1. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Someone posted a picture on my wall of some asperatus clouds. Since I wasn't familiar with them I went looking for more information and I stumbled on this site (it is neat)


    I was reading the comments there and sure enough the CTers show up. One person mentioned seeing them for years in New England

  2. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    There is a lot of confusion between brand new classification and brand new cloud formations
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

    From an agressive post "NOT normal" "Look up" type post, I have been made aware of these clouds only today, Undulatus Asperatus they'd like them called if classified as a new type. Stunning looking.

    Like you, I began reading what little detail was available and noted one woman has been photographing asperatus for 30 years.

    from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undulatus_asperatus

    from http://cloudappreciationsociety.org/asperatus-update/
    • Like Like x 1
  4. ralph Leo

    ralph Leo Member

    I got some really good pictures of this from the very early 1980's, I guess I have to get my film scanner out.
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

    • Like Like x 1
  6. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    That is really good.

    Here's another example (perhaps) for those who are an aficionado of the film genre. Knowing that when a movie, or a made-for-TV film consist of many takes, shot over a sequence of time...even when the shoot is on location (I.E., not in a studio or sound stage)...for those of us who are a bit pedantic, and can pay attention to the background of a series of shots, in a sequence in a scene from a movie...we can see some (what are called) "continuity" mistakes.

    I just happen to be watching, via NetFlix, the final installments of "Breaking Bad". IF anyone cares to, and can see Episode 10, from Season 5 of "Breaking Bad", (in about the last third of that Episode) there is a sequence that was shot on location, in the desert...and if you pay attention to the sky, you will see a variety of high-level clouds...and of course, they are not "contiguous", because this is how film TV or movies are shot. Yeah...I'm a nerd, and I notice these sorts of things. Sorry.

    I suppose one of the better ways to explain how clouds work (and, this is not directed at you, "Balance"...but is meant to educate the general audience) is by looking at the wonderful examples of time-lapse videos, of clouds. Too often we see comments about clouds, from people who are only understanding them in the Human time-frame of, well...time! We can use technology, and machines, to alter and improve our perceptions.


    There are SO many other examples....when viewed in this way, that refute the "chem"trail argument thoroughly. I'd say the very FINAL nail in the "chem"trail coffin of belief are the many, many videos of Earth from space. Nowhere in these images (that can be easily found online) are any indication of "chem"trails, nor of any significant increase in cloud coverage, decade over decade, since the advent of satellite photography from Earth orbit.

    EDIT: Did I put this in the wrong thread?
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2014
    • Like Like x 1