WRF-4DVAR EVALUATION OF AN EXTREME EVENT OVER RIO GRANDE DO SUL
Keywords:Data Assimilation. WRF. TRMM.
AbstractThe WRF mesoscale system 4DVAR data assimilation technique have been used with the purpose of evaluating the impact of the meteorological data assimilation on the numeric time prognosis over the Rio Grande do Sul state. It has been done utilizing the surface and altitude data. The consistency analysis has been done evaluating the numerical prognosis exploring the differences between the analysis with and without data assimilation. The produced prognosis results have been compared spatially using the TRMM satellite data as well as the Canguçu radar reflectivity data. The accumulated rainfall has been validated and compared spatially with the TRMM data for the time period of 12 hours comprehended between October 29th and 30th of 2014. It was possible to realize that as well as the WRF, the WRFVAR overestimated the rainfall values. The radar reflectivity field without data assimilation for October 30th at 06:00UTC detected most accurately the reflectivity centers over the state. On the other hand this field with data assimilation did not present good skill. The temperature field analyses reveal that the 4DVAR assimilation system contributes, one way or another, presenting a little improvement for some points compared to the real data.
CPTEC (2015). Centro de pesquisas e estudos climáticos.
De Gonçalves, L. G. G., Shuttleworth, W. J., Nijssen, B.,
Burke, E. J., Marengo, J. A., Chou, S. C., Houser, P.,
Toll, D. L. (2006). Evaluation of model-derived and
remotely sensed precipitation products for continental
south america. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111.
Kalnay, E. (2003). Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation
and Predictability. Cambridge University Press.
Lorenc, A. C. (1986). Analysis methods for numerical weather
prediction. Quarterly Journal of Royal Meteorology
Society, 112(474), 1177–1194.
Macedo, L. R., Alves, R. C. M., Basso, J. L. M., Yamasaki,
Y. (2014). Análise do desempenho do modelo wrf com
alta resolução espacial na previsão de precipitação
acumulada. Ciência e Natura, Edição Especial, 497–502.
Mitra, A. K., Bohra, A. K., Rajeevan, M. N., Krishnamurti,
T. N. (2009). Daily indian precipitation analysis
formed from a merge of rain-gauge data with the
trmm tmpa satellite-derived rainfall estimates. Journal
of the Meteorological Society of Japan, 87A, 265–279.
REDEMET (2015). URL http://www.redemet.aer.mil.
Rozante, J. R., Cavalcanti, I. F. A. (2008). Regional eta
model experiments: Salljex and mcs development.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 113.
Rozante, J. R., Moreira, D. S., De Gonçalves, L. G. G.,
Vila, D. A. (2010). Combining trmm and surface observation
precipitation: Technique and validation over
south america. Weather and Forecasting, 25, 885–894.
Skamarock, J. B., W.C.and Klemp, Dudhia, J., Gill,
D. O., Barker, D. M., Duda, H. X., M. G., Wang,
W., Powers, J. G. (2010). A Description of the Advanced
Research WRF Version 3. National Center for Atmospheric
Research, Boulder, Colorado, United States
of America, URL http://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/
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.