Sadly the website is offline, but if you like a hard copy cloud book I can heartily recommend the following. During my spell in Antarctica, I had to act as a meteorological observer (clouds are still manually encoded into METOBS that are entered in by WMO stations). This required learning the 10 types and being able to characterise the full picture of the sky.
It made me a total cloud addict, and spurred a far deeper interest in the role of the atmosphere in environmental science which has persisted ever since.
I heartily recommend looking up at the sky, dividing into oktas (eighths) and trying to classify how much of the low, medium and high clouds there are. If you do it regularly enough, the changes begin to astound. Getting your kids to do it too is also wonderful, because it's always there as an activity... :)
It is amazing how much of 'it' is going on in the skies once you start noticing.
There was a thread this winter on solstices, with commenters expressing wonder at how could humans figure those out. If you notice sunrises/sunsets day after day over the years, it is inescapable. It's sad that we the modern humans spend so much time hunkered below opaque ceilings.
But I will say this, having interest in cloud-spotting and amateur astronomy is very very rewarding. Clouds stop being an impediment to you and grow into a phenomena worth appreciating on their own terms.
During my time in Antarctica we had a (Turbo Pascal, I think) program on the met computer that prompted for weather conditions and sent it off to the satellite terminal. The UI was not great, it was surprisingly easy to report sandstorms.
I wouldn't say conclusively, but certainly they're an indicator for things like what you mention. Nimbostratus are typically associated with rain, cumulonimbus for thunderstorms: both of these are indicators for the atmospheric conditions and thermal upwellings that will cause sudden precipitation and / or electrostatic discharge.
We also did air observations for pilots. If you saw certain types of cumulus near peaks, called lenticulars, pilots wouldn't go near them because they're caused by pretty dangerous winds dynamics.
It's all connected, which is why it gets so fascinating. Sadly, I never pursued meteorology beyond hobbyist, but I'd love to!
I'm something of a cloud-enjoyer. If you're interested in learning more about clouds I'd recommend the international cloud atlas website.
https://cloudatlas.wmo.int/en/home.html
What I find fascinating objects of beauty are the ways different clouds modify light or are illuminated by different kinds of light, from the belt of Venus to different kinds of halos to crepuscular and anti solar rays.
I remember that one time where anti-solar rays painted pole to pole "longitudes" on the hemispherical dome of the sky. It's too bad we don't have photographic memory, or at least I don't.
It is such a wonderful world if one has the luxury of time and space and the foresight to remove oneself from the cover of a ceiling once in a while.
I'm having trouble understanding the Belt of Venus one. Isn't purple expected to be there per ROYGBIV? Also the second image looks orange to me, not purple.
> It is a pinkish glow that surrounds the observer
This also makes no sense to me, or else maybe observer is jargon? But there's no hyperlink... The photographer certainly doesn't seem to be surrounded by a pinkish glow.
Is it just a name for the purple part of the spectrum?
In its most widespread sense, "purple" is not a part of the spectrum.
Normally "purple" is used for colors that are equivalent with a mixture of red and blue, so that none of the spectral colors can match that mixture.
"Violet" is also used for colors equivalent with a mixture of red and blue, but which have so much more blue than red that there are monochromatic colors in the spectrum which can match that color and which have a frequency higher than the monochromatic colors that appear blue.
The fact that the monochromatic colors in the violet range have the same color as a mixture with a lot of blue and a little red is caused by the fact that the human red photoreceptors have a defect, instead of filtering only red light they have a second peak of absorption in the frequency range of the monochromatic violet light, so the violet light is perceived by both the blue photoreceptors and, with an attenuated value, by the red photoreceptors.
The acronym ROYGBIV should better be forgotten, because it is not known with certainty what Newton meant by "blue" and "indigo", so this acronym is misleading for the people familiar only with modern English.
It is pretty much certain that Newton did not use those words with their present meaning. He used them based on the labels of some artistic paints that he happened to have at home. His indigo paint (i.e. with indigo pigment) appears to correspond with what today would be called "blue", while his "blue" paint seems to have actually been a blue-green paint (i.e. the color that is complementary to red, and which is also called correctly turquoise and frequently but incorrectly cyan). Thus it appears that Newton meant to say that the 7 spectral colors are red, orange, yellow, green, blue-green, blue and violet, which makes sense.
I do not understand the Physics of the phenomenon very well, but I would expect the high frequency wavelengths (for example, purple) to be scattered away.
"Surround" does not describe the phenomenon of Belt of Venus adequately. Think of it like a horizontal band wrapped around the dome of the sky, slightly above the horizon, and prominent towards the West, fading towards the East.
When I moved from the Bay Area to Austin, the first thing I realized: I missed seeing Cumulus clouds, which I saw a lot growing up in the midwest. Bay Area either has blue skies or Cirrus clouds, but never did see Cumulus clouds there.
Sorry but I can't make sense of this comment. If we assume "Bay Area either has blue skies or Cirrus clouds, but never did see Cumulus clouds there" is true, then the first sentence would make more sense if you had moved from Austin (which presumably has cumulus clouds) to the Bay Area (which doesn't, per your final sentence).
I also wasn't sure what to make of "in the midwest". Not being from the US, I thought that that would be referring to Austin -- but when I asked Gemini, it confidently told me that Austin is not in the Midwest. I know the Bay Area is not in the Midwest, so... Are you referring to a third place here?
Not OP, but: Moving back to Austin, the overwhelming number of cumulus clouds in the sky reminded him how much he enjoyed their marshmallowy appearance. They don't exist in the Bay, hence his first sentence being true.
Presumably he spent his youth in the Midwest. Austin is a pretty transient city so OP likely moved there.
Funny enough I have felt similar to OP about Texas skies compared to the East Coast. The plains landscape and the heat (common to the Midwest) seems to create a cloud overlay so very different from what you find on the coasts. Me, I'll keep my stratocumulus and cirrocumulus beautiful sunsets of the South Eastern United States anyday!
Yep that’s right. First sentence was poorly worded, but I was trying to figure out why moving to Austin made me feel nostalgia, turns out it was the Cumulus clouds. Both Austin and Illinois have them, but the Bay does not.
They have forums where people post neat cloud photos and if you sign up for membership they will send you an identification chart plus a journal for keeping track of the types you have seen.
Makes for a nice gift for that person you know who always goes "oh look at that cloud!" :)
Lol, i expected a comparison between the major cloud providers but had a hard time believing there would be ten of them.. Anyway, I should take a day of to look at some real clouds.
Cumulus are the best clouds. They make so many shapes and things. I could see them as space ships floating by or big heads, or dragons and what not as a child.
Sadly the website is offline, but if you like a hard copy cloud book I can heartily recommend the following. During my spell in Antarctica, I had to act as a meteorological observer (clouds are still manually encoded into METOBS that are entered in by WMO stations). This required learning the 10 types and being able to characterise the full picture of the sky.
It made me a total cloud addict, and spurred a far deeper interest in the role of the atmosphere in environmental science which has persisted ever since.
I heartily recommend looking up at the sky, dividing into oktas (eighths) and trying to classify how much of the low, medium and high clouds there are. If you do it regularly enough, the changes begin to astound. Getting your kids to do it too is also wonderful, because it's always there as an activity... :)
Really hoping this site comes online again soon!
https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/products/met-office-cloud...
It is amazing how much of 'it' is going on in the skies once you start noticing.
There was a thread this winter on solstices, with commenters expressing wonder at how could humans figure those out. If you notice sunrises/sunsets day after day over the years, it is inescapable. It's sad that we the modern humans spend so much time hunkered below opaque ceilings.
But I will say this, having interest in cloud-spotting and amateur astronomy is very very rewarding. Clouds stop being an impediment to you and grow into a phenomena worth appreciating on their own terms.
Hear hear :)
During my time in Antarctica we had a (Turbo Pascal, I think) program on the met computer that prompted for weather conditions and sent it off to the satellite terminal. The UI was not great, it was surprisingly easy to report sandstorms.
Gotta love 600 mile long roll clouds ...
* https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/MorningG...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Glory_cloud
Are you able to know and/or predict things about the weather by knowing the different clouds?
Like cumulonimbus = thunderstorm, stratus = maybe rain, sure. But what about the others?
I wouldn't say conclusively, but certainly they're an indicator for things like what you mention. Nimbostratus are typically associated with rain, cumulonimbus for thunderstorms: both of these are indicators for the atmospheric conditions and thermal upwellings that will cause sudden precipitation and / or electrostatic discharge.
We also did air observations for pilots. If you saw certain types of cumulus near peaks, called lenticulars, pilots wouldn't go near them because they're caused by pretty dangerous winds dynamics.
It's all connected, which is why it gets so fascinating. Sadly, I never pursued meteorology beyond hobbyist, but I'd love to!
Not offline for me
I'm something of a cloud-enjoyer. If you're interested in learning more about clouds I'd recommend the international cloud atlas website. https://cloudatlas.wmo.int/en/home.html
Personal top three clouds:
- Nacreous clouds
- Altocumulus lenticularis
- Cirrus homogenitus (what a name)
I'm something of a cloud enjoyer myself. See also https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/
I have visited this here and there for the past 20+ years.
https://www.cloudman.com
…and now I've learned something new today:
https://cloudatlas.wmo.int/en/fog-bow.html
What I find fascinating objects of beauty are the ways different clouds modify light or are illuminated by different kinds of light, from the belt of Venus to different kinds of halos to crepuscular and anti solar rays.
I remember that one time where anti-solar rays painted pole to pole "longitudes" on the hemispherical dome of the sky. It's too bad we don't have photographic memory, or at least I don't.
It is such a wonderful world if one has the luxury of time and space and the foresight to remove oneself from the cover of a ceiling once in a while.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_of_Venus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepuscular_rays#Gallery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticrepuscular_rays#/media/Fi...
I'm having trouble understanding the Belt of Venus one. Isn't purple expected to be there per ROYGBIV? Also the second image looks orange to me, not purple.
> It is a pinkish glow that surrounds the observer
This also makes no sense to me, or else maybe observer is jargon? But there's no hyperlink... The photographer certainly doesn't seem to be surrounded by a pinkish glow.
Is it just a name for the purple part of the spectrum?
In its most widespread sense, "purple" is not a part of the spectrum.
Normally "purple" is used for colors that are equivalent with a mixture of red and blue, so that none of the spectral colors can match that mixture.
"Violet" is also used for colors equivalent with a mixture of red and blue, but which have so much more blue than red that there are monochromatic colors in the spectrum which can match that color and which have a frequency higher than the monochromatic colors that appear blue.
The fact that the monochromatic colors in the violet range have the same color as a mixture with a lot of blue and a little red is caused by the fact that the human red photoreceptors have a defect, instead of filtering only red light they have a second peak of absorption in the frequency range of the monochromatic violet light, so the violet light is perceived by both the blue photoreceptors and, with an attenuated value, by the red photoreceptors.
The acronym ROYGBIV should better be forgotten, because it is not known with certainty what Newton meant by "blue" and "indigo", so this acronym is misleading for the people familiar only with modern English.
It is pretty much certain that Newton did not use those words with their present meaning. He used them based on the labels of some artistic paints that he happened to have at home. His indigo paint (i.e. with indigo pigment) appears to correspond with what today would be called "blue", while his "blue" paint seems to have actually been a blue-green paint (i.e. the color that is complementary to red, and which is also called correctly turquoise and frequently but incorrectly cyan). Thus it appears that Newton meant to say that the 7 spectral colors are red, orange, yellow, green, blue-green, blue and violet, which makes sense.
> Isn't purple expected to be there per ROYGBIV
I do not understand the Physics of the phenomenon very well, but I would expect the high frequency wavelengths (for example, purple) to be scattered away.
"Surround" does not describe the phenomenon of Belt of Venus adequately. Think of it like a horizontal band wrapped around the dome of the sky, slightly above the horizon, and prominent towards the West, fading towards the East.
When I moved from the Bay Area to Austin, the first thing I realized: I missed seeing Cumulus clouds, which I saw a lot growing up in the midwest. Bay Area either has blue skies or Cirrus clouds, but never did see Cumulus clouds there.
Interestingly enough, there were a lot of cumulus clouds in the Bay Area this week as part of a rare late-season storm system. https://x.com/NWSBayArea/status/2060155061796299251
Sorry but I can't make sense of this comment. If we assume "Bay Area either has blue skies or Cirrus clouds, but never did see Cumulus clouds there" is true, then the first sentence would make more sense if you had moved from Austin (which presumably has cumulus clouds) to the Bay Area (which doesn't, per your final sentence).
I also wasn't sure what to make of "in the midwest". Not being from the US, I thought that that would be referring to Austin -- but when I asked Gemini, it confidently told me that Austin is not in the Midwest. I know the Bay Area is not in the Midwest, so... Are you referring to a third place here?
Not OP, but: Moving back to Austin, the overwhelming number of cumulus clouds in the sky reminded him how much he enjoyed their marshmallowy appearance. They don't exist in the Bay, hence his first sentence being true.
Presumably he spent his youth in the Midwest. Austin is a pretty transient city so OP likely moved there.
Funny enough I have felt similar to OP about Texas skies compared to the East Coast. The plains landscape and the heat (common to the Midwest) seems to create a cloud overlay so very different from what you find on the coasts. Me, I'll keep my stratocumulus and cirrocumulus beautiful sunsets of the South Eastern United States anyday!
Yep that’s right. First sentence was poorly worded, but I was trying to figure out why moving to Austin made me feel nostalgia, turns out it was the Cumulus clouds. Both Austin and Illinois have them, but the Bay does not.
Ironically the site is now giving a "The website encountered an unexpected error. Try again later." Do I blame the cloud?
Definitely.
Heh, based on the title, I thought this would be "10 Basic Clouds" for AWS, Azure, GCP, etc. in some sort of GoF "Design Patterns" lexicon.
Thought so too and I think it's a sign I need a break.
finally something relaxing. nothing about AI or a reminder for myself to start another project with some new fancy method, no politics.
Thank you
And you can look outside to see your local version of it. And, it updates frequently!
Ironic!
And don't worry, each type of cloud is already owned and trademarked years ago, you're not missing out on altocumulus.co.uk or whatever
If you enjoy this you might like https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/
They have forums where people post neat cloud photos and if you sign up for membership they will send you an identification chart plus a journal for keeping track of the types you have seen.
Makes for a nice gift for that person you know who always goes "oh look at that cloud!" :)
Living in the PNW it's good to have an interest in types of clouds and weather generally. Helps keep ones sanity during the rainy season.
Do kids still get taught this in school? I got taught a few in the day. Cirrus, Cumulus, Stratus, Cumulonimbus. Wispy, cottonball, blanket, storm.
'Look at that cloud, dad! It's a bean with legs!'
'No son, that's a Cumulus cloud. Detached, dense, with sharp outlines.'
Lol, i expected a comparison between the major cloud providers but had a hard time believing there would be ten of them.. Anyway, I should take a day of to look at some real clouds.
Cumulus are the best clouds. They make so many shapes and things. I could see them as space ships floating by or big heads, or dragons and what not as a child.
Can these clouds be predicted from physics?
LMGTFY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_physics
Cloud formation is probably interesting example of spontaneous symmetry breaking, but that doesn’t seem to be much studied.
In opus 4.8 they can
genuinely funny - thanks
They can be predicted from a small device you can buy at a smoke shop
when I clicked on this. I was hoping to see cloud providers. but it was a pleasant surprise
Beware the Cumulonimbus.
noaa got hug of death?
Damn my IT brain thought of AWS , Azure and what not , I should go touch grass
yup. even sonnet 4.6 on low got it right
I should go touch sonnet 4.6
Disappointed to see no mention of AWS, Azure, or GCP.
[flagged]