"Norman" wrote in message
...
Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Nov 5, 6:47 am, "Norman" normanthis...@thisbitweather-
consultancy.com wrote:
Chalfont St Giles - Wednesday 5th November 2008
------------------------------------------------------------

0630z NNE F1 7000 HZ 8Sc012 09.3/07.7 1017

Norman.

--
Norman Lynagh
Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire
85m a.s.l.
(remove "thisbit" twice to e-mail)

Is that really haze, Norman? I know I've got a bit of thing
about "haze" and "hazy sunshine" but surely it's thin mist and not
solids in suspension.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

I tend to agree with you Tudor but, by definition, it's only considered
to be mist if the relative humidity is 94 percent or more (or is it
more than 94 percent?). On this occasion the RH was only 90 percent so
whatever was obscuring the visibility couldn't be called mist. That
left haze as the only option. Or have the rules changed since I last
did "official" observations?

Norman
--
Norman Lynagh
Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire
85m a.s.l.
(remove "thisbit" twice to e-mail)

AFAIK it is still mist if RH equal to or greater than 95%, haze if
visibility reduced by water droplets and RH 95%.

Will
--