2017
DOI: 10.1590/0102-77863230001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Práticas Simples em Análises Climatológicas: Uma Revisão

Abstract: ResumoMuitos estudos meteorológicos e climatológicos utilizam metodologias que superestimam ou até subestimam a significância estatística dos resultados. Análises que subestimam o papel de tendências e dependência temporal e espacial nos dados podem levar a conclusões errôneas. Por outro lado, análises desnecessariamente rigorosas podem enfraquecer os resultados. O objetivo deste artigo é discutir algumas práticas simples, muitas vezes negligenciadas, que podem produzir resultados muito mais robustos e estatis… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
(7 reference statements)
0
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The opposite results obtained by the application of the simple regression and the Mann-Kendall test suggest an upper estimation of the significant trend using the simple regression method, which may induce to an incorrect conclusion. This divergent result also was identified by Bombardi and Carvalho (2017) analyzing a rainfall series in the Brazilian central region, in this case, the authors verified a significant trend by the use of the simple regression and a non-significant using the Mann-Kendall test, which confirm the robustness of the test, being this trustworthy to identify trends in temporal series of weather data. Blain et al (2009) analyzing the minimum air temperature in Campinas, Piracicaba, Cordeirópolis/Limeira, Monte Alegre do Sul, Pindorama and Ribeirão Preto, all in São Paulo state, during 1917 until 2006 detected positive trend in all sites, however, significant raises were found just in Campinas, Cordeirópolis/Limeira and Ribeirão Preto.…”
Section: Trend Analysismentioning
confidence: 60%
“…The opposite results obtained by the application of the simple regression and the Mann-Kendall test suggest an upper estimation of the significant trend using the simple regression method, which may induce to an incorrect conclusion. This divergent result also was identified by Bombardi and Carvalho (2017) analyzing a rainfall series in the Brazilian central region, in this case, the authors verified a significant trend by the use of the simple regression and a non-significant using the Mann-Kendall test, which confirm the robustness of the test, being this trustworthy to identify trends in temporal series of weather data. Blain et al (2009) analyzing the minimum air temperature in Campinas, Piracicaba, Cordeirópolis/Limeira, Monte Alegre do Sul, Pindorama and Ribeirão Preto, all in São Paulo state, during 1917 until 2006 detected positive trend in all sites, however, significant raises were found just in Campinas, Cordeirópolis/Limeira and Ribeirão Preto.…”
Section: Trend Analysismentioning
confidence: 60%
“…Usually, the IDF equation coefficients are adjusted using the Least Squares Method (LSM) as the objective function. However, the LSM is more affected by extreme values (Bombardi et al, 2017). Thus, the coefficients of the IDF equation were adjusted in the environment of the RStudio, by programming a routine for adjustment of a non-linear model that used the Nash-Sutcliffe Coefficient (CNS) as the objective function and the dataset of Intensity, Duration and RP.…”
Section: Durations Relationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We analyzed the trend in the time series and found that the results were not significant for the temperature and rainfall variables in the years in question. Therefore, we generated rainfall and temperature anomalies to identify the relationships between fire and extremes in the meteorological data [74] (Equation ( 1)). The analyses were carried out spatially and graphically to show the annual averages of anomalies for the entire study period (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018)(2019).…”
Section: Anomaly Calculationmentioning
confidence: 99%