pre-1956 classifications. Cumulus mediocris is now characterized by the World Meteorological Organization as moderate vertical and nimbostratus as multi-etage or moderate to deep vertical. Cloud formation identified as Cb inc is actually Cb cap. Formations identified as An(vil) are the real Cb inc

Requesting peer review

I have been trying ro raise the cloud article from a C-grade to at least a B-grade for a long time. I think I've addressed issues raised during the unsuccessful GA review earlier this year, but I still need very specific comments about other 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) 23:43, 29 July 2015 (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 one external link on Cloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cloud/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 17:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y (Highest is 76.5%, but the site appears to have been copied from the article, not the other way around.) 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y
• No dead links N:
  1. World Meteorological Organization, ed. (2017). "Stratocumulus, International Cloud Atlas". Retrieved 16 May 2017.
• No missing citations N:
  1. Two of the forms are each divided into several genera that are differentiated mainly by altitude range or level. The other three comprise just one genus type for each form.
  2. If the inversion layer is absent or higher in the troposphere, increased convective activity may cause the cloud layers to develop tops in the form of turrets consisting of embedded cumuliform buildups. The stratocumuliform group is divided into cirrocumulus (high-level), altocumulus (mid-level), and stratocumulus (low-level).
  3. Depending on their vertical size, clouds of the cumulus genus type may be low-level or multi-level with moderate to towering vertical extent.
  4. and often have complex structures that include cirriform tops and multiple accessory clouds.
  5. Cirrocumulus occasionally forms alongside cirrus and may be accompanied or replaced by cirrostratus clouds at the very leading edge of an active weather system.
  6. Altocumulus near the top of its range may resemble cirrocumulus but is usually thicker and composed of water droplets so that the bases show at least some light-grey shading. Opaque altocumulus associated with a weak frontal or low-pressure disturbance can produce virga, very light intermittent precipitation that evaporates before reaching the ground. If the altocumulus is mixed with moisture-laden altostratus, the precipitation may reach the ground.
  7. Precipitation commonly becomes heavier and more widespread if it thickens into nimbostratus.
  8. Opaque stratocumulus can produce very light intermittent precipitation. This cloud often forms under a precipitating deck of altostratus or high-based nimbostratus associated with a well-developed warm front, slow-moving cold front, or low-pressure area. This can create the illusion of continuous precipitation of more than very light intensity falling from stratocumulus.
  9. Only very weak precipitation can fall from this cloud (usually drizzle or snow grains), although heavier rain or snow may fall through a stratus layer from a higher precipitating cloud deck. When a low stratiform cloud contacts the ground, it is called fog if the prevailing surface visibility is less than 1 kilometer, although radiation and advection types of fog tend to form in clear air rather than from stratus layers. If the visibility increases to 1 kilometer or higher in any kind of fog, the visible condensation is termed mist.
  10. They usually form in the low level of the troposphere except during conditions of very low relative humidity when the clouds bases can rise into the middle altitude range. Moderate cumulus is officially classified as low-level and more informally characterized as having vertical extent that can involve more than one altitude level.
  11. When they form at low altitudes, stratiform and cumuliform genus-types can be torn up into shreds by brisk low level winds that create mechanical turbulence against the ground. Fractus clouds can form in precipitation at low altitudes, with or without brisk or gusty winds. They are closely associated with precipitating cloud systems of considerable vertical and sometimes horizontal extent, so they are also classified as accessory clouds under the name pannus (see section on supplementary features).
  12. Castellanus resembles the turrets of a castle when viewed from the side, and can be found with stratocumuliform genera at any tropospheric altitude level and with limited-convective patches of high-level cirrus. Tufted clouds of the more detached floccus species are subdivisions of genus-types which may be cirriform or stratocumuliform in overall structure. They are sometimes seen with cirrus, and with tufted cirrocumulus, altocumulus, and stratocumulus. Low and mid level castellanus or floccus can resemble cumulo- and cumulonimbogenitus formations (see 'Mother clouds' section). However, the latter genitus types are seen mostly in the evening and are the result of cumuliform and cumulonimbiform clouds dissipating rather than forming or building.
  13. which is the same type that the International Civil Aviation Organization refers to as 'towering cumulus'.
  14. Similarly, these varieties are also not associated with moderate and towering vertical clouds because they are always opaque.
  15. and with the genus altostratus.
  16. The heavier precipitating clouds, nimbostratus, towering cumulus (cumulus congestus), and cumulonimbus typically see the formation in precipitation of the pannus feature, low ragged clouds of the genera and species cumulus fractus or stratus fractus.
  17. When wind driven clouds are forced through a mountain range, or when ocean wind driven clouds encounter a high elevation island, they can begin to circle the mountain or high land mass. They can form at any altitude in the troposphere and are not restricted to any particular cloud type.
  18. Cloudiness tends to be least prevalent near the poles and in the subtropics close to the 20th parallels, north and south. The latter are sometimes referred to as the horse latitudes. The presence of a large-scale high-pressure subtropical ridge on each side of the equator reduces cloudiness at these low latitudes. Similar patterns also occur at higher latitudes in both hemispheres.
  19. This uncertainty arises because of the delicate balance of processes related to clouds, spanning scales from millimeters to planetary. Hence, interactions between large-scale weather events (synoptic meteorology) and clouds becomes difficult to represent in global models.
  20. These larger droplets associated with vertically developed clouds are better able to trap the long-wave radiation thus mitigating the cooling effect to some degree. However, these large often precipitating clouds are variable or unpredictable in their overall effect because of variations in their concentration, distribution, and vertical extent.
  21. Moisture is scarce in the stratosphere, so nacreous and non-nacreous cloud at this altitude range is rare and is usually restricted to polar regions in the winter where the air is coldest.
  22. However, an increasing frequency of occurrence of noctilucent clouds since the 19th century may be the result of climate change.
  23. and a fluid cycle on Titan, including lakes near the poles and fluvial channels on the surface of the moon.

• @ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31: I'm placing the review on hold due to the missing citations. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• • @Iazyges:Thanks for the work you've done so far. I see a lot of additional citations are needed to meet the GA criteria. I'll try my best to get it done within the 7 day deadline. ~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Iazyges: I'm almost finished adding the new citations. I should squeak in just ahead of the deadline! ~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

    @ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31: Please note that Each altitude level comprises two or three genus types differentiated mainly by physical form. also needs a ref, must have missed it during my first sweep.

  • @Iazyges: I just noticed this morning your extra comment about needing one more reference citation. It was undated and placed just above my most recent comments ("Mission hopefully accomplished") so it may have taken me awhile to see it. I usually look below rather than above my last comments for any further feedback from users and reviewers. In any case, I have given the sentence in question three references. It may be the sentence is a bit too broad as written. I believe the first reference ("definitions") covers the first half of the sentence about the altitude levels comprising several genus types each. I hope the second and third references adequately cover the second half of the sentence that refers to the forms, which are also discussed and well referenced in the section about physical forms a little higher up the article. If it's all a bit too messy, I can break up the long broad sentence into two shorter sentences each with their own reference citations. If you think any of the refs don't adequately cover the one broad sentence, or two proposed shorter sentences, I can reduce the sentence to just its first half with its explicit citation reference and eliminate the second half of the sentence where the reference citations to the "forms" might be a little bit more vague. I welcome your advice on all of this. Thankyou again! ~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Mission hopefully accomplished

@Iazyges: I've finished adding the new citations just ahead of the deadline. For most of the missing citations, I was able to find reliable sources and link them as references to the relevent text. In some other cases I had to modify or correct some text to conform more closely with the new citations. In just a very few situations, I had to remove some text that I (in my previous inexperience as an editor) thought was common knowledge. I'm unable to find any suitable references for the deleted items at this time, but may restore them in the future if any good sources come into view. I've tried very hard to keep my work free of significant errors or oversights. I will quickly fix or remove any further flaws that are brought to my attention. I thank you again for your help in this review, and look forward to learning of the outcome.~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Prose Suggestions

Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.

• Around the beginning of the 13th century, it was extended as a metaphor to include rain clouds as masses of evaporated water in the sky because of the similarity in appearance between a mass of rock and a cumulus heap cloud. Over time, the metaphoric term replaced the original old English weolcan to refer to clouds in general. suggest Around the beginning of the 13th century, the word came to be used as a metaphor for rain clouds, because of the similarity in appearance between a mass of rock and cumulus heap cloud. Over time, the metaphoric usage of the word supplanted the old English weolcan, which had been the literal term for clouds in general.
• These high clouds do not produce precipitation. does this apply to the other two genus clouds, or just genus cirrus?
• On comparatively rare occasions, convective lift can be powerful enough to penetrate the tropopause and push the cloud top into the stratosphere. Suggest removing comparatively, perhaps adding "moderately" to replace it.
• @ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31: That is all my suggestions, passing now. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Thankyou for the suggestions. They may be optional, but I think they all help, so I've incorporated them into the article. I've always had a good knowledge about certain meteorological subjects, but I've been on a steep learning curve when it comes to good writing and editing, especially the refs/citations! This is my first GA; Your help has been invaluable ~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:56, 16 May 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)