Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of fog and inversion characteristics and prediction of fog and associated meteorological parameters using NWP model over sub-urban Bangalore

  • Published:
Journal of Earth System Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is a comprehensive approach for the analysis of fog attributes with high-density intra-hourly data (Oct–Mar) for a period of 11 years from Jan 2009 to Dec 2019 in sub-urban Bengaluru. Also, the characteristics of nocturnal inversion parameters have been examined on the days with/without fog to explore any relationship between the two concurring meteorological phenomena. Lastly, ability of NWP model (NCMRWF, Unified Model, NCUM) was examined for predicting fog over Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru. Under the studied time frame, December reported 129 and January 126 fog events, while October, November, February, and March reported 33, 96, 44, 11 events, respectively. Similarly, December and January accounted for maximum fog hours. More than 80% of fog events were reported between 2200 and 0200 UTC with maximum (74) in the 0100–0129 UTC slot and dispersed between 0000 and 0400 UTC. Intensity-wise, shallow fog is most frequent (51%), while moderate, dense, and very-dense have a frequency of 29, 19.6 and 0.4%, respectively. As for atmospheric inversions in Bengaluru, elevated inversions are common occurrences throughout the year, while surface inversions are more frequent in the winter. In the study, it was found that 35% fog events coincided with two elevated inversions (EI) under the 700 hPa ceiling, whereas 25% occurred with a single EI. Surface inversions coinciding with fog events are relatively rare and mostly (71%) occur alongside EI. NWP model predicted reduced visibility during fog events with a hit rate of 42%, false alarm rate of 5% and bias value of 0.76. Model produced mixed results in forecasting of meteorological parameters and visibility. Wind speed and visibility were underestimated, whereas temperature and relative humidity show good agreement with the observed values.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdul-Wahab S A 2003 Analysis of thermal inversions in the Khareef Salalah region in the Sultanate of Oman; J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. D9 108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bang C H, Lee J W and Hong S Y 2008 Predictability experiments of fog and visibility in local airports over Korea using the WRF model; J. Korean Soc. Atmos. Environ. 24(E2) 92–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumbach G and Vogt U 2003 Influence of inversion layers on the distribution of air pollutants in urban areas; Water Air Soil Pollut. Focus 3(5–6) 65–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergot T and Guedalia D 1994 Numerical forecasting of radiation fog Part I: Numerical model and sensitivity tests; Mon. Weather Rev. 122(6) 1218–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best M J, Pryor M, Clark D B, Rooney G G, Essery R and Ménard C B et al. 2011 The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description Part 1: Energy and water fluxes; Geosci. Model Dev. 4(3) 677–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhowmik S K R, Sud A M and Singh C 2004 Forecasting fog over Delhi An-objective method; Mausam 55(2) 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown R 1980 A numerical study of radiation fog with an explicit formulation of the microphysics; Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 106(450) 781–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown R and Roach W T 1976 The physics of radiation fog II-a: Numerical study; Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 102(432) 335–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown A R, Beare R J, Edwards J M, Lock A P, Keogh S J, Milton S F and Walters D N 2008 Upgrades to the boundary-layer scheme in the Met Office numerical weather prediction model; Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 128(1) 117–132.

  • Clark P A, Harcourt S A, Macpherson B, Mathison C T, Cusack S and Naylor M 2008 Prediction of visibility and aerosol within the operational Met Office Unified Model. I: Model formulation and variational assimilation; Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 134(636) 1801–1816.

  • Clark D B, Mercado L M, Sitch S, Jones C D, Gedney N and Best M J et al. 2011 The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 2 carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics; Geosci. Model Dev. 4(3) 701–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies T, Cullen M J, Malcolm A J, Mawson M H, Staniforth A, White A A and Wood N 2005 A new dynamical core for the Met Office’s global and regional modelling of the atmosphere; Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 131(608) 1759–1782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duynkerke P G 1991 Radiation fog: A comparison of model simulation with detailed observations; Mon. Weather Rev. 119(2) 324–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duynkerke P G 1999 Turbulence, radiation and fog in Dutch stable boundary layers; Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 90(3) 447–477.

  • Edwards J M and Slingo A 1996 Studies with a flexible new radiation code. Part 1: Choosing a configuration for a large-scale model; Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 122 689–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grassl H 1973 Aerosol influence on radiative cooling; Tellus 25(4) 386–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory D and Rowntree P R 1990 A mass flux convection scheme with representation of cloud ensemble characteristics and stability-dependent closure; Mon. Weather Rev. 118(7) 1483–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gultepe I, Heymsfield A J, Gallagher M, Ickes L and Baumgardner D 2017 Ice fog: The current state of knowledge and future challenges; Meteorol. Monogr. 58 4.1–4.24.

  • Laskar S I, Roy Bhowmik S K and Sinha V 2013 Some statistical characteristics of occurrence of fog over Patna airport; Mausam 64(2) 345–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lock A P 2001 The numerical representation of entrainment in parameterizations of boundary layer turbulent mixing; Mon. Weather Rev. 129(5) 1148–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lock A P, Brown A R, Bush M R, Martin G M and Smith R N B 2000 A new boundary layer mixing scheme. Part I: Scheme description and single-column model tests; Mon. Weather Rev. 128(9) 3187–3199.

  • Kahl J D 1990 Characteristics of the low-level temperature inversion along the Alaskan Arctic coast; Int. J. Climatol. 10(5) 537–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutty S G, Agnihotri G, Dimri A P and Gultepe I 2019 Fog occurrence and associated meteorological factors over Kempegowda International Airport, India; Pure Appl. Geophys. 176(5) 2179–2190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maalick Z, Kühn T, Korhonen H, Kokkola H, Laaksonen A and Romakkaniemi S 2016 Effect of aerosol concentration and absorbing aerosol on the radiation fog life cycle; Atmos. Environ. 133 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M B and Lala G 1990 Climatological aspects of radiation fog occurrence at Albany, New York; J. Clim. 3(5) 577–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohapatra M and Thulasi Das A 1998 Analysis and forecasting of fog over Bangalore airport; Mausam 49 135–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakanishi M 2000 Large-eddy simulation of radiation fog; Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 94(3) 461–493.

  • Nilsson T M J, Vargas W E, Niklasson G A and Granqvist C G 1994 Condensation of water by radiative cooling; Renew. Energy 5(1–4) 310–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagowski M, Gultepe I and King P 2004 Analysis and modeling of an extremely dense fog event in southern Ontario; J. Appl. Meteorol. 43(1) 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pick W H 1931 A note on the relationship between fog and relative humidity; Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 57(240) 288–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruppacher H R and Klett J D 1978 Microstructure of atmospheric clouds and precipitation; In: Microphysics of clouds and precipitation; Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 9–55.

  • Roach W T, Brown R, Caughey S J, Garland J A and Readings C J 1976 The physics of radiation fog: I – a field study; Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 102(432) 313–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryznar E 1967 Advection-radiation fog near Lake Michigan; Atmos. Environ. 11(5) 427–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S and Goswami P 2017 An assessment of forecast skill of an atmospheric meso-scale model in simulating the observed contrasts in meteorological fields for foggy and non-foggy days; Pure Appl. Geophys. 174(7) 2827–2845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh A, George J P and Iyengar G R 2018 Prediction of fog/visibility over India using NWP Model; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 127(2) 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolaki S N, Kazadzis S A, Foris D V and Karacostas T S 2009 Fog characteristics at the airport of Thessaloniki, Greece; Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9(5) 1541–1549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suresh R, Janakiramayya M V and Sukumar E R 2007 An account of fog over Chennai; Mausam 58(4) 501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tardif R and Rasmussen R M 2008 Process-oriented analysis of environmental conditions associated with precipitation fog events in the New York City region; J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 47(6) 1681–1703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terradellas E, Ferreres E and Soler M R 2008 Analysis of turbulence in fog episodes; Adv. Sci. Res. 2(1) 31–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Schalkwyk L and Dyson L L 2013 Climatological characteristics of fog at Cape Town International airport; Wea. Forecast. 28(3) 631–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson D R and Ballard S P 1999 A microphysically based precipitation scheme for the UK Meteorological Office Unified Model; Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 125(557) 1607–1636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson D R, Bushell A C, Kerr‐Munslow A M, Price J D and Morcrette C J 2008a PC2: A prognostic cloud fraction and condensation scheme. I: Scheme description; Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 134(637) 2093–2107.

  • Wilson D R, Bushell A C, Kerr‐Munslow A M, Price J D, Morcrette C J and Bodas‐Salcedo A 2008b PC2: A prognostic cloud fraction and condensation scheme. II: Climate model simulations; Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 134(637) 2109–2125.

  • Zdunkowski W G and Nielsen B C 1969 A preliminary prediction analysis of radiation fog; Pure Appl. Geophys. 75(1) 278–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou B and Du J 2010 Fog prediction from a multi-model mesoscale ensemble prediction system; Wea. Forecast. 25(1) 303–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the limitations of this study as several factors involved in the mechanism of fog occurrence were not addressed; this undertaking is aimed at a humble exploration of the possible interaction between the two above-mentioned meteorological phenomena and determination of the hypothesis that whether inversion parameters can influence fog occurrence and its characteristics. Both of the physical phenomena are dynamic processes that cannot be effectively compared based on a single time step. We hope this study will open a door for further investigation of the fog–inversion coupling. Authors are grateful for the invaluable comments of the referees, which greatly improved the quality of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 33A/8A, Chak Mundera, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, 211 011, India

    Arnav Shukla

  2. Meteorological Centre, India Meteorological Department, Bangalore, India

    Geeta Agnihotri

  3. National Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting, Noida, India

    Aditi Singh

Authors
  1. Arnav Shukla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geeta Agnihotri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aditi Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Arnav Shukla: Fog, radiosonde and NCUM data analysis, original drafting. Geeta Agnihotri: Supervision and reviewing. Aditi Singh: Drafting, reviewing and editing explanation of NCUM model.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnav Shukla.

Additional information

Communicated by T Narayana Rao

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shukla, A., Agnihotri, G. & Singh, A. Analysis of fog and inversion characteristics and prediction of fog and associated meteorological parameters using NWP model over sub-urban Bangalore. J Earth Syst Sci 131, 227 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-022-01967-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-022-01967-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation