Impact of Air-Sea Coupling on the Madden-Julian Oscillation in a General Circulation Model

By H. Hendon. 2000

161 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change, Oceanography

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8b49036098145556e2e1784af2699d1c1f3b364f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Atmospheric Science

In Global and Planetary Change

In Oceanography

Citations in the corpus

Application of MJO Simulation Diagnostics to Climate Models (2009, methodology): “…Science Program, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 151- 742, Korea 2Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, PCMDI, P.O. Box 808, L-103, Livermore, CA 94550 USA 3NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, P.O. Box 308, Princeton, NJ 08542 USA 4Jet Propulsion Laboratory, MS183-505 California Institute of…”
Fifty Years of Research on the Madden‐Julian Oscillation: Recent Progress, Challenges, and Perspectives (2020, background): “Ocean‐atmosphere coupling may even degrade the MJO simulation due to the mean bias (Hendon, 2000).”
An All-Season Real-Time Multivariate MJO Index: Development of an Index for Monitoring and Prediction (2004, unknown): “A number of recent studies have demonstrated potential for skillful empirical prediction of the MJO, with useful lead times out to about 15–20 days (von Storch and Xu 1990; Waliser et al. 1999; Lo and Hendon 2000; Mo 2001; Wheeler and Weickmann 2001).”
MJO Simulation Diagnostics (2009, background): “When also considering the mean state, such a phase relationship is important to the MJO surface energy budget, with implications for air– sea interactions and wind-induced flux forcing of convection (e.g., Hendon 2000; Inness et al. 2003; Bellon et al. 2008).”
Atmosphere‐ocean coupled processes in the Madden‐Julian oscillation (2015, background): “AIR-SEA COUPLING AND THE MJO 1138 coupling either degrades or does not affect the representation of the MJO in coupled climate simulations [e.g., Hendon, 2000; Liess et al., 2004; Zheng et al., 2004; Sperber et al., 2005; Pegion and Kirtman, 2008b].”
Tropical Intraseasonal Variability in 14 IPCC AR4 Climate Models. Part I: Convective Signals (2006, background): “Coupling to the ocean has been found by many studies to improve the MJO signals (e.g., Flatau et al. 1997; Waliser et al. 1999; Sperber et al. 2005), although changes in a model’s mean state need to be taken into account (e.g., Hendon 2000; Inness and Slingo 2003; Sperber et al. 2005).”
Madden‐Julian Oscillation (2005, methodology): “It is not a panacea for the lack of the MJO in any model [Hendon, 2000].”
Predictability of the Madden–Julian Oscillation in the Intraseasonal Variability Hindcast Experiment (ISVHE)* (2014, background): “…(e.g., Maloney and Hartmann 2001; Liu et al. 2005; Vitart et al. 2007), coarse vertical resolution (Slingo et al. 1996; Inness et al. 2001), and lack of air–sea coupling (e.g., Hendon 2000; Fu et al. 2007; Woolnough et al. 2007) were some of the factors limiting the simulation of theMJO byGCMs.”
An Idealized Semi-Empirical Framework for Modeling the Madden–Julian Oscillation (2012, background): “…of GCM studies indicate that while ocean coupling may improve the simulation of the MJO, it is not essential to the existence of the MJO (Waliser et al. 1999; Hendon 2000; Kemball-Cook et al. 2002; Inness and Slingo 2003; Zheng et al. 2004; Maloney and Sobel 2004; Grabowski 2006; Fu et al. 2007).”
Impact of Atmosphere-Ocean Coupling on the Predictability of Monsoon Intraseasonal Oscillations (2007, methodology): “The exception of Hendon (2000) is largely attributed to errors in the model’s mean state and an associated failure of the model to simulate a correct relationship between ISO-driven surface latent heat flux and rainfall anomalies.”
Simulation of the Madden–Julian Oscillation in a Coupled General Circulation Model. Part I: Comparison with Observations and an Atmosphere-Only GCM (2003, background): “However, as in the study of Hendon (2000), the maxima of convective precipitation in the GCM are collocated with minima in OLR on intraseasonal timescales, so the fields can be used interchangeably to determine phase relationships between convection and other variables.”
Simulations of the Madden–Julian oscillation in four pairs of coupled and uncoupled global models (2006, methodology): “Other possible factors include model resolutions (e.g., Hayashi and Golder 1986; Slingo et al. 1996, Gualdi et al. 1997; Inness et al. 2001; Duffy et al 2003), background state (e.g., Slingo et al. 1996; Hendon 2000; Inness et al 2003; Sperber et al 2005), and air–sea coupling (e.g., Waliser et al”
Surface Fluxes and Tropical Intraseasonal Variability: a Reassessment (2008, background): “The observational analysis of Waliser (1996) suggests that the two components may be of comparable magnitude, while Hendon and Glick (1997) suggest that the relative importance of the two may vary with location.”
Simulation of the Intraseasonal Oscillation in the ECHAM-4 Model: The Impact of Coupling with an Ocean Model* (2001, methodology): “The different results of the experiments of Waliser et al. (1999) and Hendon (2000) point out the importance of an AGCM’s climatology in the simulation of the ISO.”
Evaluation of MJO Forecast Skill from Several Statistical and Dynamical forecast Models (2009, methodology): “Lo and Hendon (2000)”
The Sensitivity of Intraseasonal Variability in the NCAR CCM3 to Changes in Convective Parameterization (2001, background): “Air–sea coupling may not, however, improve intraseasonal variability in models for which the phase relationship between MJO convection and the atmospheric circulation is different from observed (Hendon 2000).”