Cloud Calculations issue 2: It's foggy outside

[Kaltias]

Actually, it becomes more "almost every storm reaching the horizon is 20 km now".

The other revision is still legit, but this puts a cap to the radius

 

[Andytrenom]

Bambu is so clueless smh

 

[Schnee_One]

Of course it has been shown that I am about as intelligent as a very clever pebble so I could be incorrect.

Not so much incorrect so much as the point went non-corporal on your ass

 

[Mr. Bambu]

"In the article linked above it was said that one could rarely see further than 20km. That fits this, according to which in clear weather conditions the visibility is 20km, in very clear conditions 50km and exceptionally clear conditions even 280km."

20km-280km*

And... I'm aware that this is an extension, or more appropriately a response, to the other revision. That doesn't mean it doesn't void a lot of what was said over there, in that the other revision states radius of clouds should be higher whereas this puts a limit on that exact same radius based on visibility.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Thus is an answer to it because it does void them.

DT is clarifying what is factual here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yes. That's the point.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, I am waiting for a reply from DontTalkDT regarding if he has the time and is willing to update our calculation standard pages.

I will do so. Most likely tomorrow or the day after.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Yes. That's the point.

So what are you questioning? This is a continuation of the last thread, confirming what is right an voiding what wasn't.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

Thank you very much for the help.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I updated the cloud calculations page a few days ago and now also the Standard Storm Calculations page.

The latter I basically rewrote in the progress. I have calculated the most common results for CAPE calcs and put them in a table there. As usual it would be good if someone checks whether those are correct.

 

[DMUA]

I kinda already made that sorta

User blogMUA/Standard calculation for just any old generic storm

So I guess we'll check eachother's math?

Edit: Yours is fine, save a decimal discrepancy which is inevitable really.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

Thank you very much for the help.

@All

I would appreciate if somebody could ask all of the current calc group members, along with Kaltias, Assaltwaffle, Ugarik, and Calaca Vs, to comment here via their message walls, as it is important that they check through DonTalkDT's new methods.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I agree with this.

 

[Ugarik]

I also agree with this as i said in the first comment

 

[Antvasima]

I meant checking through the new versions of the Standard Storm Calculations and Cloud Calculations pages.

 

[Ugarik]

Okay sorry about it.

So the Cloud Calculations page is fine.

In the Standard Storm Calculations page Table of Results using CAPE and Different Real-Life Examples paragraph was removed yet it doesn't use distance to the horizon, therefore shouldn't be affected by the revision.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the evaluation.

@DontTalkDT

Do you think that the table should be reinserted?

 

[TataHakai]

I'm confused on how one would quantifiably differentiate between clear and very clear? Or would it just be a case of whichever most agree on for the situation?

 

[Ugarik]

I'm confused on how one would quantifiably differentiate between clear and very clear? Or would it just be a case of whichever most agree on for the situation?

"Very clear" shouldn't be possible during a storm or cloudy wether in gerenar. I think "clear" just means "no fog"

 

[DontTalkDT]

I reinserted the table.

I'm confused on how one would quantifiably differentiate between clear and very clear? Or would it just be a case of whichever most agree on for the situation?

The values aside from "clear" are for the most part for overview, low or high ends and possibly rare statements like "The air is very clear today" or something.

In practice "clear" will be the value used almost always, if there is no fog, rain etc. present.

 

[TataHakai]

I reinserted the table.

I'm confused on how one would quantifiably differentiate between clear and very clear? Or would it just be a case of whichever most agree on for the situation?

The values aside from "clear" are for the most part for overview, low or high ends and possibly rare statements like "The air is very clear today" or something.
In practice "clear" will be the value used almost always, if there is no fog, rain etc. present.

Fair enough i guess

so for rainy weather distance to horizon can't be used?

 

[Ugarik]

It can't be used regardless because distance to the horizon does not determine radius of the visible clouds

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I actually had the same like of thought about horizon line storms pretty recently, so I'm glad to see it addressed. This is a big pair of threads.

 

[Antvasima]

So what do the rest of you think of DontTalk's modifications to the pages?

 

[Therefir]

They seem to be fine, although the values in the standard results are slightly rounded, there should be no problems.

What I don't understand is why add a column with results using a height of 11800 meters if we're never going to use it.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I agree with Therefir.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I basically included it because I like giving a range of realistic values. If you guys see a good reason to remove them you can do that.

 

[DMUA]

I self evidently have bias to my blog, but you guys can pick whichever is best.

 

[Kaltias]

So if it's raining or something like that, we should use 10 km?

I think that it's important to determine it given that rain is obviously going to be present in a lot of storm feats

 

[DontTalkDT]

Rain is like fog, in that it depends a whole lot on how strong its raining. The page on visibility linked above states 0.1 km for strong rain. So rain is probably between 10 km for very light rain and 100m for strong rain.