EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT BOUNDARY LAYER SCHEMES FOR FOG EVENTS SIMULATION AND FORECASTING IN RIO GRANDE DO SUL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X25940Keywords:
Fog, WRF, Planetary Boundary Layer, Mellor-Yamada-Janic (MYJ), Yonsei University (YSU)Abstract
In this work we used two boundary layer schemes to reproduce numerically a persistent fog event in Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul. The model employed was WRF using, as initial and boundary conditions, GFS data. The boundary layer employed schemes were the Mellor-Yamada-Janic (MYJ) and Yonsei University (YSU). Generally, boundary layer overestimate of wind speed values schemes 10m and represent relatively well temperature. However, the relative humidity does not represent the fog condition, not reaching saturation in some cases. When saturation is achieved the same if not properly maintained during the occurrence of the event.
Downloads
References
HONG, S. Y., NOH, Y., DUDHIA, J. (2006). A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes. Monthly Weather Review, 134(9), 2318–2341.
JANJIC, Z. I. (1994). The step-mountain eta coordinate model: Further evelopments of the convection, viscous sublayer, and turbulence closure schemes. Monthly Weather Review, 122(5), 927–945.
NCEP (2000). National centers for environmental prediction/national weather service/"NOAA". URL http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/index.php?branch=GFS,acessado em 22 set 2014.
DE PAULA, N. F., PUHALES, F. S., ANABOR, V., PIVA, E. D., DE LIMA NASCIMENTO, E. (2015). Características meteorológicas médias associadas a nevoeiro de radiação em santa maria – rs. Ciência e Natura, 37(3), 613–624.
SKAMAROCK, W. C., KLEMP, J. B., DUDHIA, J., GILL, D. O., BARKER, D. M., DUDA, M. G., HUANG, X. Y., WANG, W., POWERS, J. G. (2008). A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3. Boulder, URL http://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/docs/arw_v3.pdf.
XIE, B., FUNG, J. C., CHAN, A., LAU, A. (2012). Evaluation of nonlocal and local planetary boundary layer schemes in the wrf model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117(D12103).
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.
