Talk:Cumulonimbus cloud

Energy

When the warm air rises above the typically cooler air above it, it starts to cool and the water vapor condenses into water droplets. This adds more energy to the cloud …

How does it add more energy to the cloud? Should "This" be "The heat released as a result"? -- Mpt 14:56 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Also, when distilling this article, I removed the following.

• The method of calculating how close lightning is by listening to the thunder. That makes far more sense in thunder, where it is already.
• The advisory text about safety in thunderstorms. IMO it's straining credibility to suggest that such text should be anywhere except in lightning (where it is already) and in thunderstorm. As an analogy, there isn't (and shouldn't be) advisory text in plate tectonics about safety in earthquakes. -- Mpt

---

From the beginning: "involved in thunderstorms and other bad weather"

I don't think it should say "bad" weather, as that is rather subjective.

-wanderingOne

Incus

The body of this article (maybe under "Appearance" section) should link to Cumulonimbus incus. Not quite sure what the relationship is, so won't do it myself. Stevage 08:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cloud 9?

The business about "Cloud #9" sounds like folk etymology. Unless someone comes up with a rock-solid reference, I recommend that this discussion be eliminated.

NPOV

"Thunderstorms and other bad weather..." Calling thunderstorms "bad" – POV? In an article about clouds? Am I being ridiculous? Or just a little cumulonimbus... Morganfitzp 02:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Severe weather is a better term, I think. --Xenonoxide (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the article uses "intense" which also looks fine. I find it very refreshing to see this labelled as a NPOV issue. There's an increasingly popular stance in the UK that anything that causes disruption is "bad" weather, and that it's "selfish" to enjoy "bad" weather because it's disrespectful to those who suffer from the disruption, and it doesn't go down too well with many weather enthusiasts.

On another note I changed "particularly of a convective nature" because I saw no need for the "particularly" bit since precipitation from cumulonimbus clouds is, by definition, always of convective origin- not down to inexperience on WP editing as Bidgee's response implied. If others disagree though I won't revert it back as I don't want to start an edit war. Tws45 (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Appearance

I don't think a radar display was the intent of the "green or even purple" description - any color scale can be mapped to altitude, so a radar can display a cloud as any color you choose. I believe it referred to the actual appearance of the cloud to the naked eye. Khakiandmauve (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Lightning does not create thunder as a sound

I am a meteorologist and member of the American Meteorological Society and can tell you lightning (as just light and therefore incapable of doing such) does not cause thunder, but rather the actual movement of heated air from around the bolt; therefore the opening sentence here is incorrect. I will not change it, however, since a Wiki 'editor' will simply revert it, despite having no experience or expertise in the subject. 207.38.128.167 (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Name of article

Why is it Cumulonimbus cloud, and not just plain Cumulonimbus? Nimbus is cloud, after all, why this repetition?--Mátyás (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nimbus actually means "rain".Tws45 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Anvils are obsolete

Some radical thoughts....

The classic description of cumulonimbus clouds is to say that they are anvil like or anvil shaped. But what is an anvil? I know, but I'm old. The high school kids I teach have no idea.

The value of saying that something looks like something else comes from the something else being a common object that makes the description obvious. It no longer works with anvils.

Is there a better way?

HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not, he says, noting the total absence of a response in 7 months HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's say you ask your high school students if the shape looks like anything they're familiar with. Then get one of them to publish something reliable that makes the comparison, so we can use it as a source. At that point, we'll have to write into the article that they're called "anvil clouds" because they look like anvils, which have a similar shape to X. I think a better solution is to add a picture of an anvil to the article. What do you think of that? Khakiandmauve (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if someone says Anvils look like something else, until their is a general consensus that new verbiage is being used, it cannot be included in wikipedia. Look up the guidelines for this encyclopedia for details. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nimbus is not the Latin Word for Rain

The Latin word for rain in "pluvia."

Nimbus is Latin for "cloud." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.27.246 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened?

The appearance section is one of the worst written pieces on wikipedia. It is actually annoying. I'm trying to find a previous edit that isn't written at a high school level but I'm not coming up with anything.

Cloud types section not needed

The section on cloud types doesn't mention cumulonimbus clouds at all. Why is it there? Citytownhome (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Reinstate my image

76.119.40.77 Removed my image of a raining Cumulonimbus cloud in this edit because supposedly the existing photos are better. This is pure opinion, this anonymous user did not give details about why my image is of lesser quality than the others. I actually find it to better, it's clearer, high resolution, and is not heavily edited as to look artificial like other photos in the article. If anything a prior one should be removed. What do other editors think? Matthew T Rader (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This article has had a problem of too many images in the past. The addition of your image once again crowded the article, to the point where "clear" had to be used to restore the text format.

I looked at what your image portrays in an attempt to replace a previous image with your newer one. However, the two things your image could illustrate are more clearly shown by extant images: the calvus image in the Speciaes section is more clearly defined than in your image; and the current image of the Supplementary feature praeciatio is both narrower and has more contrast with both the sun and rain shaft showing.

Yes, this is my opinion, just as it is your opinion that other photos "look artificial". Short of having a scientific formula to judge images by (like the the poem rating in "Dead Poet Society"?), opinion and cthen consensus will have to suffice. 76.119.40.77 (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 76.119.40.77 (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the explanation Matthew T Rader (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Distance Measure Concerns

Does it bother anyone else that the distance measures are written in such a way to suggest that the metric and imperial measures are equivalent? For example, there are multiple points in this article where distance units are given as "kilometres (miles)" and "metres (yards)". Gin and Monotonic (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's a little odd. In the four places it's used, t's not referring to precise numbers, so technically there is no formal problem, but it reads like sloppy writing to me. My preference, given that it's a scientific topic, would be to omit the miles reference entirely. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The smattering of different units throughout is rather odd. Frankly just put the metric units and be done with it. Azoriusmage (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)