Cloud Calculations

[Therefir]

I've had a problem with the cloud + air density we've been using for a while now, and that problem comes from our density not taking into account how air becomes lighter as the altitude increases, making our clouds heavier than the air itself, even though the water content of a cloud is minuscule (0.003 kg/m^3 for the heaviest type of cloud) compared to the air inside the cloud.

Let's take a look at this graph which I took from here, the U.S. Standard Atmosphere Air Properties:


At an altitude of 3,000 meters, air already has a density of 0.9093 kilograms per cubic meter. This is where the problem lies, most of our calculations involve storm clouds that form at a height of at least 2 kilometers and extend up to 10 kilometers above sea level (basically an 8 kilometer high storm).

At an altitude of 10 kilometers, air has a density of 0.4135 kg/m^3, less than half our current cloud air density.

What I'm proposing for the new cloud air density?
For your average storm calc, I'm proposing a cloud density of 0.6601 kg/m^3. That's the air density at a height of 6 kilometers above sea level, the middle of a 8-kilometer high storm.

For storms that formed much higher than the average one, or that are much bigger, I recommend measuring half the height of the storm + the distance to ground, adding those results and using the above graph to find the air density.

Of course, clouds formed/dispersed from anywhere between 0 to 2500 meters above sea level can keep using the current cloud air density, my main concern is storm clouds.

 

[KLOL506]

Wasn't this tackled in this thread by @DontTalkDT?

 

[Therefir]

That seems to be a different issue, I'm not proposing to drop the air inside the clouds from our calcs and use only the water content.

My issue is with the density of air; 1.003 kg/m^3 is too heavy for the average altitude of a storm cloud. At an altitude of 3 kilometers, air has a density of 0.9093 kg/m^3, and it gets lower the higher you are.

@Mr._Bambu @Damage3245 @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @DemonGodMitchAubin @CloverDragon03 @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Antvasima

This is quite important, your input here would be appreciated.

 

[KLOL506]

That seems to be a different issue, I'm not proposing to stop using the air inside the clouds and use only the water content.

My issue is with the density of the air itself; 1.003 kg/m^3 is too heavy for the average altitude of a storm cloud.

@Mr._Bambu @Damage3245 @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @DemonGodMitchAubin @CloverDragon03 @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Antvasima

This is quite important, your input here would be appreciated.

DontTalkDT and Executor IIRC are the best people to contact regarding clouds but uh... Executor seems to be inactive as of late.

 

[DontTalkDT]

We mostly use 1.003 as that's what articles said cloud density to be. Not sure if it's as simple as taking air density and adding water content

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I've had a problem with the cloud + air density we've been using for a while now, and that problem comes from our density not taking into account how air becomes lighter as the altitude increases, making our clouds heavier than the air itself, even though the water content of a cloud is minuscule (0.003 kg/m^3 for the heaviest type of cloud) compared to the air inside the cloud.

Let's take a look at this graph which I took from here, the U.S. Standard Atmosphere Air Properties:


At an altitude of 3,000 meters, air already has a density of 0.9093 kilograms per cubic meter. This is where the problem lies, most of our calculations involve storm clouds that form at a height of at least 2 kilometers and extend up to 10 kilometers above sea level (basically an 8 kilometer high storm).

At an altitude of 10 kilometers, air has a density of 0.4135 kg/m^3, less than half our current cloud air density.

What I'm proposing for the new cloud air density?
For your average storm calc, I'm proposing a cloud density of 0.6601 kg/m^3. That's the air density at a height of 6 kilometers above sea level, the middle of a 8-kilometer high storm.

For storms that formed much higher than the average one, or that are much bigger, I recommend measuring half the height of the storm + the distance to ground, adding those results and using the above graph to find the air density.

Of course, clouds formed/dispersed from anywhere between 0 to 2500 meters above sea level can keep using the current cloud air density, my main concern is storm clouds.

Haven't I made a thread with this exact same concern? It led to nowhere.

And better yet, it's better to use the density per height indicated in the graph.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

We mostly use 1.003 as that's what articles said cloud density to be. Not sure if it's as simple as taking air density and adding water content

If a cloud must be less dense than air to even stay at a certain altitude, then using 1.003kg/m³ is just incorrect, no?

 

[Therefir]

This calculation of Saitama literally obtained a mass equivalent to one-fifth of the Earth's entire atmosphere, despite being a fairly "small" scattering of clouds compared to the Earth.

There's definitely something wrong with our cloud calcs density.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

This calculation of Saitama literally obtained a mass equivalent to one-fifth of the Earth's entire atmosphere, despite being a fairly "small" scattering of clouds compared to the Earth.

There's definitely something wrong with our cloud calcs density.

In cases like this, using the average seems fair, as Saitama scattered all clouds, including the more heavy ones.

But otherwise, if we can measure the altitude, we should just use the chart (and likely include it in our cloud calculation page)

 

[Therefir]

For cases like Saitama I recommend using the air density at 10 km altitude.

It is not necessary to explain why one-fifth of the Earth's atmosphere is not located in this dispersion:


Another example of our cloud density heavily inflating the mass, this user got nearly half the mass of the Earth's atmosphere in that dispersion.

 

[DontTalkDT]

If a cloud must be less dense than air to even stay at a certain altitude, then using 1.003kg/m³ is just incorrect, no?

I don't think clouds float due to buoyancy.
Google tells me something about "droplets are too small to feel gravity".

This calculation of Saitama literally obtained a mass equivalent to one-fifth of the Earth's entire atmosphere, despite being a fairly "small" scattering of clouds compared to the Earth.

There's definitely something wrong with our cloud calcs density.

Hmmm... yeah, I guess. 20km high clouds are probably built different.
I guess air density would be fine, although I believe the density development isn't linear. One would have to see if that is a good enough estimate or if we need more complicated measures (e.g. integrating the barometric density formula over height or approximation via the table in the OP)

 

[Executor_N0]

We mostly use 1.003 as that's what articles said cloud density to be. Not sure if it's as simple as taking air density and adding water content

I remember the original source with calculations with that value made use of air density and water content, I also think that the same source later changed its content to only include the water content and not the air density.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Frankly I think we ought to only include water density. I wasn't made aware of that other thread so forgive me for mentioning my opinion here instead.

I think, if we must include air, that Therefir makes a good point. However it doesn't abate the problem much. As Therefir points out, the dispersion in that image weighs about half the mass of the Earth- what does changing density from 1.003 to 0.6601 really do here? It's a difference of less than 40%. So now... it's closer to 1/4th of the Earth. Still an absurd value. There is something fundamentally wrong here.

 

[It_is_i_wyatt]

why would we only count water

 

[Therefir]

We mostly use 1.003 as that's what articles said cloud density to be. Not sure if it's as simple as taking air density and adding water content

Executor is correct here, I'm pretty sure the main source from which those articles took that information no longer even mentions 1.003, instead it goes with the traditional 0.3/0.5 grams per cubic meter for their cloud mass.

I don't think clouds float due to buoyancy.
Google tells me something about "droplets are too small to feel gravity".

"The key to why clouds float is that the density of the same volume of cloud material is less than the density of the same amount of dry air."

"But, that "heavy" cloud is floating over your head because the air below it is even heavier— the lesser density of the cloud allows it to float on the dryer and more-dense air."

As it was stated here, it's completely impossible for the cloud to be heavier the air surrounding it, which is why I suggested using the air density graph for high altitude clouds.

 

[Therefir]

why would we only count water

Small slices in the sky shouldn't be yielding results close to the entirety of the Earth's atmosphere.

And Mr. Bambu is right, even using the density of air at 10 kilometers is still only a bit less than half of the previous density, which doesn't solve any issues.

 

[It_is_i_wyatt]

is ignoring the existence of the air really the best option instead of figuring out whats inflating the results

 

[Therefir]

I'm not sure, but official US government pages have even calculated the weight of your average cloud, and they use only the water content as the density for their calculations.

 

[KLOL506]

The logic of including air in the mix is that for extreme feats such as this you would end up moving a huge amount of air as well as per what DDM and DontTalk said here, the only way it would be limited to just water alone is if it was just a Water Manip feat (And even then it would be hard as the water would drag the air alongwith it).

 

[Therefir]

However, is it really necessary to move the entirety of the air there to move the cloud?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The logic of including air in the mix is that for extreme feats such as this you would end up moving a huge amount of air as well as per what DDM and DontTalk said here, the only way it would be limited to just water alone is if it was just a Water Manip feat (And even then it would be hard as the water would drag the air alongwith it).

I don't really like that logic, to be entirely honest. As previously mentioned the water content of the cloud is less massive than the air in which it sits. So it does seem reasonable that what is affecting the cloud would have a substantially less notable effect on the air. Currently we consider the two to be exactly the same entity, which leads to our problems. It would be more correct to ignore the negligible effects on the air and account solely for the water content of the cloud, than to say "ah, well, shucks, surely something happens to the air, let's just mix the two".

The same exact thread points out how the opposite of DT and DDM's idea is even more absurd- the result of each and every cloud moving feat would be a tremendous vacuum of air.

Obviously we cannot be 100% correct in this scenario, but one end leads to such extraordinarily overshot results that I really don't understand why we're clinging to it. Arrogant Schmuck was completely right in that other thread, and it warrants more discussion at the very least.

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus Your input regarding these queries would be appreciated.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't really like that logic, to be entirely honest. As previously mentioned the water content of the cloud is less massive than the air in which it sits. So it does seem reasonable that what is affecting the cloud would have a substantially less notable effect on the air. Currently we consider the two to be exactly the same entity, which leads to our problems. It would be more correct to ignore the negligible effects on the air and account solely for the water content of the cloud, than to say "ah, well, shucks, surely something happens to the air, let's just mix the two".

The same exact thread points out how the opposite of DT and DDM's idea is even more absurd- the result of each and every cloud moving feat would be a tremendous vacuum of air.

Obviously we cannot be 100% correct in this scenario, but one end leads to such extraordinarily overshot results that I really don't understand why we're clinging to it. Arrogant Schmuck was completely right in that other thread, and it warrants more discussion at the very least.

If a shockwave, a movement of air, moves a cloud, how do you intend it to specifically affect only the droplets? That would require micromanagement of forces that is virtually impossible.
It's like trying to move mud, but in such a way that you only take out dry sand and leave the water in place. Basically impossible.

And don't get me into vacuum. Authors ignore side-effects 99% of the time. Otherwise, most of these feats would also produce gigantic amounts of heat from friction. Heck, consider just the water and you still have a notable vacuum if the feat is on a large scale.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

If a shockwave, a movement of air, moves a cloud, how do you intend it to specifically affect only the droplets? That would require micromanagement of forces that is virtually impossible.
It's like trying to move mud, but in such a way that you only take out dry sand and leave the water in place. Basically impossible.

And don't get me into vacuum. Authors ignore side-effects 99% of the time. Otherwise, most of these feats would also produce gigantic amounts of heat from friction. Heck, consider just the water and you still have a notable vacuum if the feat is on a large scale.

You aren't addressing my points, lad. It was never my claim that "only the droplets" were affected. It is my claim that the affect on the droplets is primarily what we're seeing, and that including the air as having an exact equal effect is what is causing these calculations to be so vastly distorted. it would be more justifiable on our end to discount the effect on air completely than to include it and play it up to the extent that we are doing currently.

I don't care about what authors do or don't ignore. What I care about is reasonable results from calculations. I don't expect the site to be 100% right, hell I'd even take a healthy 50%. What I am currently considering is what would be the most reasonable way to approach cloud calculations- and using methods that straight up say "here's a small sliver of the atmosphere of earth, it is roughly as massive as the earth itself, there is nothing wrong with this statement" doesn't seem too reasonable to me when there's clear and obvious alternatives.

 

[DontTalkDT]

You aren't addressing my points, lad. It was never my claim that "only the droplets" were affected. It is my claim that the affect on the droplets is primarily what we're seeing, and that including the air as having an exact equal effect is what is causing these calculations to be so vastly distorted. it would be more justifiable on our end to discount the effect on air completely than to include it and play it up to the extent that we are doing currently.

The "effect on the air" would be the air being moved. I believe I addressed how the air has to move in order for the clouds to be parted. You just can't cause wind and move the droplets without moving the air they are suspended in as a mixture.

If you wish to claim that the air is being affected, but moved significantly less than the droplets, than I'm curious how you suggest a gust of wind can accomplish that without being managed on a microscopic scale.

I don't care about what authors do or don't ignore. What I care about is reasonable results from calculations. I don't expect the site to be 100% right, hell I'd even take a healthy 50%. What I am currently considering is what would be the most reasonable way to approach cloud calculations- and using methods that straight up say "here's a small sliver of the atmosphere of earth, it is roughly as massive as the earth itself, there is nothing wrong with this statement" doesn't seem too reasonable to me when there's clear and obvious alternatives.

As I already conceded I'm willing to use air adjusted for air density in higher athmospheres for approximation of cloud density to avoid the "as massive as earth itself" thing, as that indeed seems incorrect.

That resolves that issue entirely, without making weird assumptions about people causing shockwaves that affect only half of things they pass through.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The "effect on the air" would be the air being moved. I believe I addressed how the air has to move in order for the clouds to be parted. You just can't cause wind and move the droplets without moving the air they are suspended in as a mixture.

If you wish to claim that the air is being affected, but moved significantly less than the droplets, than I'm curious how you suggest a gust of wind can accomplish that without being managed on a microscopic scale.

You seem to be misunderstanding either my point, or how KE works.

How Much Does a Cloud Weigh? | U.S. Geological Survey

I don't know anyone who is afraid to walk underneath a cumulus cloud because they are afraid it might fall on them. We don't think of clouds even having weight because they are floating. But, clouds are made up of a physical substance, water, and water is quite heavy, so clouds must have weight...

www.usgs.gov

The density of water in a cloud is 0.5 g/m^3, or 0.0005 kg/m^3

The density that we've been using, which includes the air in that same space, is 1.003 kg/m^3. As Therefir points out, this would vary depending on height, but that's another point.

The air in the same space as a cloud outweighs said cloud by a factor of over two thousand times.

If you apply equal force to two things, one weighing 2000 times as much as the other, the lighter object will be moved significantly more than the heavier object.

The same is true for the clouds. This is my point. The effect put onto the cloud proper is going to be far greater than the effect on the air, given the distribution of mass.

That resolves that issue entirely, without making weird assumptions about people causing shockwaves that affect only half of things they pass through.

No, no it does not, as pointed out. It's still a fairly absurd problem. However I think I have a fix.

Use only water content, double the result. I agree that force will be put onto the air as well, however that force should be about equal to the force put onto the cloud. So get the force put on the cloud, and double it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

You seem to be misunderstanding either my point, or how KE works.

How Much Does a Cloud Weigh? | U.S. Geological Survey

I don't know anyone who is afraid to walk underneath a cumulus cloud because they are afraid it might fall on them. We don't think of clouds even having weight because they are floating. But, clouds are made up of a physical substance, water, and water is quite heavy, so clouds must have weight...

www.usgs.gov

The density of water in a cloud is 0.5 g/m^3, or 0.0005 kg/m^3

The density that we've been using, which includes the air in that same space, is 1.003 kg/m^3. As Therefir points out, this would vary depending on height, but that's another point.

The air in the same space as a cloud outweighs said cloud by a factor of over two thousand times.

If you apply equal force to two things, one weighing 2000 times as much as the other, the lighter object will be moved significantly more than the heavier object.

The same is true for the clouds. This is my point. The effect put onto the cloud proper is going to be far greater than the effect on the air, given the distribution of mass.

Problem is that you can't just apply equal force to the air and the water droplets, because, as you pointed out, there is more air.

We are not magically applying force on the cloud via water manipulation here. We are talking about a shockwave or, more precisely, wind. The droplets aren't affected directly via a magical force that applies directly to them, they only move in the first place because there is an air movement that makes them move.

If you cause a 35 m/s wind to flow through a cloud, it won't give its kinetic energy to just the droplets so that the droplets speed off and the air mostly doesn't move. (or only moves a little)
If you want to whole cloud to be moved away with 35 m/s the wind needs to blow through the whole thing that fast.

This is less balls on a wet pool table and more sand in water. Inelastic collision, not elastic one.

Could you blow away the smoke of a blown out candle so that the smoke is blown faster than the air of the breath with which you blew at it?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You openly admit that there are problems with both sides.

On the one hand, the current method plays up the mass of a cloud by over 2000x.

On the other hand, the method I suggest has middling problems that lead to slight inaccuracies.

It is my opinion that not overestimating feats by thousands of times is something good.

You keep dismissing all of these suggestions by saying "hurr durr water manipulation LMAO" but that's hardly the issue, DT. I've even accounted for that. Not perfectly, but surely you must comprehend the point well enough to see that this is taken into account. Shit's frustrating to just see you repeat the same strawman over and over.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't see the point taken into account, since you have yet to explain to me how wind, in an inelastic collision, will speed up the thing it collides with to speeds higher than the wind was initially going.

I just don't see your suggestion corresponding to reality in that regard. Like, again, imagine the air is water and the water droplets (i.e. the cloud) are sand. If you could hit them in a way that the sand moves with a speed of v and the water with a speed of w and v>w, then the sand and the water would separate. I don't think any regular punch would cause mud to split like that.

Heck, KE like that probably is already an underestimation because an inverse cube law should apply to the situation. Not that I really want to get into that, but...

(also a cloud is strictly speaking defined as water droplets and air (at least be wikipedia), so I don't think one can say that the method plays up the mass of a cloud anyway. Not that that is the actual issue)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't see the point taken into account, since you have yet to explain to me how wind, in an inelastic collision, will speed up the thing it collides with to speeds higher than it was initially going.

Use only water content, double the result. I agree that force will be put onto the air as well, however that force should be about equal to the force put onto the cloud. So get the force put on the cloud, and double it.

So did you just not read this particular bit or

How you claim to care about corresponding to reality to begin with when you blithely accept that a small slice of the atmosphere, per our current methods, is nearly as massive as the Earth?

The air will be moved. The air, as it is less massive than the water content in a cloud, will be moved to a less considerable degree than the water content of a cloud. I'm not certain how you can even argue against this point, nor have you really done so.

...Why would the clouds not separate from the air lol? I'm not certain I'm reading your point in your metaphor correctly, but you seem to be arguing that if they were affected in this way, they would separate. And yet in the same paragraph you're saying doing so would be impossible. I don't think your metaphor works either way, as the air is omnipresent in the atmosphere- the clouds are being pushed into yet more air. Still, I fail to see how this would be an impossible thing. If you were to strike two greatly different materials, they could separate. The only distortion here is that we're dealing with gases which have a freeform sort of movement.

Again, to put this into perspective for onlookers: The difference between the water content of a cloud and air, in terms of density per cubic meter, is greater than that between air and a solid chunk of wood. It is almost as great as the difference between air and solid granite. Using the mass of air is a tremendous overestimation of any given cloud calculation feat and continuing to accept it is a failure on our parts.

 

[DontTalkDT]

So did you just not read this particular bit or

I read it. It just doesn't solve the problem, because with that estimation the wind is still slower than the water droplets, which in an inelastic collision is impossible.

How you claim to care about corresponding to reality to begin with when you blithely accept that a small slice of the atmosphere, per our current methods, is nearly as massive as the Earth?

As I already said, take varying air density with height into account and that isn't an issue.

The air will be moved. The air, as it is less massive than the water content in a cloud, will be moved to a less considerable degree than the water content of a cloud. I'm not certain how you can even argue against this point, nor have you really done so.

If you say "moved less" I assume you mean "moved slower". I believe I already put force practical examples of how a mixture would separate if one part of it moved slower than the other and how we don't observe that behaviour in comparable mixtures.

Water is less dense than sand, yet when you punch mud both is moved with the same velocity. The water doesn't move less than the sand. Yet, if what you were suggesting were true, the water should move less, causing the dry sand to fling out.

The mud collides with your fist (and even more so with itself) inelastically. (or very close to that at least)

The speeds in an inelastic collision are described as follows: If u1 is the speed of object 1, m1 is it's mass, u2 is the speed of object 2 and m2 is the mass of object 2, then the final speed v is given by v = (m1 * u1 + m2*u2) / (m1 + m2). Notice how when u1 ≥ u2 we get that (m1 * u1 + m2*u2) / (m1 + m2) ≤ (m1 + m2) * u1 / (m1 + m2) = u1. Meaning that the speed after an inelastic collision is always bounded by the higher original speed. In our model the speed of the water droplet is 0, meaning a upper bound of the final speed is the speed of the wind that collides with it. Hence the water droplet can't fly off faster than the initial wind.

...Why would the clouds not separate from the air lol? I'm not certain I'm reading your point in your metaphor correctly, but you seem to be arguing that if they were affected in this way, they would separate. And yet in the same paragraph you're saying doing so would be impossible. I don't think your metaphor works either way, as the air is omnipresent in the atmosphere- the clouds are being pushed into yet more air. Still, I fail to see how this would be an impossible thing. If you were to strike two greatly different materials, they could separate. The only distortion here is that we're dealing with gases which have a freeform sort of movement.

You're right, air is everywhere so they wouldn't separate anyway. (well, the air they were originally were in would separate form the droplets and other air would replace it, but that isn't as illustrative)

Which is why I use mud as a metaphor, as that is less everywhere. I'm not ever arguing that anything should separate here. I'm arguing that if things worked as you suggest hitting mud (in the air or whetever) would separate the sand and the water, but we see in reality that it doesn't.

So again: Imagine instead of a cloud floating in the air, you have a ball of mud floating in the air. Now you hit that mud ball with a really strong wind, which disperses it. Would you expect that the lighter water of the mud moves slower in the direction the mud ball gets blown than the heavier sand of the mud?

Again, to put this into perspective for onlookers: The difference between the water content of a cloud and air, in terms of density per cubic meter, is greater than that between air and a solid chunk of wood. It is almost as great as the difference between air and solid granite. Using the mass of air is a tremendous overestimation of any given cloud calculation feat and continuing to accept it is a failure on our parts.

Nah, not accepting it would be a failure on our part. Because it's not that the water droplets are denser, but that the air around them needs to be moved just as fast as well. One can't move the orange in orange juice, without moving the juice in its entirety. Viewing a cloud as just the water droplets when it comes to movement via external influence like shockwave or wind is just wrong. It needs to be viewed as an aerosol in that context.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

don't think clouds float due to buoyancy.
Google tells me something about "droplets are too small to feel gravity".

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I am aware I am not a calc member, but I want to address that specific statement to find a video that explains how cloud floats anyway.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still agree with DontTalkDT, shockwaves and strong winds should absolutely be pushing air alongside the water components. And even as for water manipulation, I also more or less agree with DT. Now if clouds were being vaporized via attacks that are pure heat; I can see no reason for air mass to be included in calculations like that and wouldn't mind using the old 0.5 g density. But otherwise, I still think the 1.003 kg density is valid for the physical dispersion and movement feats.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Then y'all agree with wanking and it ain't something I intend to support. I'm disappointed as ****, truly.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I still agree with DontTalkDT, shockwaves and strong winds should absolutely be pushing air alongside the water components. And even as for water manipulation, I also more or less agree with DT. Now if clouds were being vaporized via attacks that are pure heat; I can see no reason for air mass to be included in calculations like that and wouldn't mind using the old 0.5 g density. But otherwise, I still think the 1.003 kg density is valid for the physical dispersion and movement feats.

Keep in mind, from what DonTalkDT is referring to regular clouds. IIRC, it was never really specifically mentioned storm clouds, not that it matters since I am pretty sure the calcs relating to feats that involves physically pushing the clouds ain’t storm clouds.

It is even in the OP it involves storm clouds.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

We mostly use 1.003 as that's what articles said cloud density to be. Not sure if it's as simple as taking air density and adding water content

I think the misunderstanding is caused since there is a difference between storm clouds and regular clouds. Still I have to look into this.

Executor is correct here, I'm pretty sure the main source from which those articles took that information no longer even mentions 1.003, instead it goes with the traditional 0.3/0.5 grams per cubic meter for their cloud mass.

"The key to why clouds float is that the density of the same volume of cloud material is less than the density of the same amount of dry air."

"But, that "heavy" cloud is floating over your head because the air below it is even heavier— the lesser density of the cloud allows it to float on the dryer and more-dense air."

As it was stated here, it's completely impossible for the cloud to be heavier the air surrounding it, which is why I suggested using the air density graph for high altitude clouds.

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/79Clouds3.pdf
Nasa outright mentioned that clouds do have varied densities.

Edit: This is moved from a deleted post as it relates to cloud density



https://web.archive.org/web/20140404000620/http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html

Also since cloud density is being discussed, I did find the original discussion that was posted since 2018.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/about-cloud-density.7456/

 

[Agnaa]

Problem is that you can't just apply equal force to the air and the water droplets, because, as you pointed out, there is more air.

We are not magically applying force on the cloud via water manipulation here. We are talking about a shockwave or, more precisely, wind. The droplets aren't affected directly via a magical force that applies directly to them, they only move in the first place because there is an air movement that makes them move.

If you cause a 35 m/s wind to flow through a cloud, it won't give its kinetic energy to just the droplets so that the droplets speed off and the air mostly doesn't move. (or only moves a little)
If you want to whole cloud to be moved away with 35 m/s the wind needs to blow through the whole thing that fast.

This is less balls on a wet pool table and more sand in water. Inelastic collision, not elastic one.

Could you blow away the smoke of a blown out candle so that the smoke is blown faster than the air of the breath with which you blew at it?

I think this comparison has been muddied because there's two different instances of "air" being talked about here.

The "air" in the attack (which has to move at the speed the water droplets get sent away), and the "air" in the cloud (which does not have to move at the speed the water droplets get sent away).

I'm not quite sure how accounting for this would affect cloud calcs (maybe instead of a cylinder of air and water, we get the mass of the cylinder of water, but only a ring of air?), but I hope it helps the conversation move forward.

I'm also not sure if the mud comparison is great; the particles in mud may be bonded to each other in a way that isn't analogous to water droplets in air, and the mass disparity by sand and water may not be enough to have our intuition reflect the truth.

EDIT: Having given it some thought, my preliminary suggestion would be to calculate cloud feats as having a hollow cylinder/shell/arc of attack air being moved at a certain KE, plus the KE of the water being moved multiplied by two (as the non-attack air should be experiencing that same amount of force). Any cloud feats that are based on water manipulation (however high we want the bar for this to be) should just get energy from the water droplets' KE.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Also for the edit I made. The same article that formerly mentioned 1.003 gm^3 did got changed and was later reinforced that clouds do have varied densities. Any article that brought up the 1.003 gm^3 figure for cloud density is technically using old outdated information IIRC

 

[Therefir]

What @HammerStrikes219 says is correct, we still need to switch to the graph cloud density regardless, as the 1.003 kg/m^3 value is sourceless and outright wrong for high altitude clouds.

Which is why I proposed to use 0.6601 kg/m^3 for the average storm, unless somebody has a better idea.