Subseasonal midlatitude prediction skill following Quasi-Biennial Oscillation and Madden–Julian Oscillation activity

Mayer, Kirsten J.; Barnes, Elizabeth A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-247-2020

Articles | Volume 1, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-247-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-247-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 1, issue 1

Research article

|

07 May 2020

Research article |

| 07 May 2020

Subseasonal midlatitude prediction skill following Quasi-Biennial Oscillation and Madden–Julian Oscillation activity

Kirsten J. Mayer and Elizabeth A. Barnes

Download

Final revised paper (published on 07 May 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 16 Dec 2019)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'review', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jan 2020
- AC1: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #1', Kirsten Mayer, 27 Feb 2020
RC2: 'Review of “Subseasonal Midlatitude Prediction Skill Following QBO-MJO Activity” by Kirsten Mayer and Elizabeth Barnes', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Jan 2020
- AC2: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #2', Kirsten Mayer, 27 Feb 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Kirsten Mayer on behalf of the Authors (04 Mar 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Mar 2020) by Michael Riemer

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (28 Mar 2020)

For final publication, the manuscript should be

accepted as is

accepted subject to technical corrections

accepted subject to minor revisions

reconsidered after major revisions

I would be willing to review the revised paper, if the editor considers it necessary.

I am not willing to review the revised paper.

rejected

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have satisfactorily addressed my previous comments. I just have one final question, and though a thorough treatment is likely beyond the scope of this work as the authors acknowledge their focus isn't on mechanisms, I would appreciate some discussion.

The authors restrict their analysis to the first 28 days, but figure 5 makes it is clear that skill associated with the QBO isn't decaying at the end of this period as significant anomalies are still present at day 28. In other words, it appears that the QBO leads to a **lengthening** of the period over which the MJO has a significant impact. At shorter lags the MJO teleconnection doesn't depend on the QBO phase, but at longer lags it does depend on the QBO phase. Do the results in figure 5 persist for lags beyond day 28? ECMWF has data out to day 46 if I remember correctly, and NCEP extends even longer.

Assuming my interpretation is correct, a possible mechanism for this effect is the MJO affecting the Arctic stratosphere and then subsequently affecting the surface (Schwartz and Garfinkel 2017), and in particular there seems to be some sensitivity of the type of response of the Arctic stratosphere to the MJO based on the QBO phase (Liu et al 2014). I'm not aware of anyone who has looked at the downward impact to the surface however.

Schwartz, C. and Garfinkel, C.I., 2017. Relative roles of the MJO and stratospheric variability in North Atlantic and European winter climate. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122(8), pp.4184-4201.

Liu, C., Tian, B., Li, K.F., Manney, G.L., Livesey, N.J., Yung, Y.L. and Waliser, D.E., 2014. Northern Hemisphere mid‐winter vortex‐displacement and vortex‐split stratospheric sudden warmings: Influence of the Madden‐Julian Oscillation and Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 119(22), pp.12-599.

If the authors haven't already downloaded the data beyond day 28 they shouldn't start now, but it would be interesting to me to see if their results extend to days 30-45

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (29 Mar 2020)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (13 Apr 2020) by Michael Riemer

AR by Kirsten Mayer on behalf of the Authors (16 Apr 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (20 Apr 2020) by Michael Riemer

AR by Kirsten Mayer on behalf of the Authors (21 Apr 2020) Manuscript

Download

The requested paper has a corresponding corrigendum published. Please read the corrigendum first before downloading the article.

Article (7419 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

Tropical storms are key for harnessing midlatitude weather prediction skill 2–8 weeks into the future. Recently, stratospheric activity was shown to impact tropical storminess and thus may also be important for midlatitude prediction skill on these timescales. This work analyzes two forecast systems to assess whether they capture this additional skill. We find there is enhanced prediction out through week 4 when both the tropical and stratospheric phenomena are active.