MEAN WEATHER CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED TO RADIATION FOG AT SANTA MARIA–RS
Keywords:Nevoeiro, variáveis médias, anticiclone.
AbstractCentral Depression, is region of great importance for different activities in Rio Grande do Sul. This area is also characterizedfor the high frequency of fog formation, specially in Santa Maria. To identify fog occurrence, METAR message were used.Furthermore, automatic stations data have employed to eliminate fog events under rain conditions in day and day before theevent. The synoptic analysis was done with final data analysis by NCEP. It was observed that in colder months the events aremost frequent. Moreover, the fog occurence is correlated with anticyclone postion in relation to Santa Maria.
Bergot, T., Guedalia, D. (1994). Numerical forecasting of radiation fog. part i: Numerical model and sensitivity tests. Monthly Weather Review, 122(6), 1218–1230.
Brown, R., Roach, W. (1976). The physics of radiation fog: II – a numerical study. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 102(432), 335–354.
Cotton, W. R., Anthes, R. A. (1989). Storm and Cloud Dynamics. Academic Press, San Diego. Croft, P. J., Pfost, R. L., Medlin, J. M., Johnson, G. A. (1997). Fog forecasting for the southern region: A conceptual model approach. Weather and Forecasting, 12(3), 545–556.
Curry, J. A., Webster, P. J. (1998). Thermodynamics of atmospheres and oceans, vol 65. Academic Press.
Epperly, P. O. (1933). Fog formation and dissipation in the oklahoma city area, 1920 to 1931, inclusive. Monthly Weather Review, 61(9), 267–269.
Gerber, H. (1981). Microstructure of a radiation fog. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 38(2), 454–458.
Koraˇcin, D., Lewis, J., Thompson, W. T., Dorman, C. E., Businger, J. A. (2001). Transition of stratus into fog along the california coast: Observations and modeling. Journal of the atmospheric sciences, 58(13), 1714–1731.
Lima, J. (1982). Previsão de ocorrência de nevoeiro em Porto Alegre: método objetivo. Instituto de proteção ao vôo do Ministério da aeronáutica.
Meyer, M. B., Lala, G. G. (1990). Climatological aspects of radiation fog occurrence at albany, new york. Journal of Climate, 3(5), 577–586.
NCEP (2000). National centers for environmental prediction/national weather service/NOAA. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.5065/D6M043C6, acessado em 22 set 2014.
Petterssen, S. (1939). Some aspects of formation and dissipation of fog. Cammermeyer in Komm.
Piva, E. D., Fedorova, N. (1999). Um estudo sobre a formação de nevoeiro de radiação em Porto Alegre. Revista Brasileira de Meteorologia, 14(2), 47–62.
REDEMET (2013). Rede de meteorologia do comando da aeronáutica. URL http://www.redemet.aer.mil.br/consulta_msg/consulta_de_mensagem.php?ID_REDEMET=caotn42nbhesgeg4tuppvatbc6, acessado em 30 jan. 2015.
Rogers, R., Yau, M. (1989). A short course in cloud physics, International series in natural philosophy. Butterworth Heinemann, Burlington, MA.
Satyamurty, P., Lima, L. C. E. (1994). Movimento e intensificação de anticiclones extratropicais na região sul americana. Anais do VIII CBMet, 2, 75–77.
Sinclair, M. R. (1996). A climatology of anticyclones and blocking for the southern hemisphere. Monthly Weather Review, 124(2), 245–264.
Taylor, G. (1917). The formation of fog and mist. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 43(183), 241–268.
WMO (1995). Manual on the Observation of Clouds and Other Meteors. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva.
Zhang, X., Musson-Genon, L., Dupont, E., Milliez, M., Carissimo, B. (2014). On the influence of a simple microphysics parametrization on radiation fog modelling: A case study during parisfog. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 151(2), 293–315.
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.