ISSN 1024-8560, Atmospheric and Oceanic Optics, 2019, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 193–201. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd.

, 2019.
Russian Text © G.A. Zarochentsev, K.G. Rubinstein, V.I. Bychkova, R.Yu. Ignatov, Yu.I. Yusupov, 2018, published in Optika Atmosfery i Okeana.

OPTICAL MODELS
AND DATABASES

Comparison of Several Numerical Methods for Fog Prediction

G. A. Zarochentseva, b, c, *, K. G. Rubinsteinb, c, V. I. Bychkovab, c, R. Yu. Ignatovb, c, and Yu. I. Yusupovb
aMoscow
State University, Moscow, 119991 Russia
b
Hydrometeorological Centre of Russia, Moscow, 123242 Russia
c
The Nuclear Safety Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 115191 Russia
*e-mail: xztv@mail.ru
Received March 12, 2018; revised September 17, 2018; accepted September 25, 2018

Abstract—Several methods for visibility calculation for fog forecasting are discussed, including a method sug-
gested by the authors. We use the WRF-ARW model to obtain the necessary meteorological information. The
forecasts are estimated using data with a high spatial resolution from European Synoptic stations. The analysis
of the methods shows a generally satisfactory quality of forecasts for this phenomenon.

Keywords: fog, meteorological visibility, mesoscale modeling, transfer of moisture in the surface layer
DOI: 10.1134/S1024856019020180

In the general sense, fog is a dispersion medium
formed by water droplets or small ice crystals in a cer-
tain concentration, which reduces visibility to 1 km or
less near the Earth’s surface [1]. Fog causes serious
problems at airports and on highways. A reliable fore-
cast of this weather phenomenon can contribute to
public safety.
In this work, the visibility range means the range at
which a black object with angular dimensions of no less
than 0.3° is seen against the sky in daylight hours [1].
Fog is formed due to two processes [2]: an increase
in the moisture content in air and a decrease in the
surface air temperature. Cooling fogs, in particular
advective fogs, which are formed when warm air cools
during the movement along a cooler surface, are most
prevalent. Advective fogs have no characteristic spatial
or temporal localization and are observed mainly in
warm sectors of cyclones [3].
Water vapor usually starts condensing when the air
is saturated with moisture and the relative humidity is
close to 100%. However, as was ascertained in [4], in
the absence of foreign particles in air (condensation
nuclei), complexes of molecules in the condensed
phase can originate only as a result of random colli-
sions of molecules in supersaturated air. The real
atmosphere always contains different impurities (par-
ticles of dust, sand, salt). It is shown in [5, 6] that the
condensation nuclei in the atmosphere are sufficiently
active and numerous to induce moisture condensation
and the beginning of the process of fog formation
when the air has not attained saturation. Polluted air,
for example, in urban conditions, is often more favor-
able for the formation of fogs. For example, fog at the
Los Angeles Airport has been observed even at a rela-
tive humidity of about 90% [7].
It is important to keep in mind that characteristics of
the wind regime in the surface air layer are also import-
ant for fog formation. Under moderate or strong winds,
fog is formed only if the surface layer is cooled suffi-
ciently rapidly (temperature gradient exceeds 2°C/km),
since the turbulent transfer of heat and moisture is
intensified and the fog dissipates at such wind speeds.
Radiation fogs are most sensitive to the wind regime of
the surface layer; they are observable at characteristic
wind speeds of no more than 1 m/s, while advective
fogs, according to measurements [8], have been
observed even under a surface wind speed of 6 m/s.
Today, synoptic forecasts of a favorable situation
for the development of radiation fogs are based on the
analysis of the presence and movement of anticyclone
centers and axes of the ridges, and advective fogs, on
the forecast of movement of warm atmospheric masses
(warm fronts). Soil moisture is an important parame-
ter which affects fog formation. For example, due to
precipitation or floods, soil moisture may become an
additional source of moisture for advection.
There are also numerical methods for fog forecast-
ing. For radiation fogs, the forecasting methods by
A.S. Zverev [3] and N.V. Petrenko [9] are widely used
at aeronautical weather services. The method of
Zverev is based on the forecast of the fog formation
temperature Tt, which can be represented as
Tt = Td − ΔTd − ΔTd', (1)
where Td is the dew point; ΔTd is the possible decrease
in the dew point (additional cooling) for the forecast
time; ΔTd' is the required change in the dew point for

193
194 ZAROCHENTSEV et al.
the formation of fog with visibility range of less than
1 km (is 0–1°C in the positive and >2–3°C in the neg-
ative temperature range).
The method of Petrenko [9] makes it possible to
specify the temperature of fog formation considering
the vertical gradient of the dew point in the 0–300 m
layer, but the specification does not go beyond 1°C in
most cases. Petrenko also developed a method for
forecasting advective fogs depending on the horizontal
temperature gradient along a nine-hour trajectory of
air particles, the dew point deficit at the beginning of
this trajectory, and the expected wind speed at the
forecast point (at the weather vane level) for
Sheremetyevo Airport. L.A. Klyuchnikova presents
the method for forecasting advective fogs in the coastal
zone 25–100 km wide depending on the water–land
temperature difference [10]. There are also other
semiempirical calculation methods for fog forecasting
developed for specific geographic regions accounting
for the topography and meteorological features, for
example [3, 11].
Many semiempirical formulas allow calculating the
visibility range in fog from its water content [3, 12, 13].
Zverev [3] suggested the definition of the horizontal
visibility range L (m) in terms of the condensed water
and the size of suspended particles based on measure-
ment data:
L = 2.3 × 104 r (2)
δm
(r is the droplet radius, cm; δm is the condensed water,
g/m3).
However, measurement of the radius of droplets
and the condensed water is a complex problem. At
meteorological stations, these parameters are not
measured; therefore, calculations by this method are
difficult. According to Mason [14], there is no satis-
factory method for measuring water content which
meets the following requirements: the capability of
measuring both in the supercooled and non-super-
cooled state, low inertia, and representativeness.
Attempts to measure the condensed water were made
by Houghton and Radford [13]; they obtained values
from 0.1 to 0.22 g/m3.
Thus, most existing methods for fog forecasting
either have a precise gridding or reduce the fog fore-
cast to the equally difficult problem of forecasting the
absolute content of condensed water in the surface air
layer. In [15], fog forecast methods are compared only
locally at several points; the comparison results make
it difficult to judge the degree of universality of these
methods.
In this work, we compare the forecasts of the hori-
zontal visibility range as a function of the concentra-
tion of hydrometeors, surface humidity, wind speed,
and temperature. The main tasks are to estimate the
potential of the methods, to analyze their advantages
and disadvantages, and, finally, to suggest a compre-
ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC OPTICS
hensive and quite universal method which allows
numerical fog forecasting with good prognostic char-
acteristics.
Below, if visibility less than 1 km is forecasted, we
consider this as the fog forecast. Four methods for vis-
ibility range forecasting are compared, as well as the
method we suggest.
Method I. The most physically substantiated
method. It has been developed by researchers of the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR),
United States, [16] and is a research component of the
postprocessing of global weather forecasts. It is based
on the fact that the luminance of an object, which
reaches the observer position at an altitude of 2 m, is
the sum of the object luminance weakened by the
Bouguer–Lambert–Beer law during propagation
through an absorbing medium, hydrometeors (water
droplets, snowflakes, and ice crystals) in our case, and
the brightness of the medium layer between the object
and the observation point. For a horizontally homoge-
neous medium,
I (L) = I 0 exp(−β L) + I b,∞[1 − exp(−β L)], (3)
I0 is the luminance of the object, and I b,∞ is the back-
ground luminance I b as L → ∞.
The ratio K (L) = [I b − I (L)] I b is called the illu-
minance contrast; the visibility range is the distance
L = Lth at which the illuminance contrast attains the
threshold value K (Lth ) = ε th (ε th = 0.05 at present).
The sum of power functions of mass concentrations of
hydrometeors (water droplets Сcw, rain droplets Сrw,
ice crystals Сci, and snow crystals Сsn, g/m3) is used as
the extinction coefficient β. The weight factors have
been selected according to [16–20]:
− ln ε p
L= ,
β (4)
β = 144.7Ccw
0.88
+ 1.1Crw + 163.9Cci + 10.4Csn .
0.75 0.78
Method II is a semiempirical method developed by
researchers of the National Center for Environmental
Prediction (NCEP), United States, and used as a
component of visibility forecast in the RUC (Rapid
Update Cycle) model. The method uses the value of
relative humidity at an altitude of 2 m (RH, %) as a
predictor. A decrease in the visibility with an increase
in the surface humidity in accordance with [21] is
taken into account via the equation
( )
L = 60 exp −2.5 min 0.8; RH − 0.15  . (5)
 100 
Method III is a semiempirical method developed
by researchers of the Hungarian Meteorological Ser-
vice (OMSZ) [22] and used to forecast fogs at Buda-
pest airport. The vertical temperature gradient in the
boundary layer (i.e., a measure of atmospheric stabil-
ity), the dew point deficit near the surface, and the
Vol. 32 No. 2 2019
 COMPARISON OF SEVERAL NUMERICAL METHODS FOR FOG PREDICTION
wind speed at the top of the boundary layer are used in
the method as predictors:
L = −1.33 + 0.9 ( Tsf − T850 + (Tsf − Tdsf ) + W850 ) , (6)
where Tsf and T850 are the temperatures at an altitude
of 2 m and on the 850-hPa isobaric surface, respec-
tively, K; Tdsf is the dew point at an altitude of 2 m, K;
W850 is the wind speed on the 850-hPa isobaric sur-
face, m/s.
Меthod IV is a semiempirical method developed by
a research team of the US National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and used to
forecast visibility in aircraft flight zones [23]. As pre-
dictors, the relative humidity at an altitude of 2 m and
the difference between the temperature and dew point
at this level are used:
Tsf − Tdsf
L = 9656 1.75
. (7)
RH
Меthod V is a semiempirical method we developed
based on the analysis of data on fogs from 12 meteoro-
logical stations of the Moscow Region network for
2000–2013. The number of fog events studied was
4847. The analysis made it possible to identify two pre-
dictors of fog formation: high relative humidity of the
surface air at an altitude of 2 m and a low wind speed
at an altitude of 10 m. The method for calculating the
visibility range is based on the use of the discriminant
function of two arguments, relative humidity and wind
speed. The function tends to zero at a humidity of
more than 97.5% and wind speed from 0 to 3.5 m/s:
( )
arctan(RH − 99.5)
L = 5.5 1 −
2 π (8)
 1 arctan(W10 − 3.5) 
× + ,
2 π 
where RH is the relative humidity at 2 m, %; W10 is the
wind speed at the altitude of the weather vane, m/s.
To analyze the quality of the fog forecast, the hori-
zontal visibility range was calculated using the five
abovementioned methods. Data from synoptic sta-
tions of all European countries were used as standards,
since the European synoptic network has a high spatial
resolution, as well as good quality of archive data. The
following periods were chosen for estimation:
9:00 August 20–0:00 August 22, 2015;
9:00 October 24–0:00 October 26, 2015;
9:00 December 19–0:00 December 21, 2015;
9:00 February 5–0:00 February 7, 2017.
During those periods, 6836 fog events and
141776 episodes without fog were observed on the ter-
ritory under study.
The preliminary analysis of forecasts by Eqs. (4)–(8)
has shown that the visibility function in fog exceeds a
threshold of 1 km for methods II and III. Therefore, to
universalize these methods without changing their
physical basis, we have changed the coefficients in
ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC OPTICS Vol. 32 No. 2
195
Eqs. (5) and (6) so that the visibility function is less
than 1 km for characteristic values of the air humidity,
dew-point deficit, temperature gradient, and wind
speed recorded and forecasted at points where fog was
observed:
( )
L = 60 exp −5.31 RH − 0.15  , (9)
 100 
L = −0.1596 + 0.108
(10)
× [ Tsf − T850 + (Tsf − Tdsf ) + W850 ] .
Calculations with Eqs. (4) and (7)–(10) require
knowledge of such quantities as the relative humidity,
wind speed, dew point, and moisture content in the
lower air layer. To forecast the values of these quanti-
ties, the hydrodynamic mesoscale WRF-ARW model
[24] was used; the computational domain included
Europe and European Russia; the spatial step of the
model was 18 km. The forecasted data were recorded
every three hours, which corresponded to the time
resolution of observations. To describe the parame-
ters of underlying surface of the territory under study,
the MODIS database with a resolution of 0.5° was
used. The fields of the global GFS model with a spa-
tial resolution of 0.25° were used as input data for the
WRF-ARW model.
Previous work [25, 26] on optimizing the WRF-ARW
model for the most successful forecasting of meteoro-
logical processes in the surface air layer (turbulent
conditions, heat and moisture exchange of the lower
air layer with the surface, and formation and fallout of
precipitation) allowed us to determine the following
configuration of the model. To describe the processes
associated with convection, the Grella scheme [27] is
used, which is an ensemble of parametrizations, where
different external parameters are used to calculate
convection. Microphysical processes in clouds are cal-
culated according to [28], the processes occurring in
the planetary boundary layer, according to [29]. The
analysis of the quality of calculation of turbulent heat
and moisture fluxes [25] showed that the method for
calculating processes in the boundary layer [29]
ensures a high quality forecast of turbulence parame-
ters. To calculate the shortwave and longwave radia-
tion, the scheme described in [30] is used. The
NOAH-LSM model of the land surface [31] is used for
parameterization of soil processes. It allows account-
ing for a mosaic snow cover and snow aging (the snow
density is represented as a function of time). The
mosaic structure of snow is taken into account in the
NOAH parameterization during calculation of the
albedo and thermal conductivity; the corresponding
values are taken with the weight of the share of snow-
covered surface and the share of green vegetation.
A possible numerical description of vegetation makes
it possible to characterize the moisture regime of the
surface layer with higher accuracy. The heat exchange
between the snow cover and the atmosphere and sub-
limation and melting at the upper and lower snow
2019
196 ZAROCHENTSEV et al.
boundaries are calculated based on the surface balance
equation. A qualitative description of the processes of
heat and moisture exchange with the underlying sur-
face is extremely important in fog forecasts, since the
surface is a source of additional moisture.
Four forecasts were calculated using the WRF-
ARW model for the above time intervals for 48 hours,
the first nine of which were not taken into account to
data adjustment (spin up—the time required for stabi-
lization of hydrodynamic mesoscale WRF-ARW
model results).
During the preliminary analysis of observation
data, it has been ascertained that most meteorological
stations do not transmit the horizontal visibility range,
unlike the weather code at the observation time, which
is sent by most meteorological stations of the Euro-
pean Synoptic stations. Therefore, to assess the fore-
cast quality, we used weather data at the observation
time: if fog was observed at a meteorological station
and the visibility range was forecasted to be less than
1 km (calculated at the station point using linear inter-
polation), the forecast was considered successful, oth-
erwise unsuccessful.
Figure 1 shows the visibility range calculated by all
five fog forecasting methods and fog observation data
at meteorological stations. It is seen that the European
Synoptic stations are quite dense on the territory under
study, which, on the one hand, improves its data cov-
erage, and, on the other hand, can contribute to false
alarms when forecasting fogs.
Calculations by all the methods provided the fore-
cast of higher quality for February 6, 2017, than for
October 25, 2015. Methods I–IV (Fig. 1a) forecasted
false alarms for the Scandinavian Peninsula and
Transcaucasia; method V (Fig. 1a) gave the smallest
number of false alarms.
Several characteristic regions have been distin-
guished for both dates in Fig. 1: region F, with preva-
lence of fog, according to data from meteorological sta-
tions, and region N, where one can state the absence of
fog with reasonable certainty. For February 6, 2017,
methods II–IV forecasted fogs not only in region F, but
also quite far from it, while forecasts by methods I and
V were closer to observations. The smallest number
of false alarms for region N was also produced by
methods I and V.
Regions F and N are divided into two parts in Fig. 1b.
For region F2, fog is the most successfully forecasted by
methods II, IV, and V; their forecasts quite accurately
coincide with observations. For region F1, method V did
not allow forecasting fog at all. For region N1, the small-
est number of false alarms was produced by methods III
and V, and for region N2, by method V (see Fig. 1b).
Therefore, it is difficult to say which method forecasts
the most successfully in this case.
To determine the cause of the different success of
the methods for the above two cases (see Fig. 1), the
ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC OPTICS
quality of the forecast of the relative humidity in the
surface air layer has been assessed.
Figure 2 shows the difference in the relative humid-
ity at an altitude of 2 m according to the WRF-ARW
model data (RHf) and according to observation data at
meteorological stations (RHo). It is seen in Fig. 2a that
the difference RHf – RHo does not exceed 10% on
average over the entire region. In Fig. 2b, the fore-
casted humidity deficit attained 40% in the Balkans
and northern Italy. The moisture error is systematic on
the second day of the forecast, and the absolute value
of RHf – RHo is 18% on average. This large values
might well be due to incorrect initial values in the
moisture fields. Such large errors can strongly affect
the result of visibility calculations by all the methods.
Hence, we can conclude that the forecast of the visi-
bility range on the second day by all the methods is
incorrect, as is seen in region F1 in Fig. 1b, due to the
error in the humidity forecast (Fig. 2b).
For both forecasts, the total success rate, the success
rates of the forecast of presence and absence of fogs, the
warning and the percentage of false alarms were calcu-
lated (Table 1). Despite different approaches to selec-
tion of predictors of fog formation, the analysis of the
forecast quality shows close estimates of the forecast
success rate for all the methods under study for a period
of 48 hours. A high percentage of false alarms points out
that a model with this spatial resolution can produce
only an averaged value if the observation points are
within the same calculation cell. However, all the meth-
ods show high success rates of the forecast of fog
absence, since fog is a rare phenomenon and is
observed in only 4.8% of cases for the time intervals
selected.
Table 1 shows the estimates of the fog forecast
quality at the time of observation at the stations; if the
fog was forecasted with a delay or in advance, as com-
pared to observations, this was considered a false
alarm. Therefore, Fig. 3 shows another assessment of
the fog forecast quality, which takes into account its
possible phase shift relative to the observation data.
The relative duration of fogs is the ratio of the fore-
casted duration of the phenomenon to its duration
according to observations. Coincidence of forecasted
duration of the phenomenon and its duration accord-
ing to observations at meteorological stations is shown
by the green color. If the weather code is not indicated
in the data from a weather station at the time of obser-
vation, the absence of fog is accepted for this the sta-
tion. If fog was not forecasted for the period under
study and was not observed at a meteorological sta-
tion, we believe that a method correctly forecasts the
duration of the phenomenon, or, more precise, its
absence. For methods I–IV (Fig. 3a), the largest error
in fog duration corresponds to the Scandinavian Pen-
insula and the Transcaucasia (see Fig. 1). Note that
the error of method V (Fig. 3a) is also the smallest in
this case. It follows from the estimate of the relative
Vol. 32 No. 2 2019
 COMPARISON OF SEVERAL NUMERICAL METHODS FOR FOG PREDICTION 197

(a) Method I (b)

63 N
N F2
57 N1
N2
51
F
45
F1
39

Method II
63
N
F2
57 N1
N2
51
F
45
F1
39

Method III
63 N
F2
57 N1
N2
51
F
45
F1
39

Method IV
63 N
F2
57 N1
N2
51
F
45
F1
39

Method V
63 N
F2
57 N1
N2
51
F
45
F1
39

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 E
Fig. 1. Maps of the visibility range calculated by five methods (dashed areas) for fog forecast and fog observation data at meteo-
rological stations (red dots correspond to fog events, black dots, to absence of fog) for (a) 06:00 on February 6, 2017, and (b) 06:00
on October 25, 2015.

ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC OPTICS Vol. 32 No. 2 2019

198 ZAROCHENTSEV et al.

(a) (b)
RHf – RHo RHf – RHo
N N
60° 60°

50° 50°

40° 40°

0° 15° 30° 45° 60° E 0° 15° 30° 45° 60° E

–40 –20 0 20 40 % –40 –20 0 20 40 %

Fig. 2. Maps of the difference between the values of relative humidity at an altitude of 2 m calculated from the WRF-ARW model
data (RHf) and observations at weather stations (RHo) at (a) 06:00 on February 6, 2017, and (b) 06:00 on October 25, 2015.

Table 1. Assessment of the fog forecast success

Method Total success rate, % Fog presence success rate, % Warning, % Fog absence success rate, % False alarm, %
Region F (February 5–7, 2017)
I 34 17 76 86 83
II 59 22 67 90 78
III 58 17 43 84 83
IV 51 21 75 90 79
V 72 17 17 84 83
Region N (February 5–7, 2017)
I 62 13 69 99 87
II 89 9 72 99 91
III 89 6 47 99 93
IV 86 7 73 99 93
V 94 8 33 92 91
Region F1 (October 24–26, 2015)
I 64 26 32 78 74
II 72 30 10 76 70
III 65 16 18 76 84
IV 70 33 15 76 67
V 62 24 23 75 76
Region F2 (October 24–26, 2015)
I 38 8 47 87 92
II 57 12 49 93 88
III 71 15 47 94 85
IV 49 12 65 95 88
V 56 13 63 93 87
Region N1 (October 24–26, 2015)
I 53 2 32 96 97
II 79 4 34 97 95
III 85 6 28 97 94
IV 72 5 44 97 95
V 88 11 30 97 89
Region N2 (October 24–26, 2015)
I 49 3 68 98 97
II 57 4 55 98 96
III 64 3 40 98 96
IV 49 4 64 98 96
V 82 6 30 98 94

ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC OPTICS Vol. 32 No. 2 2019

 COMPARISON OF SEVERAL NUMERICAL METHODS FOR FOG PREDICTION 199

(a) Method I (b)

N N
60 60

50 50

40 40

Method II

60 60

50 50

40 40

Method III

60 60

50 50

40 40

Method IV

60 60

50 50

40 40

Method V

60 60

50 50

40 40

0 15 30 45 60 E 0 15 30 45 60 E

0 0.4 0.8 2.0 6.0 10.0 0 0.4 0.8 2.0 6.0 10.0

Fig. 3. Maps of the ratio of fog duration by all the five methods to the fog duration according to weather station observations on
(a) February 5–7, 2017, and (b) October 24–26, 2015.

ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC OPTICS Vol. 32 No. 2 2019

200 ZAROCHENTSEV et al.
duration of fogs in Fig. 3b that methods III and V
showed the smallest errors, and methods I and IV, the
largest. It can also be seen that the regions with the
maximal errors in fog duration coincide with regions F
and N shown in Fig. 1.
In general, the analysis of estimates of the fog fore-
cast quality shows the greatest fog forecast success by
methods I, III, IV, and V.
Let us sum up. The analysis of five methods for
calculation of the horizontal visibility range for fog
forecasting showed a generally satisfactory quality of
forecasts with the use of the WRF-ARW model, pri-
marily in the lowland regions. The best results were
shown by methods I and V. The fog duration was best
forecasted by methods III and V. The total success
rate is the best for methods III and V, and warning,
for methods I and IV.
The forecast by method I, based on the concentra-
tion of hydrometeors in the surface air layer, and by
method V, which takes into account not only the air
humidity, but also the wind regime in the atmospheric
boundary layer, can be considered the most success-
ful. In the future, we intend to supplement methods I
and V with antipredictors to prevent false alarms and
to improve the accuracy of the fog forecast.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work was partly supported by the Russian
Foundation for Basic Research (grant nos. 16-05-
00704, 18-35-00044 mol_a, and 16-05-00822 a).
REFERENCES
1. S. P. Khromov and L. I. Mamontova, Meteorological
Dictionary (Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1974) [in
Russian].
2. L. T. Matveev, Atmospheric Physics (Gidrometeoizdat,
Leningrad, 1965) [in Russian].
3. A. S. Zverev, Synoptical Meteorology (Gidrometeoizdat,
Leningrad, 1977) [in Russian].
4. C. T. R. Wilson and J. J. Thomson, “Condensation of
water vapour in the presence of dust-free air and other
gases,” Proc. Roy. Soc., London 61 (369–377), 240–
242 (1897).
5. S. Petersen, The Weather Analysis and Forecasting
(Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1961) [in Russian].
6. M. A. Kohler and M. M. Richards, “Multicapacity
basin accounting for predicting runoff from storm pre-
cipitation,” J. Geophys. Res. 67 (13), 5187–5197
(1962).
7. M. Neiburger and M. G. Wurtele, “On the nature and
size of particles in haze, fog, and stratus of the Los
Angeles region,” Chem. Rev. 44 (2), 321–335 (1949).
8. J. J. George, Weather Forecasting for Aeronautics (Aca-
demic Press, London, 1960).
ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC OPTICS
9. N. V. Petrenko, “Improvement of the technique for
forecasting advective fog and visibility in this fog,” Tr.
Gidromet. SSSR, Is. 162, 34–45 (1975).
10. L. A. Klyuchnikova, “About the advective fog forma-
tion,” Tr. GGO, No. 60, 122 (1956).
11. Z. E. Babenko, Avtoref. Candidate’s Dissertation in
Geography (Middle Asian Regional Research Institute
named after V.A. Bugaev, Tashkent, 1961).
12. H. Koschmieder, “Measurements of visibility at dan-
zig,” Mon. Weather. Rev. 58 (11), 439–444 (1930).
13. H. G. Houghton and W. H. Radford, On the Measure-
ment of Drop Size and Liquid Water Content in Fogs and
Clouds (Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachu-
setts, 1938).
14. D. B. Meison, G. T. Nikanorova, and V. S. Protopop-
ova, Physics of Clouds (Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad,
1961) [in Russian].
15. C. H. Bang, J. W. Lee, and S. Y. Hong, “Predictability
experiments of fog and visibility in local airports over
Korea using the WRF model,” J. KOSAE 24 (E2), 92–
101 (2008).
16. M. T. Stoelinga and T. T. Warner, “Nonhydrostatic,
mesobeta-scale model simulations of cloud ceiling and
visibility for an East Coast winter precipitation event,”
J. Appl. Meteorol. 38 (4), 385–404 (1999).
17. B. A. Kunkel, “Parameterization of droplet terminal
velocity and extinction coefficient in fog models,”
J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol. 23 (1), 34–41 (1984).
18. S. A. Rutledge and P. Hobbs, “The mesoscale and
microscale structure and organization of clouds and
precipitation in midlatitude cyclones. VIII: A model for
the "seeder-feeder” process in warm-frontal rain-
bands," J. Atmos. Sci. 40 (5), 1185–1206 (1983).
19. J. R. Stallabrass, “Snow property measurement work-
shop,” in Proc. National Research Council Associate
Committee on Geotechnical Research. Tech. memoran-
dum (Canada, 1985), no. 140, p. 389–410
20. J. S. Marshall and W. M. Palmer, “The distribution of
raindrops with size,” J. Meteorol. 5, 165–166 (1948).
21. P. E. Bieringer, M. Donovan, F. Robasky, D. A. Clark,
and J. Hurst, “A characterization of NWP ceiling and
visibility forecasts for the terminal airspace,” in
12th Conf. Aviation, Range, and Aerospace Meteorol-
ogy, Atlanta, GA, 2006.
22. F. Wantuch, “Visibility and fog forecasting based on
decision tree method,” Idojárás 105, 29–38 (2001).
23. J. A. Doran, P. J. Roohr, D. J. Beberwyk, G. R. Brooks,
G. A. Gayno, R. T. Williams, J. M. Lewis, and
R. J. Lefevre, “The MM5 at the Air Force Weather
Agency—New products to support military opera-
tions,” in 8th Conf. Aviation, Range, and Aerospace
Meteorology, Dallas, Texas, 1999.
24. W. C. Skamarock, J. B. Klemp, J. Dudhia, D. O. Gill,
D. M. Barker, W. Wang, and J. G. Powers, A Description
of the Advanced Research WRF Version 2. (Mesoscale
and Microscale Meteorology Division, National Cen-
ter for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado,
USA, 2005). doi 10.5065/D68S4MVH
Vol. 32 No. 2 2019
 COMPARISON OF SEVERAL NUMERICAL METHODS FOR FOG PREDICTION 201

25. V. I. Bychkova, R. Yu. Ignatov, and K. G. Rubinshtein,
“The analysis of thermal fluxes on surface from WRF-
ARW model calculations in polar regions,” Uch. Zap.
Ros. Gos. Gidromet. Univ., No. 20, 42–55 (2011).
26. M. M. Smirnova, Avtoref. Candidate’s Dissertation in
Mathematics and Physics (Moscow State University,
Moscow, 2014).
27. G. A. Grell, Y. H. Kuo, and R. J. Pasch, “Semiprog-
nostic tests of cumulus parameterization schemes in the
middle latitudes,” Mon. Weather. Rev. 119 (1), 5–31
(1991).
28. J. A. Milbrandt and M. K. Yau, “A multimoment bulk
microphysics parameterization Part I. A proposed
three-moment closure and scheme description,”
J. Atmos. Sci. 62 (9), 3065–3081 (2005).
29. P. Bougeault and P. Lacarrere, “Parameterization of
orography-induced turbulence in a mesobeta-scale
model,” Mon. Weather. Rev. 117 (8), 1872–1890
(1989).
30. R. West, D. Crisp, and L. Chen, “Mapping transforma-
tions for broadband atmospheric radiation calcula-
tions,” J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 43 (3),
191–199 (1990).
31. M. B. Ek, K. E. Mitchell, Y. Lin, E. Rogers, P. Grun-
mann, V. Koren, Gayno, and J. D. Tarpley, “Imple-
mentation of Noah land surface model advances in the
National Centers for Environmental Prediction oper-
ational mesoscale Eta model,” J. Geophys. Res.:
Atmos. 108 (D22), 16 (2003).
Translated by O. Ponomareva

ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC OPTICS Vol. 32 No. 2 2019