On Thursday, 27 October 2016 13:53:38 UTC+1, Desperate Dan wrote:
This has been an interesting topic. I have over thirty years observing experience and can relate to some of the comments but not to others.

Never give up on losers I always say, when I say that I would say that whether you call a cloud weather or not

is related to the height of the cloud and visible structure of the same.

(Among other things. But you all know what relations are like.)

The same Sc at, say, 2500ft observed from sea level would be St 2400ft up the mountain as any hill walker would know. I've reported Cu at 7000ft and had a glider pilot tell me that he was at 9000ft and the Cu base was above him. I was always happy to report high Ac at 18000ft if I felt that to be correct.

One has to imagine a fair few things with relations like that.

As observers (old style!) there were endless "discussion", in any office I served at, about all aspects of observing and I always looked at these as good learning opportunities.

You did?
See what I mean about never giving up!

Some offices, however, were very set in their observing ways and didn't take kindly to new ideas.
I'm intrigued at how Will can tell a cloud type when he's in it. Just hill fog, surely?

There's always yesterday's charts for the attentive to relate.

Speaking of which:
I was watching a big black cigar rolling by yesterday (well more grey but relatively dark as far as cloud relatives run.)

Seeing as there is such a large anticyclone right in the middle of the Atlantic at the moment I wonder if it is worth stating the obvious relating to the dull overcast overhead at present.

It would be a pity if very few were paying attention after all this talk around the station hearths. If there are no tinnitus sufferers here willing to discuss crickets in their belfies, perhaps some of the better mathematicians can point out to the rest of us what is wrong with this sequence: 24; 48; 72 and 120?

https://weather.gc.ca/ensemble/naefs/cartes_e.html
Good luck with that, children.