Comparative analysis of wind speed and air temperature, between data generated by meteorological reanalysis and observational data in the region of Minas Gerais
Keywords:Temperature, wind speed, meteorological stations, reanalysis data, Minas Gerais
AbstractThe use of alternative sources of meteorological data has become increasingly common, making it possible to evaluate areas with no long or continuous series of meteorological data. In this context, the main objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of data series from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction / National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) for the state of Minas Gerais and verify the possible use of them in the absence of data observations of air temperature and wind speed. The analyzes were performed by comparing observation data from 17 meteorological stations and reanalysis data of the CFSR and CFSV2 models. From the results of the statistical analysis, it is observed that the air temperature reanalysis data presented a good performance in the region of study. However, wind speed data show a weak correlation. These results show that the air temperature data from these reanalyses have the potential to be used as an alternative source of data. Further studies are suggested regarding the use of wind speed data from these reanalyses.
do Amarante, O. A. C., de Jesus Lima da Silva, F., de Andrade, P. E. P. (2010). Atlas eólico - minas gerais. Recuperado em http://www.cemig.com.br/pt_br/A_Cemig_e_o_Futuro/inovacao/Alternativas_Energeticas/Documents/atlas%20eolico%20MG.pdf. Acesso em: 23/06/2016.
Kaiser-Weiss, A. K., Kaspar, F., Heene, V., Borsche, M., Tan, D. G. H., Poli, P., Obregon, A., Gregow, H. (2015). Comparison of regional and global reanalysis near-surface winds with station observations over germany. Advances in Science and Research.
Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kistler, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., L. Gandin, M. I., Saha, S., White, G., Woollen, J., Zhu, Y., Leetmaa, A., Reynolds, R., Chelliah, M., Ebisuzaki, W., Higgins, W., Janowiak, J., Mo, K. C., Ropelewski, C., Wang, J., Jenne, R., Joseph, D. (1996). The ncep/ncar 40-year reanalysis project. American Meteorological Society.
Mariano, E. B., Cavalcanti, E. P., Beserra, E. A. (2017). Análise comparativa da velocidade do vento simulado pelo brams com dados observados e de reanálises. Revista Brasileira de Meteorologia.
Saha, S., Moorthi, S., Pan, H. L., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S., Tripp, P., Kistler, R., Woollen, J., Behringer, D., Liu, H., Stokes, D., Grumbine, R., Gayno, G., Wang, J., Hou, Y. T., Chuang, H. Y., Juang, H. M. H., Sela, J., Iredell, M., Treadon, R., Kleist, D., Delst, P. V., Keyser, D., Derber, J., Ek, M., Meng, J., Wei, H., Yang, R., Lord, S., Dool, H. V. D., Kumar, A., Wang, W., Long, C., Chelliah, M., Xue, Y., Huang, B., Schemm, J. K., Ebisuzaki, W., Lin, R., Xie, P., Chen, M., Zhou, S., Higgins, W., Zou, C. Z., Liu, Q., Chen, Y., Han, Y., Cucurull, L., Reynolds, R. W., Rutledge, G., Goldberg, M. (2010). The ncep climate forecast system reanalysis. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91(8), 1015–1057, http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1.
Saldanha, C. B., Radin, B., Cardoso, M. A. G., Rippel, M. L., Fonseca, L. L. D., Rodriguez, F. (2015). Comparação dos dados de precipitação gerados pelo gpcp vs observados para o estado do rio grande do sul. Revista Brasileira de Meteorologia.
Stüker, E., Schuster, C. H., Schuster, J. J., Santos, D. C., Medeiros, L. E., Costa, F. D., e Franciano Scremin Puhales, G. D. (2016). Comparação entre os dados de vento das reanálises meteorológicas era-interim e cfsr com os dados das estações automáticas do inmet no rio grande do sul. Ciência e Natura.
Vieira, C. F. A., dos Santos, C. C., de Lima, F. J. L., Magalhães, R. A., da Silva, E. M. (2006). Avaliação dos dados de vento gerados no projeto reanalysis do ncep/ncar para futuras aplicações no cálculo do potencial eólico em regiões do estado do ceará. Rev Tecnol Fortaleza, 27, 190–194.
Wilks, D. S. (2006). Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences, Internacional Geophysics Series, vol 91, 2o edn. Academic Press.
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.