Madden—Julian Oscillation prediction and teleconnections in the S2S database

270 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Prediction of the Madden–Julian Oscillation: A Review (2018, methodology): “…forecast systems have some deficiencies in predicting the MJO propagation through the Maritime Continent, a problem referred to as the Maritime Continent MJO prediction barrier (Vitart et al. 2007; Seo et al. 2009; Seo andWang 2010; Vitart andMolteni 2010; Wang et al. 2014; Kim 2017; Vitart 2017).”
The DOE E3SM Coupled Model Version 1: Overview and Evaluation at Standard Resolution (2019, background): “The MJO is generally thought to play a role in ENSO initiation (McPhaden et al., 2006), monsoon active break cycles (Annamalai & Slingo, 2001), tropical cyclogenesis (Sobel & Maloney, 2000), and remote teleconnection effects (Vitart, 2017); therefore, its accurate simulation is key.”
Fifty Years of Research on the Madden‐Julian Oscillation: Recent Progress, Challenges, and Perspectives (2020, methodology): “Most S2S models have significant biases in predicting the pattern and amplitude of the MJO teleconnection (e.g., Vitart, 2017; section 3.4).”
Review of Tropical‐Extratropical Teleconnections on Intraseasonal Time Scales (2017, unknown): “Vitart (2017) extended the evaluation of MJO-NAO analysis to the 10 S2S models (Vitart et al., 2017) and showed that in the forecasts the MJO teleconnections over the Euro-Atlantic sector are weaker than in observations.”