Talk:Fog

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: General High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Ice fog was copied or moved into Fog with this edit on 4 Dec 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Do we really need all those images? --Thorpe 17:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, but on the other hand is there a compelling reason to remove them? Pcb21 Pete 22:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. Per WP:Images: "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general. ... Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text." There are too many images on the page illustrating the same thing. They need to be organized so that redundant images are removed and so that the images can be connected to the different types of fog being discussed. I don't know much about the topic, or else I would've done this already. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some of the images were named according to what type of fog they were, so I went ahead and formatted the pictures. I removed one or two duplicate images, and left the better quality one. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading the article for the first time. The number of images, their size, and placement really screw up the flow of the article. I would recommend reducing to one of two images, if possible.Cdcon 22:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I aligned the images along one side, and set all but the first one to use the readers's default "thumb" size instead of specifying one for each image. I think this is much cleaner. Johntex\^talk 04:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even cleaner - all to default size... L/wangi 12:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, If you think this article is overcrowded with photographs, check Cat. --StimpsonDE 13:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added section cleanup tags for the images sections. There are way too many images in gallery--upload them all to commons and wipe out the galleries, gang; there's already a {{Commons:Fog}} link here! - Ageekgal (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since galleries are one of those items mentioned on the "what wikipedia is not" page, it has been removed. We have enough images already. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add this photo to commons: http://www.pbase.com/wangi/image/55500828, however this article already seems to be overloaded with photos, as noted above. I'll upload it if other people agree and we can decide which existing photo(s) to remove. Fair enough? thanks/wangi 14:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help create fog type articles - such as radiation fog? Moon&Nature 19:01, August 20, 2006 (UTC).

Although it appears to be a nice article, there is only one external reference, which throws its B status in doubt. More references are needed for this page to keep its B. Thegreatdr 21:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is inconsistent with respect to the relative air humidity. On the one hand it says that fog forms when it reaches 100% at ground level, but on the other hand it says that drizzle occurs when it attains 100%. They cannot both be right. 193.35.129.161 10:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone noticed that everything sounds different when it's foggy? Sounds carry a lot further and I always find it a little disorientating how close everything sounds. I assume it is because of different acoustic properties air depending on the humidity but the only thing I can find online about it is this [1] (which I don't understand :( ). Maybe someone who understands acoustics could add a paragraph about it. --Kick the cat 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most Fogs involve the formation of a temperature inversion. Temperature inversions can increase the distance that sounds can travel by reflecting a sound between the ground and the inversion. The presence of a high pressure and a temperature inversion during the buncefield oil depot explosion allowed the sound of the explosion to be carried more than 200 miles to Belgium and the Netherlands. I suggest researching this area if you wish to add something about this to the article. Grizzlyqi 13:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I loved the article AND all the beautiful pictures! Thanks. I started my 'surfing' this evening about 9:30 p.m. to answer the question 'Does fog muffle sound?' and it's now almost midnight in Texas. I'm delighted to find you though, so it was worth it. Glad to know I'm not the first to notice that fog seems to impact audible sounds, but my experience tonight was the opposite - I was making my nightly walk in the country with my cat in the fog and it was eerily SILENT...no highway sounds, wolves howling, dogs barking, cows mooing, horses shuffling, rabbits running, airplanes flying, or bugs chirping! Whassup with that?! How can I research it more? I'm obviously a novice in the weather realm so any suggestions and/or additions to the article would be greatly appreciated. Gmom7577 in rural Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by LStotland (talk • contribs) 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, just read the instructions! LStotland (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far got the definition of fog, but would greatly appreciated if someone add a section that describes how fog is form and maintained (e.g. water droplets is held in the air molecules.)fog is formed by the change in humidity idk it shows it on the thing

Yep, it's a very confused article. Fog is like cloud? well yes in the sense that fog is like the steam that comes out of your kettle as well, it's all about condensed water droplets in suspension in the air, but actually fog is formed in several different ways and normally nothing to do with clouds so it's misleading and confusing.Timbow001 (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In one certain place, just outside tall woods and by a lake, I found that if the weather conditions are correct, the fog causes echoes off of the trees. Could this have been found by anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.203.22 (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add in countries which get a high amount of fog compared to others?

Ariticle dont not say. Is there Acid Fog as well as acid rain from industrial pollution? ORBEGADO (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing there is considering that acid rain can be any form of precipitation but fog isn't exactly considered precipitation. However, it would make sense that some pollutants may get into the air, thus into the fog. Just a theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.26.118 (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes fog is too bright white, and it’s not very comfortable for eyes. This might happen in sunny days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.25.89.238 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What weather condition would be the exact opposite of fog, and what are some of the places that never have fog (or have the very least of it)---I think this article should address these issues. 173.28.244.122 (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the Lake Geneva area of Switzerland, and it's very foggy in autumn and winter. I'm not sure why this needs a citation, it's a fact. Cite me if you wish! 86.209.214.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, but citations don't work like that. Wikipedia deals with verifiable facts. Someone evidently thought this passage needs to be verified, so it would be really helpful if you could find a reliable source. As a local resident, you probably can find one. Rivertorch (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be absolutely clear to those who may thing that clouds are made of water vapor you should change the wording to say liquid water droplets? StressTensor (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Dense fog over Indian Subcontinent.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 21, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-03-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Dense fog over the Gangetic plains of the Indian Subcontinent, with the Himalayas to the north and the Bay of Bengal at bottom right, as imaged by a NASA satellite on 23 December 2012. Fog is a collection of liquid water droplets or ice crystals suspended in the air at or near the Earth's surface; it is closer to the Earth's surface than clouds and denser than mist.Photo: NASA Earth Data - LANCE Web Mapping Service, MODIS Rapid Response System

Archive – More featured pictures...

The structure of the article had degenerated to a messy hodgepodge, so I attempted to reorganize it more logically including the images. Also, the captions needed major reworking. Missing topics include visibility effects and mitigation, sound propagation and acoustic effects, and influence on historic events (including notable battles and accidents). Better coverage of formation mechanisms is needed, including the effects of condensation nuclei, microscopic effects, and wind agitation. The two microscopic photos lack any scale information, and should be replaced with better-documented images. Reify-tech (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also missing is an indication of the thickness or depth of fog. I suppose the minimum would be something close to zero, but what is the maximum possible depth of a given layer of fog? And is there an average depth? Mark The Droner (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also missing is any coverage of cultural connections such as depiction in visual arts (e.g. well-known paintings by J. M. W. Turner, Winslow Homer, and Claude Monet); references in literature, legend, theater, and cinema (e.g. Macbeth, the Night and Fog films); and "killer fog/smog" events. The coverage of military impact (the "fog of war") and deliberate usage for concealment needs modest expansion. Some of these topics may may covered in depth elsewhere in Wikipedia; if so, then short summaries should be added here, with Wikilinks to the in-depth articles. Reify-tech (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text in this section needs much improvement, plus some references. The primary effect I've noticed in dense fog is rapid attenuation of high frequencies, and not a strengthening of sound transmission. I'm sure there is a physical explanation involving the fog droplets and absorption of sound energy. I would guess that apparent strengthening of sounds in some cases is due to refraction or bending of soundwaves due to differential density of the atmosphere. Can anybody with a relevant background in acoustics, meteorology, or atmospheric physics lend a hand here? Reify-tech (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• . You are right about the high pitched sounds being absorbed because the droplets are separated, and the thin higher pitched frequencies get trapped between them. However, the opposite is true of low frequency sounds. They vibrate the droplets in a way that enhances the ability of the fog (droplets) to amplify lower frequency sounds and to increase their range to the extent of the fog layer. That is why fog horns are low frequency.→Pocketthis (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent considerable amounts of time in the last few days researching the fog/sound issue. I removed the tag, rewrote the section with info gathered as a consensus of opinions from many competent sources. Thank you for the inspiration to tackle this-Pocketthis (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The definition given is confusing by claiming that some fog does NOT touch the ground. This is a novel concept; certainly not widely held.

In contrast, here is National Geographic's first sentence explaining the difference between a Cloud and Fog -- "Fog is a cloud that touches the ground."

^[1]

I respectfully urge this dramatically less confusing sentence be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDilworth (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you that most fog conditions are a cloud that is low lying or touches the ground, and that's what our article says. However, not all fog is a cloud touching the ground, and our descriptions offer much more than your referenced National Geographic article.

Also, I couldn't find anywhere in our article that says: "some fog does not touch the ground". I even put it in a search index, and those words never showed up. Please give me the exact sentence and location that is in question. Perhaps I missed it. Thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The contributors certainly know their fog, but this article is one of the most difficult articles I've ever tried to read. The grammar needs lots of help in order to have the sentences flow. Too misplaced commas, run-on sentences, you name it. Please, someone, edit this article for ease of reading. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaaches (talk • contribs) 09:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While we're on the subject, what's a "Too misplaced comma"? PEACE-Pocketthis (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225074154/http://www.knmi.nl/~hurkvd/Loco_workshop/Workshop_report.pdf to http://www.knmi.nl/~hurkvd/Loco_workshop/Workshop_report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521015053/http://www.ofcm.gov/fmh-1/pdf/H-CH8.pdf to http://www.ofcm.gov/fmh-1/pdf/H-CH8.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029004355/http://www.nwas.org/ej/pdf/2007-FTT1.pdf to http://www.nwas.org/ej/pdf/2007-FTT1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect 😶‍🌫 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 27 § 😶‍🌫 until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 11:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]