Falklands/malvinas war: 1st may 1982, the meteorology and naval battles that did not occur
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X28554Keywords:
War, Falklands, Weather conditions, AnticycloneAbstract
The Falklands/Malvinas war, was one of the most striking and surprising warlike events of modern history in many ways. One of the points that proved to be of great importance during the period in which they occurred fighting were extremely adverse weather conditions in the conflict area and their influence over the fighting. The work presented here deals with the case in which the two maritime forces (Argentine and British) composed of the aircraft carrier, were very close to a real confrontation. The situation could have changed the course of future clashes, but was thwarted by the third factor that acted in this relentlessly scenario, the weather. The presence of an anticyclonic system caused an unexpected calm in the winds in the south of the South Atlantic. This condition coupled with strategic factors that occurred simultaneously made it impossible to launch aircraft from carriers, especially in the case of the Argentine ship and thus the forces in combat had to back down waiting for a new ideal opportunity
Downloads
References
BUSSER, Carlos Alberto (Comp.). Operación Rosario: La recuperación de Las Islas Malvinas. 3. ed. Buenos Aires: Asociación de Infantes de Marina, 2006. 368 p.
CALEARO, Daniel Sampaio. A influência dos sistemas meteorológicos no conflito das Falklands/Malvinas 1982: Uma perspectiva geográfica. 2014. 207 f. Dissertação (Mestrado) - Programa de Pós Graduação em Geografia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, 2014.
COLI, Carlos A.. La Flota de Mar en la Guerra del Atlántico Sur: Su Actuación Posterior al 2 de Abril de 1982. Boletin Del Centro Naval, Buenos Aires, n. 816, p.87-108, jan/abr. 2007.
GAN, Manoel Alonso; RAO, Vadlamudi Brahmananda. Surface cyclogenesis over South America. Monthly Weather Review, v. 119, n. 5, p. 1293-1302, 1991.
HOSKINS, Brian John; HODGES, Kevin Ivan. A new perspective on Southern Hemisphere storm tracks. Journal of Climate, v. 18, n. 20, p. 4108-4129, 2005.
Kanamitsu, Masao et al. NCEP–DOE AMIP-II Reanalysis (R-2). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 83, n. 11, 2002.
MURRAY, Ross J.; SIMMONDS, Ian. A numerical scheme for tracking cyclone centres from digital data. Australian Meteorological Magazine, v. 39, n. 3, 1991.
REBOITA, Michelle Simões; AMBRIZZI, Tércio; ROCHA, Rosmeri Porfírio da. Relationship between the southern annular mode and southern hemisphere atmospheric systems. Revista Brasileira de Meteorologia, v. 24, n. 1, p. 48-55, 2009.
SATYAMURTY, Prakki; DE MATTOS, Luiz Fernando. Climatological lower tropospheric frontogenesis in the midlatitudes due to horizontal deformation and divergence. Monthly Weather Review, v. 117, n. 6, p. 1355-1364, 1989.
SCIARONI, Mariano. - Buenos Aires: Ipn Editores, 2010. 208 p.
SINCLAIR, Mark R. An objective cyclone climatology for the Southern Hemisphere. Monthly Weather Review, v. 122, n. 10, p. 2239-2256, 1994.
SINCLAIR, Mark R. A climatology of cyclogenesis for the Southern Hemisphere. Monthly Weather Review, v. 123, n. 6, p. 1601-1619, 1995.
SINCLAIR, Mark R. A climatology of anticyclones and blocking for the Southern Hemisphere. Monthly Weather Review, v. 124, n. 2, p. 245, 1996.
SIMMONDS, Ian; MURRAY, Ross J. Southern extratropical cyclone behavior in ECMWF analyses during the FROST Special Observing Periods. Weather & Forecasting, v. 14, n. 6, 1999.
SIMMONDS, Ian; MURRAY, Ross J.; LEIGHTON, R. M. A refinement of cyclone tracking methods with data from FROST. Aust Meteor Antarctic Mag Special Issue, p. 35-49, 1999.
VIANELLO, Rubens L.; ALVES, Adil R. Meteorologia Básica e Aplicações Viçosa–MG.
Vidigal, Armando, Almeida, Francisco Eduardo Alves de (Org). Guerra no Mar: Batalhas e Campanhas Navais que Mudaram a História. Rio de Janeiro: Record, 2009. 541 p.
Viñas, José M. Los 40 rugientes.
Disponível em: <http://www.divulgameteo.es/ampliab/5/104/Los-40-rugientes.html> . Acesso em: 20 Dez. 2016.
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.
