ATMOSPHERIC ANALYSIS OF THE EVENTS SECONDARY EFFECT OF ANTARCTIC OZONE HOLE OVER THE SOUTH OF BRAZIL IN 2012. PART 2: SYNOPTIC VERIFICATION OF THE TROPOSPHERE DURING THE EVENTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X13151Keywords:
Efeito secundário do buraco de Ozônio Antártico, Verificação Sinótica Troposférica.Abstract
In this work, it was verified the synoptic condition in the troposphere of the two events of the Influence of the Antarctic Ozone Hole that occurred over southern Brazil in the year 2012. Both events showed average drop of the 12.1 ± 2.3 in the ozone content in relation to their monthly climatological averages obtained through the data of the Brewer Spectrophotometer MKIII 167 installed on the southern Space Observatory-OESCRSINPE-MCTI and instrument of OMI satellite from NASA. Through wind maps at 250 hPa and 500 hPa and Omega in sea level pressure and thickness between 1000 and 500 hPa in addition to GOES 12 satellite images enhanced infrared, it was observed that the synoptic troposférica condition associated with passage of a wide area of atmospheric stability, without significant cloud cover, related to the remoteness of the subtropical jet stream to the Atlantic Ocean, superimposed by a large high-pressure systems after a few days of the passage of a frontal system stationary, favored the stratospheric transport causing such falls, arriving in one of the cases the configure Atmospheric blocking condition, suggesting that the more intense is the stable air mass front post, the greater the drop in ozone content.Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
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.
