• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Cloud Calculations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nothing you sent actually proves this, it's all just personal belief without anything to support it. I mean, even the stratus cloud example says "cloud base can be up to 4000 feet" so it's clearly mentioning the cloud base. And it's consistent with the other source saying "below 6000 feet"
 
So what are the conclusions here so far, and what, if anything, currently needs to be done here?
 
So what are the conclusions here so far, and what, if anything, currently needs to be done here?
The new values of cloud heights and Don't Talks calculator had been added to the page with this as well if I'm not mistaken:


To make that easier this calculator can be used. The "Area above which the cloud/air floats" is the base area, "Cloud/air thickness" is the cloud thickness and the "Height of cloud/air bottom above sea level" is the cloud height. The result is then the mass in kg. Note that this only is correct if the cloud's volume can be calculated as base area times cloud height.


I can't copy the cloud height table obviously but that's the crux of it I believe
 
Actually putting the new values DontTalk made in to the Cloud Calculations page in a nice and neat little table alongside the new calculator he made.
Okay. That seems fine to me. Is somebody here willing and able to properly handle it if I unlock the page in question for you?
 
Okay. That seems fine to me. Is somebody here willing and able to properly handle it if I unlock the page in question for you?
The table is already present on the page with the values as well, probably just @DontTalkDT to see if there's anything else they want to do if not I think we're done here

 
Actually putting the new values DontTalk made in to the Cloud Calculations page in a nice and neat little table alongside the new calculator he made.
The new values of cloud heights and Don't Talks calculator had been added to the page with this as well if I'm not mistaken:

To make that easier this calculator can be used. The "Area above which the cloud/air floats" is the base area, "Cloud/air thickness" is the cloud thickness and the "Height of cloud/air bottom above sea level" is the cloud height. The result is then the mass in kg. Note that this only is correct if the cloud's volume can be calculated as base area times cloud height.

I can't copy the cloud height table obviously but that's the crux of it I believe
Okay. That seems fine to me. Is somebody here willing and able to properly handle it if I unlock the page in question for you?
The table is already present on the page with the values as well, probably just @DontTalkDT to see if there's anything else they want to do if not I think we're done here

@DontTalkDT

Do you have anything to add here, or should we close this thread now?
 
Has the sea level-to-cloud base height chart been added?
 
Oh, before that, I wanna mention that in the storm calculation page the 1.003 value is still present - only three, tho - so shouldn't somebody remove 'em and mention and link DT's calculator there?
 
@DontTalkDT

Do you have anything to add here, or should we close this thread now?
We do have one more thing to do it. Seems we have to remove the 1.003 density mentions on the storm calculation page
Which is this page since it doesn’t apply to storm clouds necessarily.
 
Oh, before that, I wanna mention that in the storm calculation page the 1.003 value is still present - only three, tho - so shouldn't somebody remove 'em and mention and link DT's calculator there?
We do have one more thing to do it. Seems we have to remove the 1.003 density mentions on the storm calculation page
Which is this page since it doesn’t apply to storm clouds necessarily.
@KLOL506 @CloverDragon03

Would you be willing to handle it please? If it is appropriate to do so, that is.
 
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.
 
I don't think we need to decide on air density thanks to DontTalk's cloud mass calculator
Wasn’t it for just covering clouds in general though? From what Donttalk talks about the calculator, it was meant for general clouds stuff although it can handle storm clouds as well I think.

Either way, I am pretty sure we could list the density for storm clouds since density is part of a cloud’s property as well..

Lower than 0.661 kg/m^3 seems reasonable in the more extreme cases.
 
Last edited:
Wasn’t it for just covering clouds in general though? From what Donttalk talks about the calculator, it was meant for general clouds stuff although it can handle storm clouds as well I think.

Either way, I am pretty sure we could list the density for storm clouds since density is part of a cloud’s property as well..

Lower than 0.661 kg/m^3 seems reasonable in the more extreme cases.
Literally nulled by DontTalk's calculator which accounts for the varying densities now.
 
Literally nulled by DontTalk's calculator which accounts for the varying densities now.
Ah, okay. Well, in that case, remove the 1.003 cubic density value. Just need to list the calculator and mention the average height of storm clouds.

Hmmm, not sure on the average itself. I guess 30,000 meters or something.

Nah, that probably won’t work since storm clouds do varied in height above sea level anyway.
 
Cumulonimbus Clouds: 8304.8 meters
Never mind, I am dumb as these clouds are typically pretty much storm clouds and rise higher than 4K meters since they are associated with heavy weather usually if not always.

Although there are more extreme case where they can raise higher than this.
 
Last edited:
Ah, okay. Well, in that case, remove the 1.003 cubic density value. Just need to list the calculator and mention the average height of storm clouds.
Wondered what you meant, but I forgot to delete it from the storm calculations page, eh? Gonna do that real quick.

Edit: Actually not really quick, as I just realized we need to redo the entire damn CAPE values table.... anyone want to help out with that?
 
Wondered what you meant, but I forgot to delete it from the storm calculations page, eh? Gonna do that real quick.

Edit: Actually not really quick, as I just realized we need to redo the entire damn CAPE values table.... anyone want to help out with that?
@KLOL506 @CloverDragon03

Would either of you be willing to help out with this please, or should I ask other calc group members as well?
 
Unfortunately I am completely uneducated with regards to CAPE, but maybe Clover, DemonGod, Spino and DMUA could help out with it?
 
Wondered what you meant, but I forgot to delete it from the storm calculations page, eh? Gonna do that real quick.

Edit: Actually not really quick, as I just realized we need to redo the entire damn CAPE values table.... anyone want to help out with that?
@KLOL506 @CloverDragon03

Would either of you be willing to help out with this please, or should I ask other calc group members as well?
Unfortunately I am completely uneducated with regards to CAPE, but maybe Clover, DemonGod, Spino and DMUA could help out with it?
Okay. No problem.

@DemonGodMitchAubin @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @DMUA @Executor_N0 @Therefir @Damage3245

Are any of you willing and able to handle it please?
 
The 11,800 meter part of the chart, do we really need to keep that?
 
Unfortunately I am completely uneducated with regards to CAPE, but maybe Clover, DemonGod, Spino and DMUA could help out with it?
It's just the mass times 4000 (or whatever depending on how severe the storm is) for the results in Joules
 
Is it really that simple? I thought there would be something more to it (hence why I said I was unknowledgeable), but if it's just a matter of getting the mass via the calculator and then multiplying it by the right instability, I don't see where the confusion is
 
Is it really that simple? I thought there would be something more to it (hence why I said I was unknowledgeable), but if it's just a matter of getting the mass via the calculator and then multiplying it by the right instability, I don't see where the confusion is

There is a video for this as well.
 
Last edited:
How does this looks like?

Edit: Sorry for neglecting this thread by the way, I stopped receiving notifications and have been busy looking for a job.
Judging by a few test cases this seems correct. Thanks for the help!

Unless someone else is willing to check further, I think you can copy the blog into the page.
 
If DontTalk is fine with it being applied, I obviously am as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top