<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-21-4759-2021</article-id><title-group><article-title>Sensitivities of the Madden–Julian oscillation forecasts to configurations of
physics in the ECMWF global model</article-title><alt-title>MJO forecasts</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{MJO forecasts}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{J.-I.~Yano and N.~P.~Wedi}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Yano</surname><given-names>Jun-Ichi</given-names></name>
          <email>jiy.gfder@gmail.com</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Wedi</surname><given-names>Nils P.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>CNRM, UMR 3589 (CNRS), Météo-France, 31057 Toulouse CEDEX, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Jun-Ichi Yano (jiy.gfder@gmail.com)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>26</day><month>March</month><year>2021</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>21</volume>
      <issue>6</issue>
      <fpage>4759</fpage><lpage>4778</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>17</day><month>January</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>20</day><month>February</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>10</day><month>February</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>3</day><month>February</month><year>2020</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2021 Jun-Ichi Yano</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2021</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e96">The sensitivities of the Madden–Julian oscillation (MJO) forecasts to various different configurations of the
parameterized physics are examined with the global model of ECMWF's Integrated
Forecasting System (IFS).  The motivation for the study was to simulate
the MJO as a nonlinear free wave under active interactions with
higher-latitude Rossby waves.  To emulate free dynamics in the IFS, various
momentum-dissipation terms (“friction”) as well as diabatic heating were
selectively turned off over the tropics for the range of the latitudes from
20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S to 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N.  The reduction of friction sometimes improves the MJO forecasts,
although without any systematic tendency.  Contrary to the original motivation,
emulating free dynamics with an operational forecast model turned out to be
rather difficult, because forecast performance sensitively depends on the
specific type of friction turned off.  The result suggests the need for
theoretical investigations that much more closely follow the actual
formulations of model physics: a naive approach with a dichotomy of with or
without friction simply fails to elucidate the rich behaviour of complex
operational models.  The paper further exposes the importance of physical
processes other than convection for simulating the MJO in global forecast
models.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e126">The Madden–Julian oscillation (MJO; Zhang, 2005) is a prominent tropical
variability that many global atmospheric models still have difficulties
simulating.  In the case of the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System (IFS), the
forecast of the propagation of a pre-existing MJO has much improved in recent
years (Vitart, 2014), typically providing persistent MJO signals well beyond
the medium-range forecast.  However, the IFS still suffers from some
difficulties, especially in predicting the onset of MJOs.  The
capacity to produce extended MJO forecasts is becoming more important with increasing
demand for extended forecasts up to a subseasonal range (3–4 weeks) and
because the MJO is one of the most prominent and persistent tropical signals
to be forecast over this timescale (see Kim et al., 2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e129">From an operational point of view, the MJO is typically considered physically
forced in the sense that the physical parameterizations (or “physics” for
short) in the models are the key to improving the simulation of the MJO,
rather than a problem of the dynamical core (e.g. Hirons et al., 2013a, b).
The most crucial physical process to be considered is deep convection, which is
typically parameterized as a sub-grid-scale process in global models (Plant and
Yano, 2015). A majority of the existing theories for the MJO are based on a
certain coupling of the large-scale dynamics with convection (e.g. Hayashi,
1970; Lindzen, 1974; Emanuel, 1987; Yano and Emanuel, 1991; Majda and
Stechmann, 2009; Fuchs and Raymond, 2017; see also reviews by Zhang et al.,
2020; Jiang et al., 2020a). For
this reason, a general expectation is that simulations and forecasts of the
MJO in the global models must be improved by improving the parametrization of
deep convection (see Jiang et al., 2015, 2020b) as well as shallow convection
(see Pilon et al., 2015).  Thus, existing sensitivity studies on
MJO simulations almost exclusively focus on convection parameterizations
(e.g. Hirons et al., 2013a, b; Pilon et al., 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e132">The present study examines the sensitivity of the MJO forecasts to physics
from a different perspective of Yano<?pagebreak page4760?> and Bonazzola (2009), Yano et al. (2009), Wedi and Smolarkiewicz (2010), Yano and Tribbia (2017), Rostam and Zeitlin (2019), and Wang et al. (2019).  According to their perspective, the tropical large-scale dynamics in general and the MJO specifically can be understood in terms of <italic>free</italic> Rossby wave dynamics, in which model “physics” may still play a role, although secondary to the initiation and evolution.  More specifically, Yano and Tribbia (2017) and Rostam and Zeitlin (2019) propose that the MJO is basically understood in terms of a dipolar vortex (vortex pair) symmetric to the Equator, described by a nonlinear analytical solution, called “modon”, which propagates eastwards as observed for the MJO.  To investigate this possibility of the MJO as free dynamics in the context of the operational global forecasts, we take the ECMWF global model (IFS) as a basic framework and perform extensive physical sensitivity experiments.  See Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS1"/> for model details.</p>
      <p id="d1e140">To emulate free dynamics within the IFS, physical tendencies of some variables
are selectively turned off so that the resulting sensitivities to the
corresponding MJO forecasts can be examined.  A key process to be turned off in order
to emulate free dynamics is the surface friction (or momentum dissipation
more generally).  This process has been expected to potentially play a crucial
role in the MJO dynamics.  A classical work by Chang (1977) makes this point
by invoking the surface friction as a mechanism to slow down the propagation
speed of the eastward-propagating free Kelvin wave to a degree comparable to
that of the MJO.  The frictional wave-CISK (conditional instability of the second kind)  theories by Wang (1988) and Salby
et al. (1994) also invoke frictional moisture convergence as a key ingredient
in addition to deep convection for explaining the basic dynamics of the MJO.
Along with the surface friction, diabatic heating is another key process to be
turned off in order to achieve free dynamics.</p>
      <p id="d1e144">A shortcoming of the free wave theory of the MJO is that it does not explain
an MJO initiation in an obvious manner. Thus, when physical forcings are turned off from
a model, an initiation mechanism must be sought. For this reason, particular attention is paid
to the potential importance of interactions of the MJO with higher-latitude
dynamics.  Weickmann et al. (1985) and Knutson and Weickmann
(1987) suggest that the interactions with Rossby wave trains from and to
higher latitudes are intrinsic parts of the MJO dynamics. Hsu et al. (1990),
Gustafson and Weare (2004), Ray and Zhang (2010), Ray and Li (2013), Zhao
et al. (2013), and Wang et al. (2019) further suggest that Rossby wave trains
from the Northern Hemisphere higher latitudes initiate MJOs. The general
importance of higher-latitude variability in MJO dynamics is also suggested by the
modelling of MJOs under an equatorial channel configuration, in which a
properly prescribed lateral boundary condition is crucial (see Hall et al.,
2016, and references therein).</p>
      <p id="d1e147">To investigate these aspects of the MJO dynamics, we attempt to simulate
the higher-latitude dynamics as properly as possible.  In the following
sensitivity experiments, a weighting of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the latitude
is adopted so that the effects of the applied sensitivity rapidly tail off
polewards of ca. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Hence, when a certain process is turned off
over the tropics, the tendency due to this
process is multiplied by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e199">Under this general strategy, four major categories of experiments are
performed, as listed in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>.  These experiments are designed to
address the following questions:
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e206">Can the propagation of the MJO be
simulated in a complex forecast model even if the diabatic heating due to
convection is turned off?</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e210">To what extent can the simulated MJO be
interpreted in terms of free Rossby wave dynamics?</p></list-item></list></p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e216">Four major categories of experiments.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="2">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="63mm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Category</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Description</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Control operational forecasts</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Selected physical tendencies for the momentum are switched off (e.g. shallow and deep convection, vertical eddy diffusion)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Physical tendency for the temperature (entropy) is switched off (due to shallow and deep convection, radiation and cloud phase changes)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">All physical tendencies as above for both momentum and temperature are switched off</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e299">To address question 1, we turn off all of the diabatic heating in the heat
equation (entropy budget) so that an adiabatic free dynamics regime is
realized over the tropics. Here, it is crucial to turn off all the diabatic
heating, because if the latent heating is turned off, but the radiative
cooling tendency of the tropics is maintained, a steady state can only be
maintained by turning the mean ascent (associated with moist convection) to a
mean descent, which induces diabatic heating that balances the radiative
cooling. We turn off the total diabatic heating so that the tendency to
generate any vertical motion is suppressed, and a purely horizontal,
quasi-non-divergent flow is realized.</p>
      <p id="d1e303">To address question 2, we turn off the non-conservative processes (i.e.
frictional dissipation in general) in the horizontal momentum equation,
because we expect that the free Rossby wave dynamics associated with the MJO
are enhanced by turning off the momentum dissipation. As a result, we also
expect that Rossby wave interactions between the tropics and the higher
latitudes are enhanced.  The claim that the MJO is a free Rossby wave also contains
another important general implication that the MJO can be principally
understood in terms of non-divergent, rotational flows. Thus, an important
question to be investigated is the extent<?pagebreak page4761?> to which a non-divergent (rotational)
component of the MJO is still maintained by selectively turning off the
physics.</p>
      <p id="d1e306">The exploratory nature of the present investigation is emphasized.
Unfortunately, our goal of emulating the free dynamics is not achieved in any
obvious manner without any systematically identifiable trait in these
sensitivity experiments. For example, the reduction of momentum-dissipation
effects (“frictions”) in the model does not lead to a simple improvement or
deterioration of the MJO forecast.  The paper focuses on elucidating these
complex sensitivities of the MJO forecasts to different configurations of the
physics.  Detailed descriptions of the results are presented as objectively as
possible with the purpose of elucidating real operational issues in improving
the MJO forecasts. This is where theoretical investigations are strongly
needed to better understand the model behaviour.</p>
      <p id="d1e309">For example, the role of friction in the MJO dynamics remains a key question
since a pioneering study by Chang (1977); however, the majority of theoretical
studies treat it simply as a Rayleigh friction (see Sect. 4 of Yano et al.,
2013, for a review of this line of theoretical studies).  The present study, in
turn, shows that the actual contribution of friction in an operational model
is far more complex.  Thus, a more serious effort to fill the gap between those
idealized theoretical studies and operational problems is required.</p>
      <p id="d1e312">The present study is unique with respect to modelling studies, as it examines the roles of
more specific physical processes in the MJO dynamics – for example, instead of
turning off the whole momentum-dissipation process, individual
momentum-dissipation processes are turned off one by one.  This is in contrast
to mechanism-denial studies (e.g. Kim et al., 2011; Ma and Kuang, 2016),
in which a whole process (e.g. momentum dissipation, surface-flux
evaporation) is typically turned off (see also e.g. Crueger and Stevens,
2015). The present study is also conceptually different from the
mechanism-denial studies.  The latter replace the turned-off processes with
climatologies, whereas the present study turns off a given process with the goal
of getting closer to idealized free dynamics.</p>
      <p id="d1e315">However, there is a subtlety in turning off certain physics in a given model,
because of their impact on the mean state and the nonlinearity of the system
leading to various chain reactions and compensatory behaviour with
corresponding changes to the MJO forecast skill.  We find that changes in the
results due to turning off different physics hardly constitute simple additive
processes.  Previous studies have found significant changes in the energy
cascade behaviour of the IFS model, controlled by certain physics or specific
parts thereof (Malardel and Wedi, 2016).  A change in the tropical processes
clearly influences the interactions of the tropical processes with those at
higher latitudes. Therefore, subtle balances between higher latitudes and the tropics
must carefully be taken into account for a full interpretation of
these sensitivity results.</p>
      <p id="d1e318">The main contribution of the present study is to suggest that the MJO dynamics
is not just a matter of its coupling with convection, but other physical
processes, including friction, actively contribute to defining its dynamics.
Another important, rather non-intuitive result is the strong sensitivity of the
MJO forecast to initial conditions.  The following analysis is focused over
the region of the Indian Ocean to the western Pacific (90–180<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E),
where the main activities of the MJO are identified. Although the original study
by Madden and Julian (1972) identifies the MJO as a global mode, as the
analysis by Milliff and Madden (1996) shows, the continuous mode propagating
eastwards beyond the Date Line is rather identified as a free Kelvin wave.</p>
      <p id="d1e331">The next section describes the model used in this study (Sect. 2.1), the
forecast cases (Sect. 2.2 and 2.3) and the analysis procedure
(Sect. 2.4). The results are presented in Sect. 3, and the paper concludes with a
discussion in Sect. 4.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Model, forecast cases and analysis procedure</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Model description</title>
      <p id="d1e349">The IFS version cycle 43r3 (operational from 11 July 2017 to 5 June 2018) is
used for the forecast experiments with TCo639 (average grid spacing
18 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and with 137 vertical levels. The IFS is a spectral transform
model solving part of the solution in spectral space, where prognostic
variables are represented by spherical harmonics. To calculate nonlinear terms
in the equations of motion, to perform the nonlinear (semi-Lagrangian)
advection and to calculate the contributions of all physics schemes in grid
point columns, the model fields are transformed into a representation in
grid point space. A cubic octahedral (reduced) Gaussian grid is used for this
purpose, denoted by “TCo” (see Wedi, 2014; Malardel et al., 2016),
typically providing a resolution higher than the corresponding linear grid at
the same spectral truncation.  The model is stepped forward in time using a
semi-implicit time discretization for the faster (wave) processes. The model
includes a realistic topography and state-of-the-art descriptions of the diabatic
forcing processes, including shallow and deep convection, turbulent diffusion,
radiation, and five categories for water substance (vapour, liquid, rain, ice and
snow).  Full model documentation is available from
<uri>http://www.ecmwf.int/en/publications/ifs-documentation/</uri> (last access: 22 March 2021).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>General description of the study period: association of the vorticity variability with the MJO</title>
      <?pagebreak page4762?><p id="d1e371">As stated in Sect 1, the vorticity is a key variable to be examined
in this study.  The vorticity field turns out to be rather “noisy” and is
dominated by smaller scales over the tropical region: the forecast
correlation of the vorticity is typically lost more than 60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over a single day.  For
this reason, we judge that the vorticity field is an unreliable
variable to diagnose over the tropics.  The stream-function field is more
robust, being obtained by applying an inverse Laplacian to the vorticity, and
due to the nature of this inverse operator, this field is much smoother.  This
vortex structure is also expected to penetrate through the whole troposphere
according to the free Rossby wave theory (see Yano and Tribbia, 2017).
However, in data analysis, the lower troposphere tends to be too noisy to
identify the MJO signature in the rotational wind field (vorticity) without
a proper filtering or composite procedure (see Wang et al., 2019).  We focus
on the tropopause level (150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the following, because, as it
turns out, at this level, a coherent rotational flow field associated with the
MJO is much easier to identify compared with the lower levels.</p>
      <p id="d1e390">To see a clear association of the rotational wind field with the convective
variability of the MJO, we show (in Fig. 1) the time–longitude section averaged
over 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N for the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)
and the 150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream function (with the sign flipped for the
Southern Hemisphere so that the anticyclonic vorticities are always treated as
positive) for the 4-month winter period (November 2016–February 2017) from
the ECMWF global analysis (“analysis” hereafter), which is
systematically adopted as an observational reference in the following.  Here,
data are plotted daily with a horizontal resolution of 2.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. However,
no filter is applied in time nor space. In the OLR field (Fig. 1a),
three MJO events are identified over the Indian Ocean to the western Pacific
(90–180<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) during this period – identified as negative signals
(in blue) stretching from the upper left to the lower right: the two major
signals are in December and in January–February, and another weak MJO event is
identified during December–January.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e439">Time–longitude
sections of the ECMWF analysis averaged over 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N
for <bold>(a)</bold> OLR (K, as equivalent black-body temperature) and
<bold>(b)</bold> the stream function (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at 150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the 4-month winter period of
2016–2017.  In averaging the stream function, the sign is flipped for the
Southern Hemisphere.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e496">In association with these three MJO events, high anticyclonic activities
(positive signals, in red) over the Indian Ocean to the western Pacific are
identified (Fig. 1b), also propagating eastwards with a similar phase speed:
the MJO constitutes an anticyclonic vortex pair in the upper troposphere
propagating eastwards, as expected from the nonlinear free Rossby wave theory;
see Wang et al. (2019) for further discussions.  Thus, according to this
theory, these features need to be simulated in association with the MJO.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Choice of the forecast cases</title>
      <p id="d1e507">Two forecast cases are mainly considered.  Both cover one of the two most
prominent MJO events during the northern winter 2016–2017, as seen in Fig. 1. The
MJO event considered here corresponds to a low-skill event (Fredric
Vitart, personal communication, March 2018) under dichotomic categorization of the MJO forecast difficulties
introduced by Kim et al. (2016), which are more difficult than average.
Here, a low-skill event is chosen for our experiments for the obvious reason
that it is more challenging to forecast.  As is seen below,
operational control forecasts perform rather poorly; thus, the following question is
posed: how can we improve them? Sensitivity experiments are chosen, as
discussed in Sect. 1, with the hypothesis in mind that the MJO is a nonlinear
free Rossby wave.  If this hypothesis is correct, we should obtain
better forecasts by turning off selected physics.</p>
      <p id="d1e510">The first forecast case (referred to as “standard” in the following; Figs. 2a,
3a) is initiated on 19 January 2017 and run for 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. At this initial
condition, convection associated with the MJO is already fairly well developed
over the Indian Ocean (Fig. 2a), and the key question is whether the model can
maintain this convective system and also propagate eastwards as observed.  On
the other hand, from a dynamical point of view, this is before the
anticyclonic activity begins to develop over the Indian Ocean (Fig. 3a). Thus,
the key forecast question is whether the model can predict the onset of this
activity.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e523">Time–longitude sections averaged   over 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N of OLR
for   the standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forecast case:
<bold>(a)</bold> analysis,   <bold>(b)</bold> CF,
<bold>(c)</bold> Ma, <bold>(d)</bold> Mbe and <bold>(e)</bold> Mbb.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e577"> </p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021-f03-part01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e588">Time–longitude sections averaged  over 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N of the
150 hPa level stream function   for
the standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forecast case: <bold>(a)</bold> analysis, <bold>(b)</bold> CF,
<bold>(c)</bold> Ma, <bold>(d)</bold> Mbb, <bold>(e)</bold> Mbc, <bold>(f)</bold> Mbs,
<bold>(g)</bold> Mbd, <bold>(h)</bold> Mbde, <bold>(i)</bold> Mbse, <bold>(j)</bold> NQ and <bold>(k)</bold> QF.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021-f03-part02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e658">The second case (referred to as “extended” in the following; Figs. 4a, 5a) is
initiated 10 d earlier (9 January) than the standard case and run for
40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, except for the Mbb case (cf., Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T2"/>) which only
runs for 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  The initial condition corresponds to the end of a previous
MJO, and no mark of convective activity associated with the new MJO is yet to
be seen over the Indian Ocean (Fig. 4a). Thus, a key operational challenge is
to forecast the onset of convective variability associated with the MJO over
the Indian Ocean.  From a dynamical point of view, the vortex pair associated
with the previous MJO is still well identified over the western Pacific
(Fig. 5a). Thus, another operational challenge is to forecast the continuous
maintenance of this vortex pair, in association with the subsequent onset of
another vortex pair over the Indian Ocean.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e681">Time–longitude sections averaged   over 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N of OLR
for   the 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> extended forecast case:
<bold>(a)</bold> analysis, <bold>(b)</bold> CF, <bold>(c)</bold> Mbs, <bold>(d)</bold> Mbb and <bold>(e)</bold> QF.
Note that the Mbb case <bold>(d)</bold> is an exception and only runs for 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e746">Time–longitude sections averaged   over 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N of the
150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> level stream function
for   the 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> extended forecast case: <bold>(a)</bold> analysis,
<bold>(b)</bold> CF, <bold>(c)</bold> Mbs, <bold>(d)</bold> Mbb and <bold>(e)</bold> QF.
Note that the Mbb case <bold>(d)</bold> is an exception and only runs for 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e816">Finally, a single quasi-free forecast initiated on the 1 February 2017 is
considered (QF). This is a moment when the vortex pair is fully developed over
the given MJO event (Fig. 5a), although convection has actually already begun
to fade out (Fig. 4a).  Thus, this experiment examines whether it is possible
to forecast the eastward propagation of this vortex pair even without
convection.  Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T2"/> describes the list of sensitivity experiments.
As described in Sect. 1, selective physics are turned off, although only
over the tropics, in the following experiments, by applying a factor, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, on a physical term with respect to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the latitude.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Analysis procedure</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4.SSS1">
  <label>2.4.1</label><title>OLR</title>
      <?pagebreak page4763?><p id="d1e860">We take the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) as a representative of the
convective variability by following a standard approach from the
literature. Here, however, special considerations are required for this
variable, because within the IFS, the longwave radiation (tagged as the “top net
thermal radiation”, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">J</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is recorded as accumulated values.  As a standard
procedure at ECMWF, the emission rate is estimated from the accumulated values
as a tendency over 24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  As the outgoing longwave radiation is not
one of the initialization fields, it is not included as an analysis field
either.  As a result, “observational” OLR is instead estimated from the
first 24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> tendency of the operational daily forecasts. For this
reason, even the initial 24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> pattern correlation is noticeably less
than unity in the following presentations (Fig. 6a).  The OLR anomaly
is defined as a deviation from the climatology.  Here, the climatology is
defined as an average over the years 1979–2009 for each given calendar day.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4.SSS2">
  <label>2.4.2</label><?xmltex \opttitle{The 150\,{$\unit{{hPa}}$} stream function}?><title>The 150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream function</title>
      <p id="d1e921">To examine the association of the MJO with the vorticity field (or rotational
flow), we take the 150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream function, as already discussed at the
beginning of Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4.SSS3">
  <label>2.4.3</label><title>Verification</title>
      <p id="d1e942">In the following, the forecast performance is evaluated by inspecting the
time–longitude section of the OLR and the stream function averaged over
15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, considering the fact that the MJO is a
longitudinally propagating feature. When latitudinal interactions between the MJO
and higher-latitude Rossby waves are concerned, time–latitude sections
are examined instead.  In the present study, we emphasize the importance of the
visual inspection of the forecast performance to compare it with the analysis.
In the following, very specific descriptions of the forecast behaviours in
comparison with the analysis or a control forecast will be presented, because
we believe that these details are the key to understanding the actual processes
simulated by these forecasts.</p>
      <p id="d1e963">As a basic point of reference, the correlation is computed between the
analysis and a forecast over the longitudinal range from 0 to 180<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E
between 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S and 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N. This correlation will be referred
as a “pattern correlation” in the following.  We adopt this measure
because it is a straight manner of comparing the two fields (analysis and
forecast) over the tropics without imposing our prejudices of expectations.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e996">List of sensitivity experiments at TCo639 with 137 vertical
levels. The columns show the categories according to Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>, the label used
in the text, the experiment description
and the forecast cases (standard and extended).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="70mm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="45mm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Category</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Label</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Experiment description</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Forecast Cases</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Control operational forecasts</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Standard (19 January–8 February),<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Extended (9 January–18 February)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Ma</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">All of the momentum-dissipation (drag) tendencies in vertical eddy diffusion (including those in the boundary layer) and convection parametrization (shallow and deep) are switched off</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Standard (19 January–8 February)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mbe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Momentum-dissipation tendencies due to vertical eddy diffusion only are switched off</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Standard (19 January–8 February)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mbb</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Momentum-dissipation tendencies due to vertical eddy diffusion (boundary layer below 800 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) are switched off</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Standard (19 January–8 February),<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Extended (9 January–8 February)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mbc</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Momentum-dissipation tendencies due to convection parameterization (shallow and deep) are switched off</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Standard (19 January–8 February)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mbd</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Momentum-dissipation tendencies due to convection parametrization (deep only) are switched off</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Standard (19 January–8 February)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mbs</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Momentum-dissipation tendencies due to convection parametrization (shallow only) are switched off</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Standard (19 January–8 February),<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Extended (9 January–18 February)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mbde</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Momentum-dissipation tendencies due to vertical eddy diffusion and convection parametrization (deep only) are switched off</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Standard (19 January–8 February)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mbse</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Momentum-dissipation tendencies due to vertical eddy diffusion and convection parametrization (shallow only) are switched off</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Standard (19 January–8 February)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">NQ</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Physical tendency for the temperature (entropy) is switched off (due to shallow and deep convection, radiation and cloud phase changes)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Standard (19 January–8 February)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">QF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">All physical tendencies as above for both momentum and temperature are switched off</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Standard (19 January–8 February),<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Extended (9 January–18 February),<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (1–21 February)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1297">Time series of pattern correlations between the forecasts and the analysis  over the longitudinal bands between 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S and 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N for
<bold>(a)</bold> OLR  and <bold>(b, c)</bold> the 150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> level stream function.
The cases shown in panels <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(b)</bold> are CF (black), Mbb (blue), Mbs
(red) and QF (green); the cases shown in panel <bold>(c)</bold> are CF (black), Mbc (pink), Mbs (red), Mbd
(blue), Mbde (light blue) and Mbse (orange).
The standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> extended forecasts are shown by thin and thick curves respectively.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021-f06.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1364">Additionally, evolutions of forecasts in the phase space of the real-time
multivariate MJO (RMM) index pair (Wheeler and Hendon, 2004) are also
presented for selective cases.  Here, the RMM index pair is evaluated by
projecting the temporal anomaly defined as a deviation from an average over a
forecast period.  Note that unlike the pattern-correlation analysis, the RMM
measures a forecast skill with respect to a prescribed field pattern. This specific
design becomes a key limitation of RMM (see Straub, 2013).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Summary of forecast experiments: the pattern-correlation analyses</title>
      <p id="d1e1384">The time series of pattern correlations between the forecasts and the analysis
in Fig. 6 summarize the experiment results.  The anomaly field is considered
for the statistics of the OLR, whereas the zonal mean is taken out of the
150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream function.  The first step of verifying the performance of
the sensitivity experiments would be to examine how well the convective
variability associated with the MJO is predicted by these experiments.  The
pattern correlations between the simulated OLR and the analysis are shown in
Fig. 6a.  The same is shown in Fig. 6b for the rotational wind field
(150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream function).  Figure 6c is the same as Fig. 6b but
focuses on the role of convective frictions (see Sect. 3.3.2).</p>
      <?pagebreak page4767?><p id="d1e1403">As another summary of the forecast performances, Fig. 7 present RMM analyses
for some selective cases. Here, Fig. 7a and b show the evolution
trajectory of the analysis data on the RMM phase space over the standard and
extended forecast periods respectively.  Evolution of the MJO is represented by a
counter-clockwise movement of a trajectory in this phase space, with an
initial point marked by a red circle, as seen in both frames.  Note that
although the extended forecast period contains the standard forecast period as
a part, the two trajectories for the ERA5 analysis do not match exactly over
the same period due to the different definitions of the temporal anomaly used
(defined relative to an average over a selected forecast period).  These two
trajectory patterns are to be compared with those of sensitivity experiments
and control forecasts as a verification.  However, the aforementioned mismatching
fundamentally limits the applicability of the RMM analysis in the following.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1408">RMM plots for the analysis <bold>(a, b)</bold> and for control forecasts
<bold>(c, d)</bold> for the standard <bold>(a, c)</bold> and the extended <bold>(b, d)</bold> forecast
cases. The Ma <bold>(e)</bold> and NQ <bold>(f)</bold> cases for the standard forecast are also shown.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1437">The remainder of this section proceeds as follows: morphological behaviours of
the control forecasts are carefully described in the next subsection
(Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2"/>), because they provide baselines for interpreting subsequent
runs that have selected physics  turned off. The following two subsections
(Sects. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS3"/> and <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS4"/>) look for improvements in the MJO forecasts
by removing momentum dissipation as well as diabatic heating effects, as would
be expected from the free nonlinear Rossby wave theory.  As it turns out, the
performance of the MJO forecasts does not depend on these choices of physics
in any consistent manner: less momentum friction does not necessarily lead to
a further improved MJO forecast, but the skill and MJO propagation sensitively
depends on the type of dissipation turned off.  The effects are also hardly additive, but nonlinear interactions are clearly occurring between the physics.
Thus, contrary to the original motivation stated in Sect. 1, the main
purpose of these two subsections becomes a report of these forecast
sensitivities in more detail.  Careful descriptions will also reveal that
improvements in the MJO<?pagebreak page4769?> forecast are hardly a monotonic measure: certain
aspects are improved, but this is often associated with the deterioration of other
aspects.  Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS5"/> focuses on the model performance with respect to simulating
interactions between the MJO and higher-latitude Rossby wave activities. Here,
we find a consistent tendency for the model to simulate those interactions'
features identified in the analysis rather well, although some sensitivities
inevitably emerge.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Control forecasts (CFs)</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>3.2.1</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Standard 20\,{$\unit{{d}}$} control forecast}?><title>Standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> control forecast</title>
      <p id="d1e1472">With the standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> control forecast (CF), the initial 0.7 pattern
correlation of OLR with the analysis linearly decreases to 0.5 approximately
at the end of the forecast (thin black curve in Fig. 6a).  Inspection of the
time–longitude section (Fig. 2b) reveals that although the convective
variability is persistent in the simulation, it is too stationary (lack of
propagation), and as a result, it loses a pattern correlation with the analysis
with time (see Fig. 2a).</p>
      <p id="d1e1483">The standard CF presents a rather high pattern correlation of the
150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream function with the analysis above 0.8 for the first
16 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (thin black curve in Fig. 6b and c). However, this high pattern
correlation turns out to be rather misleading, because a direct inspection of
the time–longitude plot (Fig. 3b) reveals that the predicted stream-function
signal is much weaker than that reported in the analysis (Fig. 3a). The onset of the anticyclonic
vorticity signal centred around 100<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E on 29 January is correctly
predicted, leading to a high pattern correlation, but with a much weaker
amplitude, and<?pagebreak page4770?> the signal suddenly dies out on 4 February associated with a
sudden drop in the pattern correlation.</p>
      <p id="d1e1511">As expected from the description so far, the MJO signal as defined by RMM
index (Fig. 7c) rapidly decays in the standard CF, and the forecast skill is
totally lost in less than 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>3.2.2</label><?xmltex \opttitle{The 40\,{$\unit{{d}}$} extended control forecast}?><title>The 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> extended control forecast</title>
      <p id="d1e1539">When the experiments are initialized 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> earlier (9 January), the
forecast is expected to be harder, because it corresponds to the final stage of
the previous MJO, and the next MJO to be predicted has not yet initiated (see
Fig. 4a).  The pattern correlation of the OLR gradually decreases to 0.4 over
20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with CF (thick black curve in Fig. 6a).  However, from this
point, the pattern-correlation value begins to gradually recover, and it
exceeds that of the standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forecast on 2 February, increasing to above 0.6 by 4 February.</p>
      <p id="d1e1566">Some possible interpretations are inferred from the time–longitude section
(Fig. 4b).  The last phase of the previous MJO consists of a westward-propagating cloud cluster over the western Pacific, partially driven by the
linear Rossby wave dynamics. In the extended CF, this westward-propagating
cloud cluster continues to propagate into the Indian Ocean, although it
dissipates out in the analysis. The continuous westward propagation effectively
simulates the initiation of the new MJO, as observed. The termination of this
cloud cluster on 26 January coincides with the initiation of a new cloud
cluster to its east. The new cloud cluster is also more persistent than
the observed counterpart, which, in turn, contributes to a recovery of the
pattern correlation.  It is speculated that the persistence of this cloud
cluster is helped by a persistent anticyclonic signal over the same region,
which is successfully predicted, albeit with a 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> delay of onset (Fig. 5b). The
simulation predicts the initiation of another convectively active phase on
11 February, as observed.  However, this convective variability turns out to
be more active and persistent than observed.</p>
      <p id="d1e1577">According to Fig. 7d, the MJO signal defined by the RMM initially decays
rapidly over the first 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, the forecast skill gradually
recovers towards the end of the forecast by following a circle marked in the
phase space (corresponding to the standard deviation of a climatological RMM index
pair).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Forecasts sensitivities on friction</title>
      <?pagebreak page4771?><p id="d1e1597">Forecast performance sensitively changes by turning off some physical
processes.  We initially focus mostly on the standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forecasts to
elucidate various aspects; we then briefly remark on the 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> extended
forecasts.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS1">
  <label>3.3.1</label><title>Momentum dissipation</title>
      <p id="d1e1623">Performance of the forecasts for the MJO rotational field sensitively depends
on the choice of momentum-dissipation terms.  This subsection discusses the
overall aspect.  The next subsection focuses more specifically on convective
friction. <?pagebreak page4772?> The first case to be considered is when the total tendency for the
momentum dissipation (both eddy diffusive and convective: Ma) is turned off.
The time–longitude section (Fig. 2c) shows that the eastward propagation
structure of convection is better simulated than by CF.  However, convection
also becomes too strong compared with the analysis.  More significantly, a
clear-sky area (60–70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) behind the MJO convective variability seen
in the last 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the analysis (but absent in CF) is successfully
predicted in this case.  The RMM analysis (Fig. 7e) also shows that the Ma run
evolves around a well-defined counter-clockwise circle with a large radius in
the phase space.</p>
      <p id="d1e1643">Turning off the vertical-eddy momentum dissipation both totally (Mbe; Fig. 2d)
and only in the boundary layer (BL, below 800 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>: Mbb; thin blue
curves in Figs. 6a and b, 2e) leads to similar results.  Inspection of
their time–longitude plots shows that the eastward propagation tendency is
better simulated by these two cases (Mbe and Mbb) than when the momentum
dissipation (drag) is totally turned off (Ma; Fig. 2c).  Intensity of
convection also decreases to a reasonable level, also presumably contributing to
slowing down the propagation (see Seo et al., 2009).</p>
      <p id="d1e1654">Inspection of the time–longitude sections of the 150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream
function for those cases reveals that the anticyclonic variability associated
with the MJO event is better simulated by these cases than by CF: the emission of
the Rossby wave energy from the west during 22–28 January is speculated to be a
major source (e.g. for initiating the anticyclonic signal associated with the
MJO by the time–longitude plots; Fig. 3c for Ma).  However, the wave structure
to the west of the MJO anticyclone is exaggerated compared with the analysis: it
may be interpreted as a westward propagation of a free Rossby wave.  A similar
feature in the rotational wind field as in Ma is also identified with Mbb
(Fig. 3d), although in a more intermittent manner.  The forecast performance of
these cases for the 150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream function in terms of the pattern
correlation is, however, not any better than the CF case, as seen in Fig. 6b.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS2">
  <label>3.3.2</label><title>Convective friction</title>
      <p id="d1e1681">Turning off the convective friction tends to prolong the predictability of the
MJO signal substantially, as seen with the rotational wind field in Fig. 6c for
the standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forecasts: a pattern correlation is typically
maintained at a relatively high value (ca. 0.8) until the end of the
forecast, in contrast to a sudden drop in the pattern correlation with CF
(down to ca. 0.4) over the last 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e1700">When the convective friction is totally turned off (Mbc; pink in Fig. 6c), the
pattern correlation is occasionally higher than the CF case even during the
first 16 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the forecast. Inspection of the time–longitude section
(Fig. 3e) shows that the predicted MJO signal in rotational wind field is also
comparable to the analysis (Fig. 3a). When only the shallow convective
friction is turned off (Mbs; red in Fig. 6b and c), the pattern correlation
remains higher during the last phase of the forecast than when the convective
friction is totally turned off. In this case, the time–longitude section (Fig. 3f) reveals that the anticyclone signal over 100–120<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E persists
throughout the experiment without a break over the period from 21 to 27 January as
observed.</p>
      <p id="d1e1720">In contrast, when only the deep convective friction is turned off (Mbd; blue
in Fig. 6c), the forecast performance substantially deteriorates in the last
phase.  The deterioration is associated with an over-enhancement of the
anticyclonic signal over the last phase (29 January to 8 February;
Fig. 3g). When both deep convective and boundary layer frictions are turned
off (Fig. 3h: Mbde), the second anticyclonic variability event is too strong
and too spread to the west.  When shallow convective and boundary layer
frictions are turned off (Fig. 3i; Mbse), anticyclonic variabilities
dramatically weaken.  Specifically, the second anticyclonic variability is too
weak and too short: terminated 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> before the end of the forecast.</p>
      <p id="d1e1731">Thus, less momentum friction does not positively contribute to the MJO
forecast in any consistent manner. Instead, these modifications suggest that the
effects of turning off the momentum dissipation are not additive, inferring
that some nonlinear interactions are occurring.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS3">
  <label>3.3.3</label><?xmltex \opttitle{The 40\,{$\unit{{d}}$} extended forecasts}?><title>The 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> extended forecasts</title>
      <p id="d1e1751">With the extended forecast when the shallow convective friction is turned off
(Mbs; thick red curve in Fig. 6b and c; Figs. 4c and 5c), the behaviour of the
150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream function (Fig. 5c) is generally similar to that of the
standard CF, except for some precursors for the anticyclonic signal leading to
the new MJO event and a redevelopment of the anticyclonic variability towards
the end of the forecast.  When the boundary layer friction is further turned
off (Mbb; 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in blue, Figs. 6b, 4d and 5d), the initial
anticyclonic variability continues about 6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> longer than observed, and
the second anticyclonic variability is also initiated 1–2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> later
than observed (Fig. 5d). Its precursor, albeit weak, already has a good
pattern correlation with the analysis.</p>
      <p id="d1e1786">These extended forecasts may be generally interpreted as suggesting that turning
off the momentum friction contributes to an improvement in the MJO forecast overall. However, the further removal of the momentum friction in the boundary
layer (Mbde and Mbse; light blue and orange in Fig. 6c respectively) slightly
reduces the forecast performance.</p>
      <p id="d1e1789">An initial phase of forecast of the rotational wind field (vorticity field) is
easier when the experiment is initiated 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> earlier,
because the initial condition corresponds to the maximum of the anticyclone
signal (centred at 100–120<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) associated with the previous MJO
(Fig. 5a).  A gradual decay of the pattern correlation (with this anticyclonic
signal) over the next 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is reasonably predicted by CF (Fig. 5b), as
well as the cases without shallow convective friction (Mbs;<?pagebreak page4773?> Fig. 5c) and without boundary layer momentum dissipation (Mbb; Fig. 5d).</p>
      <p id="d1e1818">However, further analysis suggests that the 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> extended CF simulates the
rotational field associated with an MJO for an incorrect reason: a dipolar
vortex structure, constituting an analogue to the analytical nonlinear
modon solution, is formed by the Northern Hemisphere anticyclone with
a well-isolated cyclone further north rather than with a Southern Hemisphere
counterpart. The same interpretation also applies to the Mbs case.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Free dynamics experiments</title>
      <p id="d1e1838">This subsection gradually turns off more forcing and dissipation terms so that
the system may gradually approach a state of free dynamics.</p>
      <p id="d1e1841">We first turn off diabatic heating totally (NQ) so that the vortex dynamics is
no longer coupled with convection.  Unsurprisingly, the pattern correlation
steadily decreases with time approximately linearly to 0.2 towards the end of
the standard forecast.  The inspection of the time–longitude section of the
150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream function (Fig. 3j) shows that the rotational wind field
at this level decays fairly rapidly without diabatic heating but leaves a
small-amplitude wave field.  It may be worthwhile emphasizing that the decay
process of the anticyclonic signal from the previous MJO is fairly realistic
in this forecast, although arguably slightly too fast.  A subsequently generated
weak wave field may also be worth mentioning: the cyclonic signal
centred around 220–250<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E amplifies realistically as observed and then leads to a westward propagation, presumably as free linear Rossby waves,
which turns into a anticyclonic signal around 170<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E and continues to
propagate westward. On 31 January, the anticyclonic signal arrives at
100<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E.  We speculate that it contributes to a significant recovery
of the pattern correlation (to approximately 0.6 compared with the value of 0.2 that was seen 2 d
earlier). These relatively positive evaluations of the NQ forecast are
supported by the RMM analysis (Fig. 7f): it evolves around a well-defined
counter-clockwise circle, albeit with a relatively small radius.</p>
      <p id="d1e1879">When the momentum friction is further turned off (QF), the OLR signal decays
over the first few days (ca. 4 d; Fig. 4e) with the 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
extended forecast. Although some pattern correlations persist beyond this point,
this is only achieved by a very weak OLR signal being predicted.  With the standard
forecast of QF (thin green curves in Fig. 6a and b), rather non-intuitively
(despite the lack of momentum dissipation), the westward-propagating
Rossby wave signal decays much faster and the amplitude is weaker (Fig. 3k)
than the case without the momentum friction turned off (NQ) – by about a factor
of 3. As a result, the pattern correlation with the analysis also becomes
slightly smaller (by 0.1–0.2).  A similar behaviour is also seen with an
extended run (QF; Fig. 5e).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e1893">Time–longitude sections of the 150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  stream function along the
Equator (15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N) for the 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> period from 1 February:
<bold>(a)</bold> analysis
and <bold>(b)</bold> QF.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1943"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>A final experiment to test the idea of free MJO dynamics is initiated on
1 February 2017 (QF), when a vorticity pair associated with the MJO is already
fully developed, as seen in the analysis (Fig. 8a). Thus, this experiment examines
whether it is possible to forecast the eastward propagation of this vortex
pair even without convection. At this phase, convection is no longer very
active.  The quasi-free forecast of the 150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream function for
20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is shown in Fig. 8b.  The result is rather disappointing in the
sense that the vortex pair rapidly dissipates over the first few days. This
suggests that dissipation in the model is still not removed as well as
we intend. Nevertheless, a rather surprising behaviour is the eastward propagation of the
vortex pair, as expected for nonlinear solitary Rossby waves and the opposite to the propagation direction expected for linear Rossby waves.  However, the
propagation speed of this decaying vortex pair is much faster than the speed
found in the analysis.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <label>3.5</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Possible intrusion of an extratropical Rossby wave train:
standard 20\,{$\unit{{d}}$} forecasts}?><title>Possible intrusion of an extratropical Rossby wave train:
standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forecasts</title>
      <p id="d1e1981">Some studies (Hsu et al., 1990; Gustafson and Weare, 2004; Ray and Zhang,
2010; Ray and Li, 2013; Zhao et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2019) have suggested that the
intrusion of a Rossby wave train from the Northern Hemisphere to the tropical
region can initiate an MJO.</p>
      <p id="d1e1984">The analysis of a standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forecast period finds such an example
from 20 to 27 January, as depicted in a time–latitude section for the
150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream function averaged over 20–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E (Fig. 9a): a
negative stream-function signal (cyclone) arrives from 80 to 30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N over a time duration of about 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. An inspection of this time–latitude section gives the
impression that the arrival of this signal at 30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N helps to
revitalize and sustain the anticyclonic signal centred at
15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N longer. As its eastward extension is considered the MJO, it leads
to the interpretation that the arrival of such a Rossby wave train helps to
initiate the anticyclonic variability (vortex pair) associated with the MJO.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e2050">Time–latitude sections of the 150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream function averaged over 20–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E:
<bold>(a)</bold> the analysis for the standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forecast period,
and the standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forecasts with <bold>(b)</bold> CF, <bold>(c)</bold> NQ,
<bold>(d)</bold> QF and <bold>(e)</bold> Ma.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4759/2021/acp-21-4759-2021-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2109">However, the forecast experiments tend not to favour the above interpretation
in terms of the Rossby wave train.  To emphasize this point, the performance of the
CF for the same period is shown in Fig. 9b: the arrival of the
Rossby wave train appears to enhance the anticyclone over the same
longitudinal range centred at 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N to a higher degree than in the
analysis. However, as a separate time–longitude section (Fig. 3b) shows that the
anticyclonic signal associated with MJO decreases faster than observed over
the same period with CF.</p>
      <p id="d1e2121">Three additional experiments (NQ, QF and Ma) provide further insights
(Fig. 9c–e). The first is a case with all of the diabatic heating (radiation,
convection and cloud physics) turned off (NQ; Fig. 9c).  The second case is with
both diabatic heating and all the momentum dissipation (vertical eddy
transport and convection) turned off (QF; Fig. 9d). In both cases, the arrival
of the Rossby wave train with a cyclonic signal to the subtropics
(30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N) is well simulated, and the resulting cyclone signal along
30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N is more persistent<?pagebreak page4774?> than in CF and the
analysis. Presumably, the absence of the momentum dissipation helps to amplify
the cyclone signal with time along 30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N (QF), although it is less
persistent than the case without turning off any momentum friction (NQ).  In
both cases, the further induction of the anticyclone signal along
15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, although identifiable, is much weaker than the CF case, and it
totally disappears after 3 February. Finally, when all of the momentum friction
is turned off but the diabatic heating is maintained (Ma; Fig. 9e), the
cyclonic signal intruding into the subtropical region (ca. 30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N)
from the higher latitudes becomes even weaker than in the analysis. The
anticyclone anomaly is induced along 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N in a realistic manner
without further amplification, as in the CF case.</p>
      <p id="d1e2179">The predictions of the rotational field in standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forecasts are reasonable overall with respect to patterns but show larger errors in amplitude.  An impression
is that the MJO dipole is less isolated than in the analysis; thus, the
internal (non-evanescent) wave structure leads to westward propagation (or is
stalled) rather than eastward.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussions</title>
      <p id="d1e2199">A main motivation for the present study was to examine the extent to which
the MJO can be simulated with a relatively frictionless (physically unforced)
setting, which is consistent with the proposed free nonlinear Rossby wave theory
for the MJO by Wedi and Smolarkiewicz (2010), Yano and Tribbia (2017), Rostam
and Zeitlin (2019), and Wang et al. (2019).  The MJO forecast does indeed
improve when the momentum dissipation is totally removed (Ma; cf., Figs. 2c
and 3c); however, the tendency is hardly consistent: the degree of forecast
improvements sensitively depends on the choice of the momentum-dissipation terms that are
turned off.  The effects are also hardly additive, and certain
nonlinear interactions are clearly going on.  Most disappointingly, when all of the
dissipation and forcing terms both for the momentum and the entropy are turned
off (QF), the features associated with MJO disappear rather rapidly
(Fig. 3k). Thus, the present study does not support the proposed free
nonlinear Rossby wave theory in any consistent manner.  Details on the
forecast behaviour based on the choice of the physical configurations of the model
have been carefully documented to record the unexpected but nevertheless
important impact on MJO forecast skill.</p>
      <?pagebreak page4776?><p id="d1e2202">There are several lessons to learn from the present sensitivity exercise.  The
first is the importance of closely evaluating the details of sensitivities of
physical processes for the MJO. In typical mechanism-denial studies (e.g. Kim
et al., 2011; Ma and Kuang, 2016), the physical process concerned is either
totally turned off or maintained.  If we would have followed such an approach,
the improvement in MJO forecasts due to totally removing momentum dissipation
(case Ma) would have simply been interpreted as a positive result for
supporting a free wave theory.  However, in the present study, the momentum-dissipation processes, arising from various different physical mechanisms, are
turned off selectively to verify this initial finding in a more solid manner.
As it turns out, the sensitivities of MJO to momentum-dissipation processes
are not that simple. Although we are short of making any definite conclusions
from our sensitivity study of the MJO on the momentum-dissipation processes,
the study suggests the critical importance of examining the physical
sensitivities of a phenomenon in more detail rather than simply switching
off the entire physical mechanism as has been done in past sensitivity
studies.  Second, after examining the forecast results closely, we have
realized that it is not quite straightforward to simulate a free wave dynamics
expected from the theory with a complex state-of-the-art global model, as
originally intended. We conclude that this difficulty stems from the need to
maintain a realistic background state at the same time (see Ma and Kuang,
2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e2205">Discussions on some specific runs make this point clearer: with the quasi-free
40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> extended forecast (QF; Fig. 5e), the pre-existing anticyclonic
variability over 100–150<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E persists almost as long as observed
(7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), albeit with weak amplitude. A weakly eastward tendency, which is
consistent with the nonlinear free wave theory, may also be noticed in this
simulation.  In the standard 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forecast case, only a reminiscence
of the anticyclone signature from the previous MJO event is found around
120<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E initially in the analysis, and this feature disappears in less
than 2 d (Fig. 3b).  Note that no convective variability is found in the
vicinity of this longitude at the initial time of this forecast period
(Fig. 2a).  The quasi-free forecast (QF) maintains anticyclonic variability
longer than in the analysis, albeit with a weaker amplitude (Fig. 3k).</p>
      <p id="d1e2250">We interpret these rather subtle results with the quasi-free (QF) forecast
experiments as a demonstration of the difficulties in realizing a
“realistic” free dynamics experiment. The main problem with the QF forecasts
in the present study is the fact that by practically turning off “all” the
physical forcings, the basic state of the model also breaks down very rapidly;
thus, a proper background state that may support an MJO with free dynamics is also
lost very rapidly. It also follows that a free MJO mode also dissipates out
very rapidly. A more appropriate manner of performing free dynamics
experiments would be to maintain a background state with full physics in
place but to introduce quasi-free dynamics only to a perturbation
component. The basic idea of this strategy may be understood in analogy with
standard perturbation analyses. However, in the present case, perturbations
must be treated in a fully nonlinear manner in order to be consistent with our
anticipation that the MJO is a fully nonlinear construct.  A brute force
approach of nudging the model towards a climatology (e.g. Ma and Kuang, 2016)
may be valid, but only when the given climatology is a correct “background
state” to maintain.  A more delicate procedure is required, for example, by
using the emerging modelling infrastructure described in Kühnlein
et al. (2019) so that any constraints on the evolving nonlinearities are
removed.</p>
      <p id="d1e2254">The present study further suggests that the MJO predictability sensitively
depends on the choice of the initial condition in a rather non-intuitive manner, although this is consistent with a clear distinction between high- and low-skill MJO
events identified by Kim et al. (2016): longer forecasts from an earlier phase
of the MJO may not be harder than a shorter one from a later phase. In the
present study, the standard forecasts are initiated (on 19 January) from an
early stage of an MJO already present; thus, a successful forecast would simply
capture the subsequent development and propagation of this MJO. On the other
hand, the 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> extended forecasts are initiated 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> earlier
towards the end of a previous MJO event. Presumably, the latter is harder to
forecast with respect to the MJO evolution, especially the onset of a new MJO. However, an
inspection of the time–longitude section suggests a different picture: the
longer 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> extended forecasts tend to regenerate the MJO signal
towards the end of the forecasts, and the forecast capacity recovers.  In
some cases, their performance becomes even better than the shorter standard
20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forecasts initiated 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> later in terms of the pattern
correlations of the OLR and the 150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> stream function (Fig. 6).</p>
      <p id="d1e2306">As Nakazawa (1988) originally pointed out, the MJO typically constitutes a
modulation of the westward-propagating cloud clusters which have scales of a few hundred kilometres.
The 9 January, the initiation time of the 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> extended forecasts,
corresponds to the end of the previous MJO event and is also the moment that
the last cloud cluster over the western Pacific begins to propagate westwards,
which marks the end of this MJO event (Fig. 4a). In the 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> extended
CF (Fig. 4b), this westward-propagating cloud cluster does not die out as
observed but continues to propagate westwards to the Indian Ocean, which
marks an initiation of a new MJO under this forecast. Although the predicted new
MJO weakens out during the middle of the event, we note a recovery of the signal towards the end
of the event.  These initial condition sensitivities of the MJO forecasts
point to the simple fact that the onset as well as the evolution of an MJO should not
be considered as isolated events and are better interpreted as a part of a chain
of processes in the atmosphere. It also points to the importance of better
understanding detailed processes associated with the MJO – in the present case,
those of the westward-propagating cloud clusters.  Standard MJO indices (e.g.
RMM) fail to depict those critical details (see Straub, 2013).</p>
      <p id="d1e2325">The present study has also elucidated active interactions of MJOs with
higher-latitude Rossby wave activities (Fig. 9).  Inspections of the
latitude–time sections suggest that the performance of the MJO forecasts
appears, at least partially, to be helped by the successfully simulated
interactions of the MJO with the higher-latitude Rossby waves (Rossby wave
trains).</p>
      <p id="d1e2328">The MJO forecast problem is often reduced to that of convection
parameterizations (e.g. Hirons et al., 2013a, b; Jiang et al., 2015, 2020b;
Pilon et al., 2015).  However, improvement of the MJO forecast, along with the
many other forecast issues, is not a matter of fixing a single physical
scheme.  Rather, we need to examine a forecast model as a whole with its
interacting physics for achieving this goal.  The present model sensitivity
study has exposed the importance of physical processes other than convection
for maintaining a realistic tropical mean state and for MJO forecast skill.</p>
      <?pagebreak page4777?><p id="d1e2331">The complex behaviour of the IFS model sensitively depending on the choice of
the physics that are turned off, as identified in the present study, should be emphasized
in its own right.  For example, the role of momentum friction, in general, is
not simply favourable or unfavourable for MJO forecasts.  The behaviour
sensitively depends on the precise type of momentum friction being turned off.
In other words, the operational model behaviour is not decided by a dichotomy
of with or without friction, as typically assumed in theoretical as well as in
some model sensitivity studies.  By reporting the details of these physical
sensitivities on the MJO forecast, the present study strongly suggests the need
for theoretical investigations that are much more closely tied to the actual
operational formulations of physical parameterization and their impact on the
mean circulation rather than merely modulating the (MJO) anomaly.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codeavailability"><title>Code availability</title>

      <p id="d1e2339">Model codes developed at ECMWF are the intellectual property of ECMWF and its member states; therefore the IFS code is not publicly available. Access to a reduced model version of the IFS code may be obtained from ECMWF under an OpenIFS licence <uri>https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/OIFS/Release+notes+for+OpenIFS+43r3v1</uri> (last access: 25 March 2021) (ECMWF, 2020).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e2348">The data are stored in ECMWF's Meteorological Archive and Retrieval System (MARS) and are accessible from the corresponding author upon reasonable request (email: nils.wedi@ecmwf.int).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e2354">Forecast experiments were performed by NPW, and
the graphic analyses were mostly performed by JIY.
Both authors developed the paper by closely analysing and discussing the
results.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e2360">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e2366">Discussions with Peter Bechtold and Fredric Vitart are much appreciated.
Fredric Vitart also kindly provided us with an RMM plotting package.  The
bulk of this work was performed during the first author's visit to ECMWF
during February–March 2018. Special thanks are due to Peter Haynes, who greatly assisted us during the revision process as the editor in
charge; he also suggested several key references.</p></ack><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e2371">This paper was edited by Peter Haynes and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Chang, C. P.: Viscous internal gravity waves and low-frequency oscillations in the tropics, J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 901–910, 1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 2?><mixed-citation>Crueger, T. and Stevens, B.: The effect of atmospheric radiative heating by clouds on the Madden–Julian Oscillation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 7, 854–864, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015MS000434" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015MS000434</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>ECMWF: OpenIFS CY43R3 release notes, available at: <uri>https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/OIFS/Release+notes+for+OpenIFS+43r3v1</uri> (last access: 25 March 2021), 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 3?><mixed-citation>
Emanuel, K. A.: An air–sea interaction model of intraseasonal oscillations in the tropics, J. Atmos. Sci., 44, 2324–2340, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 4?><mixed-citation>Fuchs, Ž. and Raymond, D. J.: A simple model of intraseasonal oscillations, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 9, 1195–1211, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS000963" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017MS000963</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 5?><mixed-citation>
Gustafson Jr., W. I. and Weare, B. C.: MM5 modeling of the Madden–Julian oscillation in the Indian West Pacific Oceans: Model description and control run results, J. Climate, 17, 1320–1337, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 6?><mixed-citation>Hall, N. M. J., Thibaut, S., and Marchesiello, P.: Impact of the observed extratropics on climatological simulations of the MJO in a tropical channel model, Clim. Dynam., 48, 2541–2555, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3221-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-016-3221-5</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 7?><mixed-citation>
Hayashi, Y.: A theory of large-scale equatorial waves generated by condensation heat and accelerating the zonal wind, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 48, 140–160, 1970.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 8?><mixed-citation>Hirons L. C., Inness, P., Vitart, F., and Bechtold, P.: Understanding advances in the simulation ofintraseasonal variability in the ECMWF model. Part I: The representation of the MJO, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 139, 1417–1426. <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2060" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2060</ext-link>, 2013a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 9?><mixed-citation>Hirons L. C., Inness, P., Vitart, F., and Bechtold, P.: Understanding advances in the simulation ofintraseasonal variability in the ECMWF model. Part II: The application of process-based diagnostics, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 139, 1427–1444, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2059" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2059</ext-link>, 2013b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 10?><mixed-citation>
Hsu, H.-H., Hoskins, B. J., and Jin, F.-F.: The 1985/86 intraseasonal oscillation and the role of the extratropics, J. Atmos. Sci., 47, 823–839, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 11?><mixed-citation>Jiang, X., Waliser, D. E., Xavier, P. K., Petch, J., Klingaman, N. P.,
Woolnough, S. J., Guan, B., Bellon, G., Crueger, T., DeMott, C., Hannay, C.,
Lin, H., Hu, W., Kim, D., Lappen, C.-L., Lu, M.-M., Ma, H.-Y., Miyakawa, T.,
Ridout, J. A., Schubert, S. D., Scinocca, J., Seo, K.-H., Shindo, E.,
Song, X., Stan, C., Tseng, W.-L., Wang, W., Wu, T., Wu, X., Wyser, K.,
Zhang, G. J., and Zhu, H.: Vertical structure and physical processes of the
Madden–Julian oscillation: Exploring key model physics in climate
simulations, J. Geophys. Res., 120, 2014JD022375, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022375" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JD022375</ext-link> , 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 12?><mixed-citation>Jiang, X., Adames, Á. F., Kim, D., Maloney, E. D., Lin, H., Kim, H.,
Zhang, C., DeMott, C. A., and Klingaman, N. P.: Fifty year of research on the Madden–Julian Oscillation: Recent progress, challenges, and perspectives, J. Geophys. Res., 125, e2019JD030911, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030911" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019JD030911</ext-link>, 2020a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 13?><mixed-citation>Jiang, X., Maloney, E., and Su, H.: Large-scale controls of propagation of the
Madden–Julian Oscillation, Clim. Atmos. Sci., 3, 29,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-00134-x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41612-020-00134-x</ext-link>, 2020b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page4778?><ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 14?><mixed-citation>Kim, D., Sobel, A. H., and Kang, I.-S.: A mechanism denial study on the Madden–Julian Oscillation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 3, M12007, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS000081" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011MS000081</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 15?><mixed-citation>
Kim, H.-M., Kim, D., Vitart, F., Toma, V. E., Kug, J.-S., and Webster, P. J.: MJO propagation across the Maritime Continent in the ECMWF Ensemble Prediction System, J. Climate, 29, 3973–3988, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 16?><mixed-citation>
Kim, H., Vitart, F., and Waliser, D. E.: Prediction of the Madden–Julian oscillation: A review, J. Climate, 31, 9425–9443, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 17?><mixed-citation>
Knutson, T. R. and Weickmann, K. M.: 30–60 day atmospheric oscillations: Composite life cycles of convection and circulation anomalies, Mon. Weather Rev., 115, 1407–1436, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 18?><mixed-citation>Kühnlein, C., Deconinck, W., Klein, R., Malardel, S., Piotrowski, Z. P., Smolarkiewicz, P. K., Szmelter, J., and Wedi, N. P.: FVM 1.0: a nonhydrostatic finite-volume dynamical core for the IFS, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 651–676, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-651-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-12-651-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 19?><mixed-citation>
Lindzen, R. S.: Wave-CISK in the tropics, J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 156–179, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 20?><mixed-citation>
Madden, R. A. and Julian, P. R.: Description of global-scale circulation cells in the tropics with a 40–50 day period, J. Atmos. Sci., 29, 1109–1123, 1972.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 21?><mixed-citation>Ma, D. and Kuang, Z.: A mechanism-denial study on the Madden–Julian Oscillation with reduced interference from mean state changes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 2989–2997, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067702" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL067702</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 22?><mixed-citation>
Majda, A. J. and Stechmann, S. N.: The skeleton of tropical intraseasonal
oscillations, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 106, 8417–8422, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 24?><mixed-citation>
Malardel, S. and Wedi, N. P.: How does subgrid-scale parametrization influence nonlinear spectral energy fluxes in global NWP models?, J. Geophys. Res, 121, 5395–5410, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 23?><mixed-citation>
Malardel, S., Wedi, N. P., Deconinck, W., Diamantakis, M., Kühnlein, C., Mozdzynski, G., Hamrud, M., and Smolarkiewicz, P. K.: A new grid for the IFS, ECMWF Newsletter, 146, 23–28, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 25?><mixed-citation>
Milliff, R. F. and Madden, R. A.: The existence and vertical structure of fast, eastward-moving disturbances in the equatorial troposphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 53, 586–597, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 26?><mixed-citation>
Nakazawa, T.: Tropical Super clusters within intraseasonal variations over the western Pacific, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 66, 823–839, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 27?><mixed-citation>Pilon, R., Zhang, C., and Dudhia, J.: Roles of deep and shallow convection and microphysics in the MJO simulated by the Model for Prediction Across Scales, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 10575–10600, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024697" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD024697</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 28?><mixed-citation>Plant, R. S. and Yano, J.-I. (Eds): Parameterization of Atmospheric Convection, Volumes I and II, World Scientific, Singapore, Imperial College Press, London, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1142/p1005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1142/p1005</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 29?><mixed-citation>
Ray, P. and Li, T.: Relative Roles of Circumnavigating Waves and Extratropics on the MJO and Its Relationship with the Mean State, J. Atmos. Sci., 70, 876–893, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 30?><mixed-citation>
Ray, P. and Zhang, C.: A case study of the mechanics of extratropical influence on the initiation of the Madden–Julian oscillation, J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 515–528, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 31?><mixed-citation>Rostami, M. and Zeitlin, V.: Eastward-moving convection-enhanced modons in
shallow water in the equatorial tangent plane featured, Phys. Fluids, 31,
021701, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5080415" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1063/1.5080415</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 32?><mixed-citation>
Salby, M. L., Garcia, R. R., and Hendon, H. H.: Planetary-scale circulations in the presence of climatological and wave-induced heating, J. Atmos. Sci., 51, 2344–2367, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 33?><mixed-citation>Seo, K., Wang, W., Gottschalck, J., Zhang, Q., Schemm, J. E., Higgins, W. R., and Kumar, A.: Evaluation of MJO Forecast Skill from Several Statistical and Dynamical Forecast Models, J. Climate, 22, 2372–2388, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2421.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2008JCLI2421.1</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 34?><mixed-citation>
Straub, K. H.: MJO initiation in the real-time multivariate MJO index, J. Climate, 26, 1130–1151, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 35?><mixed-citation>
Vitart, F.: Evolution of ECMWF sub-seasonal forecast skill scores, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 1889–1899, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 36?><mixed-citation>
Wang, B.: Dynamics of tropical low frequency waves: An analysis of the moist Kelvin wave, J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 2051–2065, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 37?><mixed-citation>Wang, D., Yano, J.-I., and Lin, Y.: Madden–Julian oscillations seen in the upper-troposphere vorticity field: Interactions with Rossby-wave trains, J. Atmos. Sci., 76, 1785–1807, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-18-0172.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-18-0172.1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 38?><mixed-citation>Wedi, N. P.: Increasing horizontal resolution in NWP and climate simulations – illusion or panacea?, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 372, 20130289,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0289" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rsta.2013.0289</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 39?><mixed-citation>
Wedi, N. P. and Smolarkiewicz, P. K.: A nonlinear perspective on the dynamics of the MJO: Idealized large-eddy simulations, J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 1202–1217, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 40?><mixed-citation>Weickmann, K. M., Lussky, G. R., and Kutzbach, J. E.: Intraseasonal (30–60 day) fluctuations of outgoing longwave radiation and 250 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> streamfunction during northern winter, Mon. Weather Rev., 113, 941–961, 1985.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 41?><mixed-citation>
Wheeler, M. C. and Hendon, H. H.: An all-season real-time multivariate MJO index: Development of an index for monitoring and prediction, Mon. Weather Rev., 132, 1917–1932, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 43?><mixed-citation>
Yano, J.-I. and Bonazzola, M.: Scale analysis for the large-scale tropical atmospheric dynamics, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 159–172, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 42?><mixed-citation>
Yano, J.-I. and Emanuel, K. A.: An improved model of the equatorial troposphere and its coupling with the stratosphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 48, 377–389, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 44?><mixed-citation>
Yano, J.-I. and Tribbia, J. J.: Tropical atmospheric Madden–Julian oscillation: Strongly-nonlinear free solitary Rossby wave?, J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 3473–3489, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 45?><mixed-citation>
Yano, J.-I., Mulet, S., and Bonazzola, M.: Large-scale tropical atmosphere:
asymptotically non-divergent?, Tellus A, 61, 417–427, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 46?><mixed-citation>Yano, J.-I., Bister, M., Fuchs, Ž., Gerard, L., Phillips, V. T. J., Barkidija, S., and Piriou, J.-M.: Phenomenology of convection-parameterization closure, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 4111–4131, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-4111-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-4111-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 47?><mixed-citation>Zhang, C.: Madden–Julian oscillation, Rev. Geophys., 43, RG2003,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004RG000158" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004RG000158</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 48?><mixed-citation>Zhang, C., Adames, Á. F., Khouider, B., Wang, B., and Yang, D.: Four theories of the Madden–Julian Oscillation, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000685, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000685" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019RG000685</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 49?><mixed-citation>
Zhao, C., Li, T., and Zhou, T.: Precursor signals and processes associated with MJO initiation over the Tropical Indian Ocean, J. Climate, 26, 291–307, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Sensitivities of the Madden–Julian oscillation forecasts to configurations of physics in the ECMWF global model</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The sensitivities of the Madden–Julian oscillation (MJO) forecasts to various different configurations of the
parameterized physics are examined with the global model of ECMWF's Integrated
Forecasting System (IFS).  The motivation for the study was to simulate
the MJO as a nonlinear free wave under active interactions with
higher-latitude Rossby waves.  To emulate free dynamics in the IFS, various
momentum-dissipation terms (<q>friction</q>) as well as diabatic heating were
selectively turned off over the tropics for the range of the latitudes from
20°&thinsp;S to 20°&thinsp;N.  The reduction of friction sometimes improves the MJO forecasts,
although without any systematic tendency.  Contrary to the original motivation,
emulating free dynamics with an operational forecast model turned out to be
rather difficult, because forecast performance sensitively depends on the
specific type of friction turned off.  The result suggests the need for
theoretical investigations that much more closely follow the actual
formulations of model physics: a naive approach with a dichotomy of with or
without friction simply fails to elucidate the rich behaviour of complex
operational models.  The paper further exposes the importance of physical
processes other than convection for simulating the MJO in global forecast
models.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Chang, C. P.: Viscous internal gravity waves and low-frequency oscillations in the tropics, J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 901–910, 1977.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Crueger, T. and Stevens, B.: The effect of atmospheric radiative heating by clouds on the Madden–Julian Oscillation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 7, 854–864, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015MS000434" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015MS000434</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
ECMWF: OpenIFS CY43R3 release notes, available at: <a href="https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/OIFS/Release+notes+for+OpenIFS+43r3v1" target="_blank"/> (last access: 25 March 2021), 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Emanuel, K. A.: An air–sea interaction model of intraseasonal oscillations in the tropics, J. Atmos. Sci., 44, 2324–2340, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Fuchs, Ž. and Raymond, D. J.: A simple model of intraseasonal oscillations, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 9, 1195–1211, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS000963" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS000963</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Gustafson Jr., W. I. and Weare, B. C.: MM5 modeling of the Madden–Julian oscillation in the Indian West Pacific Oceans: Model description and control run results, J. Climate, 17, 1320–1337, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Hall, N. M. J., Thibaut, S., and Marchesiello, P.: Impact of the observed extratropics on climatological simulations of the MJO in a tropical channel model, Clim. Dynam., 48, 2541–2555, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3221-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3221-5</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Hayashi, Y.: A theory of large-scale equatorial waves generated by condensation heat and accelerating the zonal wind, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 48, 140–160, 1970.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Hirons L. C., Inness, P., Vitart, F., and Bechtold, P.: Understanding advances in the simulation ofintraseasonal variability in the ECMWF model. Part I: The representation of the MJO, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 139, 1417–1426. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2060" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2060</a>, 2013a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Hirons L. C., Inness, P., Vitart, F., and Bechtold, P.: Understanding advances in the simulation ofintraseasonal variability in the ECMWF model. Part II: The application of process-based diagnostics, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 139, 1427–1444, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2059" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2059</a>, 2013b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Hsu, H.-H., Hoskins, B. J., and Jin, F.-F.: The 1985/86 intraseasonal oscillation and the role of the extratropics, J. Atmos. Sci., 47, 823–839, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Jiang, X., Waliser, D. E., Xavier, P. K., Petch, J., Klingaman, N. P.,
Woolnough, S. J., Guan, B., Bellon, G., Crueger, T., DeMott, C., Hannay, C.,
Lin, H., Hu, W., Kim, D., Lappen, C.-L., Lu, M.-M., Ma, H.-Y., Miyakawa, T.,
Ridout, J. A., Schubert, S. D., Scinocca, J., Seo, K.-H., Shindo, E.,
Song, X., Stan, C., Tseng, W.-L., Wang, W., Wu, T., Wu, X., Wyser, K.,
Zhang, G. J., and Zhu, H.: Vertical structure and physical processes of the
Madden–Julian oscillation: Exploring key model physics in climate
simulations, J. Geophys. Res., 120, 2014JD022375, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022375" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022375</a> , 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Jiang, X., Adames, Á. F., Kim, D., Maloney, E. D., Lin, H., Kim, H.,
Zhang, C., DeMott, C. A., and Klingaman, N. P.: Fifty year of research on the Madden–Julian Oscillation: Recent progress, challenges, and perspectives, J. Geophys. Res., 125, e2019JD030911, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030911" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030911</a>, 2020a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Jiang, X., Maloney, E., and Su, H.: Large-scale controls of propagation of the
Madden–Julian Oscillation, Clim. Atmos. Sci., 3, 29,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-00134-x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-00134-x</a>, 2020b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, D., Sobel, A. H., and Kang, I.-S.: A mechanism denial study on the Madden–Julian Oscillation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 3, M12007, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS000081" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS000081</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, H.-M., Kim, D., Vitart, F., Toma, V. E., Kug, J.-S., and Webster, P. J.: MJO propagation across the Maritime Continent in the ECMWF Ensemble Prediction System, J. Climate, 29, 3973–3988, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, H., Vitart, F., and Waliser, D. E.: Prediction of the Madden–Julian oscillation: A review, J. Climate, 31, 9425–9443, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Knutson, T. R. and Weickmann, K. M.: 30–60 day atmospheric oscillations: Composite life cycles of convection and circulation anomalies, Mon. Weather Rev., 115, 1407–1436, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Kühnlein, C., Deconinck, W., Klein, R., Malardel, S., Piotrowski, Z. P., Smolarkiewicz, P. K., Szmelter, J., and Wedi, N. P.: FVM 1.0: a nonhydrostatic finite-volume dynamical core for the IFS, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 651–676, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-651-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-651-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Lindzen, R. S.: Wave-CISK in the tropics, J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 156–179, 1974.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Madden, R. A. and Julian, P. R.: Description of global-scale circulation cells in the tropics with a 40–50 day period, J. Atmos. Sci., 29, 1109–1123, 1972.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Ma, D. and Kuang, Z.: A mechanism-denial study on the Madden–Julian Oscillation with reduced interference from mean state changes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 2989–2997, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067702" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067702</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Majda, A. J. and Stechmann, S. N.: The skeleton of tropical intraseasonal
oscillations, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 106, 8417–8422, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Malardel, S. and Wedi, N. P.: How does subgrid-scale parametrization influence nonlinear spectral energy fluxes in global NWP models?, J. Geophys. Res, 121, 5395–5410, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Malardel, S., Wedi, N. P., Deconinck, W., Diamantakis, M., Kühnlein, C., Mozdzynski, G., Hamrud, M., and Smolarkiewicz, P. K.: A new grid for the IFS, ECMWF Newsletter, 146, 23–28, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Milliff, R. F. and Madden, R. A.: The existence and vertical structure of fast, eastward-moving disturbances in the equatorial troposphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 53, 586–597, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Nakazawa, T.: Tropical Super clusters within intraseasonal variations over the western Pacific, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 66, 823–839, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Pilon, R., Zhang, C., and Dudhia, J.: Roles of deep and shallow convection and microphysics in the MJO simulated by the Model for Prediction Across Scales, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 10575–10600, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024697" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024697</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Plant, R. S. and Yano, J.-I. (Eds): Parameterization of Atmospheric Convection, Volumes I and II, World Scientific, Singapore, Imperial College Press, London, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1142/p1005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1142/p1005</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Ray, P. and Li, T.: Relative Roles of Circumnavigating Waves and Extratropics on the MJO and Its Relationship with the Mean State, J. Atmos. Sci., 70, 876–893, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Ray, P. and Zhang, C.: A case study of the mechanics of extratropical influence on the initiation of the Madden–Julian oscillation, J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 515–528, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Rostami, M. and Zeitlin, V.: Eastward-moving convection-enhanced modons in
shallow water in the equatorial tangent plane featured, Phys. Fluids, 31,
021701, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5080415" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5080415</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Salby, M. L., Garcia, R. R., and Hendon, H. H.: Planetary-scale circulations in the presence of climatological and wave-induced heating, J. Atmos. Sci., 51, 2344–2367, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Seo, K., Wang, W., Gottschalck, J., Zhang, Q., Schemm, J. E., Higgins, W. R., and Kumar, A.: Evaluation of MJO Forecast Skill from Several Statistical and Dynamical Forecast Models, J. Climate, 22, 2372–2388, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2421.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2421.1</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Straub, K. H.: MJO initiation in the real-time multivariate MJO index, J. Climate, 26, 1130–1151, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Vitart, F.: Evolution of ECMWF sub-seasonal forecast skill scores, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 1889–1899, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, B.: Dynamics of tropical low frequency waves: An analysis of the moist Kelvin wave, J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 2051–2065, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, D., Yano, J.-I., and Lin, Y.: Madden–Julian oscillations seen in the upper-troposphere vorticity field: Interactions with Rossby-wave trains, J. Atmos. Sci., 76, 1785–1807, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-18-0172.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-18-0172.1</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Wedi, N. P.: Increasing horizontal resolution in NWP and climate simulations – illusion or panacea?, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 372, 20130289,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0289" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0289</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Wedi, N. P. and Smolarkiewicz, P. K.: A nonlinear perspective on the dynamics of the MJO: Idealized large-eddy simulations, J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 1202–1217, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Weickmann, K. M., Lussky, G. R., and Kutzbach, J. E.: Intraseasonal (30–60 day) fluctuations of outgoing longwave radiation and 250&thinsp;mb streamfunction during northern winter, Mon. Weather Rev., 113, 941–961, 1985.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Wheeler, M. C. and Hendon, H. H.: An all-season real-time multivariate MJO index: Development of an index for monitoring and prediction, Mon. Weather Rev., 132, 1917–1932, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Yano, J.-I. and Bonazzola, M.: Scale analysis for the large-scale tropical atmospheric dynamics, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 159–172, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Yano, J.-I. and Emanuel, K. A.: An improved model of the equatorial troposphere and its coupling with the stratosphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 48, 377–389, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Yano, J.-I. and Tribbia, J. J.: Tropical atmospheric Madden–Julian oscillation: Strongly-nonlinear free solitary Rossby wave?, J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 3473–3489, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Yano, J.-I., Mulet, S., and Bonazzola, M.: Large-scale tropical atmosphere:
asymptotically non-divergent?, Tellus A, 61, 417–427, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Yano, J.-I., Bister, M., Fuchs, Ž., Gerard, L., Phillips, V. T. J., Barkidija, S., and Piriou, J.-M.: Phenomenology of convection-parameterization closure, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 4111–4131, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-4111-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-4111-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, C.: Madden–Julian oscillation, Rev. Geophys., 43, RG2003,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004RG000158" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004RG000158</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, C., Adames, Á. F., Khouider, B., Wang, B., and Yang, D.: Four theories of the Madden–Julian Oscillation, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000685, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000685" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000685</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Zhao, C., Li, T., and Zhou, T.: Precursor signals and processes associated with MJO initiation over the Tropical Indian Ocean, J. Climate, 26, 291–307, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
