COMPARISON BETWEEN A LOW COST METEOROLOGICAL SHELTER AND THE OFFICIAL METEOROLOGICAL STATION OF INMET IN SANTA MARIA (RS)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X16228Keywords:
Abrigo meteorológico de baixo custo, pluviômetro, temperatura, umidade, Santa Maria-RS.Abstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X16228
This work concerns in to compare a Low cost meteorological shelter (ABC) with the Official meteorological station of INMET installed at the Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Rio Grande do Sul. The ABC was installed at the INMET station approximately 1,5 meters of height. Although the Datalogger get exposed for 43 days, only the data collected between the days 03/10/13 and 04/10/13 were used, during three different daily schedule, at 9am, 3pm and 9pm. The tax of rain, which was attached to the INMET station, is made of PVC and has a funnel with a different diameter and 2 covers each side that prevents evaporation. With the data collected the temperature, relative humidity and dew point graphics were created with the help of the Microsoft Office Excel software. Also it was made a calculation of a conversion index, where the data collected from de ABC station were converted to the INMET station. The initial results presents gently more dispersed in ABC graphic than INMET’s. The average temperature has a difference of 1.3°C. Talking about the air relative humidity, the average varies in approximately 8%, the air relative humidity of ABC is greater than INMET’s. It was calculated the ratio between the amount of water collected by the PVC gauge and official one.
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.
