INFLUENCE OF EL NIÑO AND LA NIÑA IN THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF RAINFALL IN THE STATE OF MATO GROSSO
Keywords:Temperatura do Oceano Pacífico, ENOS, Número de Dias de Chuva.
AbstractThe analysis of the intensity of El Niño and La Niña and its influence on the temporal distribution of rainfall becomes important, since it allows to detect trends or changes in the hydrological cycle of regions to improve the management of stormwater arising from climate events. This study aimed to correlate the variation of the NDC (Number of Days of Rain) in the state of Mato Grosso to the intensity Oceanic Niño Index (a) (ION). We used data from 76 rainfall stations with 30 years of data and 44 stations with data ranging from 20 to 29 years, and throughout this series between the years 1977 to 2006. Monthly data on the intensity of weather phenomena El Niño and La Niña were obtained from the National Service Climatologic U.S. (NOAA - National Weather Service), which were related to monthly data from NDC to describe the pathway of evolution of the same under the influence of ION. In the period 1977 to 2006 the average monthly ION ranged between -1.1 ° C and 1.3 ° C, variations considered moderate, with some variations considered strong in 1982 (2.3 ° C), 1983 (2, 3 ° C). 1988 (-1.9 ° C), 1991 (1.6 ° C), 1992 (1.8 ° C), 1997 (2.5 ° C), 1998 (2.3 ° C) 1999/2000 (-1.6 ° C) and 2002 (1.5 ° C). During the study period there were more positive changes than negative temperature of the waters of the Pacific Ocean, featuring a higher frequency of El Niño. The majority of NDC ends of each month the series, ie those values that were above the NDC below the me an were not associated with the phenomenon ION. Thus, it is concluded that the variations of sea surface temperature (SST) of the Pacific Ocean cause no significant effects evident in the NDC or the State of Mato Grosso.
How to Cite
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.
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.