NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF TWO MESOSCALE CONVECTIVE SYSTEMS USING THE WRF MODEL
Keywords:MCS. Mesoscale. WRF. Shear. Thickness.
AbstractThe model Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) was used in order to simulate two Mesoscale Convective Systems (MCSs) with different characteristics in order to analyze how variables such as wind directional shear and thickness gradient are modified within the MCSs along its entire duration. The first event is a linear MCS that extended from the north of Argentina to the South Atlantic in November 30, 2009 and the second is a circular MCS or MCC (mesoscale convective complex) that occurred on the RS and Uruguay on November 18, 2009. The two systems were identified through images of the satellite GOES (Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite) using an automatic tracking of MCSs and for the simulation of events in WRF we used the data reanalysis of CFSR (Climate Forecast System Reanalysis). The simulation results indicated that the rate of reduction thickness gradient is greater in the circular case than in the linear case and at the time that events are initiated the wind directional shear is higher in the linear case but he reduces until the moment of dissipation of the MCS different than occurs in MCC, which has an increased wind directional shear when the system is almost dissipating.
Anabor, V., 2004: Descriptive analyses of meso-α convective systems by GOES-8 satellite images. M.S. thesis, Departament of Remote Sensing, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, 78 pp.
Hart, R.E., 2003: A cyclone phase space derived from thermal wind and thermal asymmetry. Mon. Wea. Rev., 131, 585-616.
Maddox, R. A., 1980: Mesoscale convective complexes. Bull. Amer.Meteor. Soc., 61,1374–1387.
Stensrud, David J.;de Moraes, Osvaldo L. L.;ANABOR, V., 2008: Serial Upstream-Propagating Mesoscale Convective System Events over Southeastern South America . Monthly Weather Review .
Marengo, J. A., W. R. Soares, C. Saulo, e M. Nicolini, 2004: Climatology of the low-level jet east of the Andes as a derived from the NCEP-NCAR reanalyses: Characteristics and temporal variability. J. Climate, 17, 2261-2280.
Rocha, R. P., 1992: Numerical simulation of a mesoscale convectvie system over South America. M.S. thesis, Institute of Astronomy, Geophysics and Atmosferic Science of USP.
Nesbitt, S.W., R. Cifelli, e S.A. Rutledge, 2006: Storm Morphology and Rainfall Characteristics of TRMM Precipitation Features. Mon. Wea. Rev., 134, 2702–2721.
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.