On 26 Oct 2016 15:40:09 GMT
"Norman Lynagh" wrote:

Graham P Davis wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:43:59 +0100
"Eskimo Will" wrote:

On another note
big arguments over whether 7/8 Cu should be reported or not when
it was obvious large holes in the cloud field were apparent but
little blue sky visible. Another sticky point was the
under-estimating of cirrus amount, putting dark glasses on
usually revealed much more than reported.

I was told very early in my career that one should never report more
than half-cover of Cu. I didn't agree at first but it was pointed
out to me that one should judge the amount by only including the
base of the cloud in one's estimation of the coverage; the sides of
the cloud should always be counted as being part of the sky, not
the cloud. When I applied that rule and mentally switched the sides
of the cloud from yellow, say, to blue to match the sky, I don't
remember ever having to report more than 4/8 of Cu.


What would you report as the total cloud cover in that case?


If the cumulus was the sole cloud, the total amount of cloud would be
the same, 4 octas.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
There are more fools than knaves in the world, else the knaves would
not have enough to live upon. [Samuel Butler]