Previsibilidade de um Vendaval com Tornado Ocorrido em Canguçu com o Modelo WRF-ARW

Authors

  • Luciana Cardoso Neta Universidade Federal de Santa Maria – UFSM Pós-Graduação em Meteorologia Campus Universitário, Santa Maria, RS
  • Eliton Lima de Figueiredo Universidade Federal de Pelotas – UFPel Centro de Pesquisas e Previsões Meteorológicas Av. Ildefonso Simões Lopes, 2751, 96060-290, Pelotas, RS
  • Vladair Morales de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Pelotas – UFPel Centro de Pesquisas e Previsões Meteorológicas Av. Ildefonso Simões Lopes, 2751, 96060-290, Pelotas, RS
  • Eliane Grala Pereira Alves Universidade Federal de Pelotas – UFPel Centro de Pesquisas e Previsões Meteorológicas Av. Ildefonso Simões Lopes, 2751, 96060-290, Pelotas, RS
  • Roseli Gueths Gomes Universidade Federal de Pelotas – UFPel Centro de Pesquisas e Previsões Meteorológicas Av. Ildefonso Simões Lopes, 2751, 96060-290, Pelotas, RS

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X11647

Abstract

Neste trabalho, será analisado o vendaval com formação tornádica, ocorrido em Canguçu/RS em maio de 2013, com dados observacionais e provenientes de simulações atmosféricas. O modelo WRF-ARW com resolução horizontal de 2km forneceu intensidades dos ventos a 2m compatíveis aos observados, o que permite especular sobre a previsibilidade de ventos fortes no estado.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2013-12-10

How to Cite

Cardoso Neta, L., Figueiredo, E. L. de, Oliveira, V. M. de, Alves, E. G. P., & Gomes, R. G. (2013). Previsibilidade de um Vendaval com Tornado Ocorrido em Canguçu com o Modelo WRF-ARW. Ciência E Natura, 35, 343–346. https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X11647

Issue

Vol. 35 (2013): EDIÇÃO ESPECIAL/NOVEMBRO - VIII BRAZILIAN MICROMETEOROLOGY WORKSHOP

Section

Meteorology

License

To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.

 

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. 

Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

In particular, 

Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.