1. An Analysis of Eta Model Forecast Soundings in Radiation Fog Forecasting Steve Amburn National Weather Service, Tulsa, OK

2. Forecasting Radiation Fog Rule of Thumb: clear skies, light winds, abundant moisture Mixing Ratio increasing with height (Petterssen, 1940) UPS Fog (cross-over) technique MAV MOS Guidance

3. MAV MOS Visibility Forecasts OBS MAV 12345Wgt Avg 1401539 493.23 2811215233.75 319161482493774.17 4794222952713284.35 5236954822135371044.89

4. Most Probable Outcome by Categories

5. Typical Fog Soundings Characterized by: –Very moist low levels –Strong temperature inversion –Very dry above the inversion –Little or no wind

6. No-fog Sounding Characterized by: –Windy –Moist aloft (cloudy) –Dry low levels

7. Eta Forecast Sounding Series 06 UTC09 UTC12 UTC

8. Purpose of Study Can the Eta forecast soundings: –Improve detection of radiation fog –Improve timing radiation fog development –Improve forecast of fog intensity –Improve on MAV MOS guidance

9. Approach Use United Parcel Service forecast technique Compare forecasts derived form Eta soundings to MAV and observed data Use 03, 06, 09,12, and 15 UTC times for comparisons Compute statistics

10. Modified UPS Technique UPS uses previous afternoon surface Td to estimate the Td aloft. When surface T drops below the Td aloft, fog is expected Modified Richardson number is used in the technique to adjust for wind. A table is used to assign fog values

11. This Study Cases selected when winds were light or calm, so UPS Richardson number not a factor Forecast sites included TUL, MLC, FSM, FYV 125 data samples were collected from both the 12 UTC and 18 UTC Eta run cycles Forecasts were for the upcoming night

12. Conversion Table for Fog Intensities Eta/MAV CtgryVsby (mi)Tsfc – Td aloft 1 < ¼ < -3 F 2 ¼ to ½ -3 F 3 ½ to 7/8 -2 F 4 1 to 2 ¾ -1 F 53 to 5 0 F 66 1 F 77> 1 F

13. Results

14. Statistics Forecast Cycle Category Bias Abs Ctgry Error/MAE Standard Deviation 12Z MAV1.301.531.74 12Z Eta1.521.571.84 18Z MAV1.361.491.75 18Z Eta1.541.701.83

15. Summary Both the Eta technique and MAV had a high bias MAV mean average category error was lower at both run times Eta from 18UTC run cycles had higher error than the 12UTC Eta run

16. Conclusions Modified UPS fog forecasting technique, when applied to Eta model BUFR soundings, did not improve radiation fog forecasts. Eta soundings were not able to develop high RH in the low levels in most events.

17. Considerations Eta model surface initialization may not be completely accurate. Eta land surface resolution may be too coarse. Eta model estimates of terrain, vegetation, soil type may not be completely accurate.

18. Questions, comments?