Trends in convective parameters in southern Brazil: a preliminary analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X84048Keywords:
Convective parameters, Southern Brazil, Trends, Adaptation to climate changeAbstract
This study is a preliminary investigation, for southern Brazil, about possible changes in the last four decades in the magnitude of two convective parameters indicative of atmospheric environments favorable to severe convective storms. The parameters selected for this research, the convective available potential energy (CAPE), and the magnitude of the vector wind difference between the surface and 6 km above ground level (DLS), are, respectively, indicative of the presence of conditional instability and vertical wind shear in a deep layer. These parameters were computed for hourly tropospheric profiles (or pseudo-soundings) extracted from the native vertical grid of the ERA5 reanalysis for the period between 1980 and 2021 for the grid points nearest to the three state capitals of southern Brazil: Curitiba, Florianópolis and Porto Alegre. The analysis, for each location, of the trend in the time series of CAPE and DLS, averaged for every single month, was carried out with the aid of the non-parametric Mann-Kendall test. The results obtained from the tropospheric profiles of the ERA5 reanalysis reveal a negative trend in the extreme values of CAPE, especially for Porto Alegre, but accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of DLS for all locations. Therefore, in this preliminary analysis, the implications from CAPE and DLS for the conditioning of environments favorable to severe storms display opposite signs for the selected locations. Additional research addressing the frequency of environments conducive to severe storms is needed for a more complete assessment of the impact of these trends.
Downloads
References
Doswell III, C. A., Brooks, H. E., Maddox, R. A. (1996). Flash-flood forecasting: an ingredients-based methodology. Wea Forecasting, 11, 360–381.
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A. (2020). The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quart J Roy Meteor Soc, 146(730), 1999–2049.
Hussain, M., Mahmud, I. (2019). pymannkendall: a python package for non-parametric Mann Kendall family of trend tests. The Journal of Open Source Software, 4(39), 1556.
IBGE (2022). Censo Demográfico. Intituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE), accesed 6 June 2023 at: https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/panorama.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2023). AR6 synthesis report: Climate change 2023. Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/.
Laviola, S., Monte, G., Cattani, E., Levizzani, V. (2022). Hail climatology in the Mediterranean basin using the gpm constellation (1999–2021). Remote Sens, 14(17), 4320.
Pilguj, N., Taszarek, M., Allen, J. T., Hoogewind, K. (2022). Are trends in convective parameters over the United States and Europe consistent between reanalyses and observations? J Climate, 35(12), 3605–3626.
Pinto Jr, O., Pinto, I. R. C. A., Ferro, M. A. S. (2013). A study of the long-term variability of thunderstorm days in southeast brazil. J Geophys Res Atmos, 118(11), 5231–5246.
Riemann-Campe, K., Fraedrich, K., Lunkeit, F. (2009). Global climatology of convective available potential energy (CAPE) and convective inhibition (CIN) in ERA-40 reanalysis. Atmos Res, 93(1-3), 534–545.
Rädler, A., Groenemeijer, P., Faust, E., Sausen, R. (2018). Detecting severe weather trends using an additive regressive convective hazard model (ar-chamo). J Appl Meteor Climatol, 57(3), 569–587.
Taszarek, M., Allen, J. T., Marchio, M., Brooks, H. E. (2021). Global climatology and trends in convective environments from era5 and rawinsonde data. npj Clim Atmos Sci, 4(35).
Varga, A. J., Breuer, H. (2021). Evaluation of convective parameters derived from pressure level and native ERA5 data and different resolution WRF climate simulations over central europe. Clim Dyn, 58, 1569–1585
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ciência e Natura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International 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.
