@Gkikas-LGPZ Hi, thank you for your feedback, we will discuss it. I do not know if there is a general approach/formula for recalculating IR intensity to cloud temperature.

@cloud-maven1 Hi, unfortunately it is not possible now. I admit, that it is not always suitable to have one global limit.

@HavalarinSesi Thank you for your feedback! In our survey much more people voted for the rainbow palette so we put it back.

@koko_a Hi, thank you for your feedback! This is a compromise solution. We moved the line because of hurricanes in the Atlantic ocean - they were often split. So now whole ocean is covered by one Goes satellite. I admit that the resolution is slightly worse near its eastern edge. We are thinking also about single satellite mode, so you would be able to choose just one satellite that you want to see.

@Evil Isolines should disappear, because it is forecast for "some hour in future". Radar is history. So we decided to turn them off when you change to radar.

@Edgington Hi, this is probably because of different calculation of both values.
Cloud base is directly taken from ECMWF parameter called "ceiling". It is height (above model orography i.e. AGL) of cloud layer covering more than 50% of the sky. It estimates height where you can expect "significant clouds". Detailed description is here: https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/FCST/43r1+new+parameters%3A+Ceiling
On the other side the grey meteogram is calculated from relative humidity. It can be explained as a distribution of water in the atmosphere. The height in the meteogram is in pressure levels. km/ft values are only rough estimation and they are AMSL. I admit that this can be confusing.
Possible explanation of the difference: There could be signigicant humidity (almost 100%), so there are drawn clouds in meteogram, but the cloud coverage according to ECMWF is less than 50%, so the ceiling is considered to be higher.
In such strange case it is better to look also in cloud maps, which can give you better overview. However, if the location is in the mountains then the values can be misleading, because model orography is very rough.

@easy_rhino Hi, unfortunately infra+ does not mean infrared+rain. It just means that there is colorisation of the cold cloud tops. It can help to observe development of storm clouds.

@Phil-BTZ Thank you very much for this post. We are thinking about validation/relevancy of this layer. Yes, it seems that there are such "false positives". It should be also considered that the spatial resolution is very rough and the data is valid for the previous day - it is not real-time.
To sum it up this layer is not ideal for operational monitoring of fires in inhabited areas. There are obviously more exact and more reliable sources of information for such cases.
On the other hand, I think this layer could be useful as a general overview for some known large-scale events.
It can also be very useful for checking distant locations. The data is captured from satellites, which means that it can reveal forest fires anywhere on the planet, even in the most inaccessible places.

@vikkypandya Thank you!

@cloud-maven1 Hi, thank you very much for your feedback!
Yes, this is something we are thinking about.