NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS TO THE SUBTROPICAL CYCLONE “ANITA” USING WRF MODEL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X16218Keywords:
Simulação numérica, ciclone subtropical, WRF.Abstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X16218The Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) were used to simulate the subtropical cyclone Anita, which occurred in March of 2010 over southwestern of South Atlantic Ocean. These cyclone instigated weather forecast centers around the world, since numerical models were indicating that it would atypically move to southwest. Therefore, numerical experiments with WRF were conducted in order to evaluate the sensitivity of Anita cyclone by changing different configurations/parameterization: (a) relaxation zone of the model (between 5 and 40 columns); (b) Betts-Miller-Janjic cumulus parameterization; (c) anticipation (24, 48, 72h). Simulations used a 25 km resolution grid, and boundary and initial conditions from FNL/NCEP (Final Analysis/National Centers for Environmental Prediction). Results were compared with the FNL/NCEP analyses and the Tropical Measuring Mission (TRMM). The relaxation zone conditions didn’t seemed to present a large impact in simulating the intensity and position of the cyclone. In general it is simulated a deeper than observed low pressure. In the experiments initiated with 72h before validation date tended to move the cyclone towards the continent, while the experiments initiated 24h before presented better agreement with observed cyclone path. The use of Betts-MillerJanjic cumulus parameterization provides results similar to the observed one, mainly for simulations initiated 72h before. The precipitation was, in general, overestimated in the experiments compared to the TRMM analyses.
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.
