WCD Ideas: Teleconnections through weather rather than stationary waves

Spensberger, Clemens

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2353

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2353

Preprints

19 Oct 2023

| 19 Oct 2023

WCD Ideas: Teleconnections through weather rather than stationary waves

Clemens Spensberger

Abstract. Conventionally, teleconnections in the atmosphere are described by correlations between monthly mean fields. These correlations are supposedly caused by stationary Rossby waves. The main hypothesis explored in this idea is that teleconnections are instead established by chains of events on synoptic time scales, that is by weather. Instead I hypothesise that non-stationary Rossby waves play an important role in establishing teleconnections. If these hypotheses are correct, much of the vast literature on this topic misses an essential part of the atmospheric dynamics leading to teleconnections.

Received: 12 Oct 2023 – Discussion started: 19 Oct 2023

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1139 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (1139 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

30 Apr 2024

WCD Ideas: Teleconnections through weather rather than stationary waves

Clemens Spensberger

Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 659–669, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-659-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-659-2024, 2024

Short summary

Clemens Spensberger

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2353', Volkmar Wirth, 17 Nov 2023

see attached file

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2353-RC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2353', Daniela Domeisen, 30 Nov 2023
REVIEW of „WCD Ideas: Teleconnections through weather rather than stationary waves" by C. Spensberger
Review by D. Domeisen
SUMMARY and OVERALL ASSESSMENT:
This study challenges the use of “teleconnections” as stationary wave patterns, and suggests that Rossby wave train patterns are brought about by smaller-scale non-stationary patterns.
The study is well written and clearly structured. Given that this is an “Ideas” paper based on a viewpoint, I allow myself to add my own view here: I fully agree with the overall message of the manuscript that there is a clear connection between stationary waves and smaller-scale processes. I am less convinced that the teleconnections community is not aware of this point, but I agree that this topic deserves further investigation. I have a range of major comments and questions for the revision that I hope will strengthen the manuscript.
MAJOR COMMENTS
In my opinion the use of the term “teleconnection” for quasi-stationary patterns such as e.g. the North Atlantic Oscillation is incorrect. The term should be used for what was originally defined in Wallace & Gutzler 1981 (also cited in this study), which defines teleconnections as correlations between time variations in meteorological parameters at separated points on the globe. Note that this is my personal opinion, and I am aware that patterns such as the NAO are often referred to as “teleconnection patterns”. However, the views of “local” and “global” teleconnections sometimes appear mixed in the manuscript, and this should be clarified (see detailed comments below).

Stationary wave patterns, such as e.g. the Aleutian low, are clearly made up of smaller-scale processes on shorter timescales – this is well known (e.g. Orlanski, 2005). I don’t think there is much debate of this point, but of course in the sub-seasonal to seasonal literature this question is not discussed, as it is the average state or persistence of these large-scale patterns that matters for long-range teleconnections.

“idealized reanalysis”: This is an interesting idea. It’s however not clear how such a reanalysis would look. Would e.g. other types of waves (gravity waves, Kelvin waves, mixed Rossby-gravity waves, etc) also be part of the dataset? Which variables would be part of the reanalysis?

Step IV: “Predictability through teleconnections.”: currently, predictability and causality are generally evaluated in models using large ensembles that either contain a specific precursor event or not, and hence the causality can easily be established. Another method involved nudging of the atmosphere to a certain state to establish causality. It would be helpful to clarify what the approach through the idealized reanalysis would add to understand the relevant mechanisms.

Step IV: what about precursor processes that are crucial for causing an event that do not involve Rossby waves? For example, tropical convection is crucial for ENSO and MJO teleconnections, but if I understand correctly they would not be represented in the idealized reanalysis.

Following up on point 5, and more generally (beyond step IV described in the manuscript), I think the author may be talking not about teleconnections, but about Rossby wave trains. Teleconnections involve a much wider range of processes than just Rossby waves, including processes in both the atmosphere and the ocean (see e.g. Liu and Alexander, 2007). For the concrete example of ENSO and MJO teleconnections to the North Atlantic that is extensively used in the manuscript, this teleconnection includes a myriad of other processes beyond Rossby waves, see specific point below (lines 116 -121). Given the use of this teleconnection for illustration throughout the manuscript I would encourage the author to refer to the literature covering this teleconnection in more depth (see detailed comment below).

DETAILED MINOR COMMENTS:
Line 11: “Teleconnections can be comparatively local” is not something I would agree with, see major point 1 above.
Line 22: “Teleconnections to ENSO and the MJO”: not clear, do you mean “teleconnections originating from ENSO or the MJO”?
LINES 61-62: the manuscript sometimes goes back and forth between the two definitions of “local” teleconnections and “global” teleconnections. Although the manuscript is said to focus on the global definition, sometimes it falls back to the local definition, e.g. “exchange […] within teleconnections”. See major point 1 above.
Line 54: Hypothesis 3 is formulated much less general than the first two hypotheses. It might be beneficial for the paper to stay at a conceptual level.
Line 73: “they are an expression of their existence”: I assume “they” refers to “stationary waves” and “their” refers to “teleconnections”, is this correct? Please clarify.
Line 96: “potential and limits for predictability through these teleconnections”: yes, indeed. See e.g. Gonzalez-Aleman et al, 2021
Lines 97-100: I don’t agree here. Even for considering teleconnections from a global perspective, and in particular for the example used here for the MJO teleconnection to the North Atlantic, each step is usually considered in isolation, see also point below for lines 116-121 and major point 6.
Lines 101-106: note that this “paradox” is only a paradox for some models. It would be helpful to understand how the approach here can “solve” the paradox.
Lines 105-106: could you elaborate how this is different from the storyline approach?
Lines 116-121: Rossby waves communicating effects of ENSO and the MJO to the North Atlantic have a myriad of roles. It seems from the manuscript, e.g. also lines 144-145, that the author suggests that there is a single process acting all the way from the Indo-Pacific to the North Atlantic through Rossby wave propagation that communicates the effects of ENSO and the MJO to the North Atlantic. First of all, Rossby waves are not the only process that communicates these effects, e.g. for the pathway through the tropical North Atlantic, where the Walker circulation plays a major role. For the pathways that are communicated at least in part by Rossby waves, there is a very wide range of processes. For example, for the pathway of ENSO to the North Atlantic (this pathway has been shown to be the dominant pathway), there are the following processes involved:
Communication of SST anomalies to tropical convection

Tropical convection to North Pacific storm track and Aleutian low (e.g. Deng, Y., and T. Jiang, 2011)

Rossby wave propagation to upper stratosphere

Wave-mean flow interaction from upper stratosphere to lower stratosphere

Lower stratospheric mean temperature anomaly to tropospheric synoptic eddies in the North Atlantic

This is just an example showing how many different processes beyond Rossby waves are involved. Given the message of the manuscript, it would make sense to reduce the analysis to Rossby wave trains rather than teleconnections (see major point 6 above).

TECHNICAL COMMENTS
Line 50: typo: “is global, first step could”
Line 51: typo: “the North Atlantic is storm track is”
Line 57: sentence missing verb
Line 69: check grammar
Line 132: typo: “diagnostic, a I would propose”
Line 136: “similar” to what?
Throughout paper: check grammar for use of “allow”

REFERENCES USED IN THIS REVIEW
Deng, Y., and T. Jiang, 2011: Intraseasonal Modulation of the North Pacific Storm Track by Tropical Convection in Boreal Winter. Journal of Climate, 24, 1122-1137.
González-Alemán et al (2021): Tropospheric role in the predictability of the surface impact of the 2018 sudden stratospheric warming event, Geophysical Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095464
Liu, Z, and M. Alexander. "Atmospheric bridge, oceanic tunnel, and global climatic teleconnections." Reviews of Geophysics 45.2 (2007).
Orlanski, I. (2005). A New Look at the Pacific Storm Track Variability: Sensitivity to Tropical SSTs and to Upstream Seeding, Journal of the atmospheric sciences
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2353-RC2
EC1: 'Editor comment on egusphere-2023-2353', Stephan Pfahl, 08 Dec 2023

Dear Clemens,
Thank you for submitting the first-ever manuscript in the new "WCD ideas" category.
The manuscript has now been reviewed by two experts who provide a series of, in my view, constructive and useful comments. Although it is not possible, due to the paper format, to prove or disprove certain claims based on data analysis in this paper, I'd encourage you to extend the discussion in the manuscript, taking the reviewers' comments into account. In particular, it is important to include the relevant literature that already went in the direction of your idea, to be more precise in the terminology (e.g., with regard to the term "teleconnections" itself), and to add additional discussion on the causality issue as well as the different options to test your hypothesis (including their limitations, such as neglecting certain processes) .
I'm looking forward to receiving a revised version of your manuscript.
Best regards,
Stephan

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2353-EC1
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2353', Clemens Spensberger, 22 Jan 2024

Please refer to the attached document.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2353-AC1

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2353', Volkmar Wirth, 17 Nov 2023

see attached file

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2353-RC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2353', Daniela Domeisen, 30 Nov 2023
REVIEW of „WCD Ideas: Teleconnections through weather rather than stationary waves" by C. Spensberger
Review by D. Domeisen
SUMMARY and OVERALL ASSESSMENT:
This study challenges the use of “teleconnections” as stationary wave patterns, and suggests that Rossby wave train patterns are brought about by smaller-scale non-stationary patterns.
The study is well written and clearly structured. Given that this is an “Ideas” paper based on a viewpoint, I allow myself to add my own view here: I fully agree with the overall message of the manuscript that there is a clear connection between stationary waves and smaller-scale processes. I am less convinced that the teleconnections community is not aware of this point, but I agree that this topic deserves further investigation. I have a range of major comments and questions for the revision that I hope will strengthen the manuscript.
MAJOR COMMENTS
In my opinion the use of the term “teleconnection” for quasi-stationary patterns such as e.g. the North Atlantic Oscillation is incorrect. The term should be used for what was originally defined in Wallace & Gutzler 1981 (also cited in this study), which defines teleconnections as correlations between time variations in meteorological parameters at separated points on the globe. Note that this is my personal opinion, and I am aware that patterns such as the NAO are often referred to as “teleconnection patterns”. However, the views of “local” and “global” teleconnections sometimes appear mixed in the manuscript, and this should be clarified (see detailed comments below).

Stationary wave patterns, such as e.g. the Aleutian low, are clearly made up of smaller-scale processes on shorter timescales – this is well known (e.g. Orlanski, 2005). I don’t think there is much debate of this point, but of course in the sub-seasonal to seasonal literature this question is not discussed, as it is the average state or persistence of these large-scale patterns that matters for long-range teleconnections.

“idealized reanalysis”: This is an interesting idea. It’s however not clear how such a reanalysis would look. Would e.g. other types of waves (gravity waves, Kelvin waves, mixed Rossby-gravity waves, etc) also be part of the dataset? Which variables would be part of the reanalysis?

Step IV: “Predictability through teleconnections.”: currently, predictability and causality are generally evaluated in models using large ensembles that either contain a specific precursor event or not, and hence the causality can easily be established. Another method involved nudging of the atmosphere to a certain state to establish causality. It would be helpful to clarify what the approach through the idealized reanalysis would add to understand the relevant mechanisms.

Step IV: what about precursor processes that are crucial for causing an event that do not involve Rossby waves? For example, tropical convection is crucial for ENSO and MJO teleconnections, but if I understand correctly they would not be represented in the idealized reanalysis.

Following up on point 5, and more generally (beyond step IV described in the manuscript), I think the author may be talking not about teleconnections, but about Rossby wave trains. Teleconnections involve a much wider range of processes than just Rossby waves, including processes in both the atmosphere and the ocean (see e.g. Liu and Alexander, 2007). For the concrete example of ENSO and MJO teleconnections to the North Atlantic that is extensively used in the manuscript, this teleconnection includes a myriad of other processes beyond Rossby waves, see specific point below (lines 116 -121). Given the use of this teleconnection for illustration throughout the manuscript I would encourage the author to refer to the literature covering this teleconnection in more depth (see detailed comment below).

DETAILED MINOR COMMENTS:
Line 11: “Teleconnections can be comparatively local” is not something I would agree with, see major point 1 above.
Line 22: “Teleconnections to ENSO and the MJO”: not clear, do you mean “teleconnections originating from ENSO or the MJO”?
LINES 61-62: the manuscript sometimes goes back and forth between the two definitions of “local” teleconnections and “global” teleconnections. Although the manuscript is said to focus on the global definition, sometimes it falls back to the local definition, e.g. “exchange […] within teleconnections”. See major point 1 above.
Line 54: Hypothesis 3 is formulated much less general than the first two hypotheses. It might be beneficial for the paper to stay at a conceptual level.
Line 73: “they are an expression of their existence”: I assume “they” refers to “stationary waves” and “their” refers to “teleconnections”, is this correct? Please clarify.
Line 96: “potential and limits for predictability through these teleconnections”: yes, indeed. See e.g. Gonzalez-Aleman et al, 2021
Lines 97-100: I don’t agree here. Even for considering teleconnections from a global perspective, and in particular for the example used here for the MJO teleconnection to the North Atlantic, each step is usually considered in isolation, see also point below for lines 116-121 and major point 6.
Lines 101-106: note that this “paradox” is only a paradox for some models. It would be helpful to understand how the approach here can “solve” the paradox.
Lines 105-106: could you elaborate how this is different from the storyline approach?
Lines 116-121: Rossby waves communicating effects of ENSO and the MJO to the North Atlantic have a myriad of roles. It seems from the manuscript, e.g. also lines 144-145, that the author suggests that there is a single process acting all the way from the Indo-Pacific to the North Atlantic through Rossby wave propagation that communicates the effects of ENSO and the MJO to the North Atlantic. First of all, Rossby waves are not the only process that communicates these effects, e.g. for the pathway through the tropical North Atlantic, where the Walker circulation plays a major role. For the pathways that are communicated at least in part by Rossby waves, there is a very wide range of processes. For example, for the pathway of ENSO to the North Atlantic (this pathway has been shown to be the dominant pathway), there are the following processes involved:
Communication of SST anomalies to tropical convection

Tropical convection to North Pacific storm track and Aleutian low (e.g. Deng, Y., and T. Jiang, 2011)

Rossby wave propagation to upper stratosphere

Wave-mean flow interaction from upper stratosphere to lower stratosphere

Lower stratospheric mean temperature anomaly to tropospheric synoptic eddies in the North Atlantic

This is just an example showing how many different processes beyond Rossby waves are involved. Given the message of the manuscript, it would make sense to reduce the analysis to Rossby wave trains rather than teleconnections (see major point 6 above).

TECHNICAL COMMENTS
Line 50: typo: “is global, first step could”
Line 51: typo: “the North Atlantic is storm track is”
Line 57: sentence missing verb
Line 69: check grammar
Line 132: typo: “diagnostic, a I would propose”
Line 136: “similar” to what?
Throughout paper: check grammar for use of “allow”

REFERENCES USED IN THIS REVIEW
Deng, Y., and T. Jiang, 2011: Intraseasonal Modulation of the North Pacific Storm Track by Tropical Convection in Boreal Winter. Journal of Climate, 24, 1122-1137.
González-Alemán et al (2021): Tropospheric role in the predictability of the surface impact of the 2018 sudden stratospheric warming event, Geophysical Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095464
Liu, Z, and M. Alexander. "Atmospheric bridge, oceanic tunnel, and global climatic teleconnections." Reviews of Geophysics 45.2 (2007).
Orlanski, I. (2005). A New Look at the Pacific Storm Track Variability: Sensitivity to Tropical SSTs and to Upstream Seeding, Journal of the atmospheric sciences
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2353-RC2
EC1: 'Editor comment on egusphere-2023-2353', Stephan Pfahl, 08 Dec 2023

Dear Clemens,
Thank you for submitting the first-ever manuscript in the new "WCD ideas" category.
The manuscript has now been reviewed by two experts who provide a series of, in my view, constructive and useful comments. Although it is not possible, due to the paper format, to prove or disprove certain claims based on data analysis in this paper, I'd encourage you to extend the discussion in the manuscript, taking the reviewers' comments into account. In particular, it is important to include the relevant literature that already went in the direction of your idea, to be more precise in the terminology (e.g., with regard to the term "teleconnections" itself), and to add additional discussion on the causality issue as well as the different options to test your hypothesis (including their limitations, such as neglecting certain processes) .
I'm looking forward to receiving a revised version of your manuscript.
Best regards,
Stephan

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2353-EC1
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2353', Clemens Spensberger, 22 Jan 2024

Please refer to the attached document.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2353-AC1

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Clemens Spensberger on behalf of the Authors (12 Feb 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 Feb 2024) by Stephan Pfahl

RR by Volkmar Wirth (02 Mar 2024)

For final publication, the manuscript should be

accepted as is

accepted subject to technical corrections

accepted subject to minor revisions

reconsidered after major revisions

rejected

Were a revised manuscript to be sent for another round of reviews:

I would be willing to review the revised manuscript.

I would not be willing to review the revised manuscript.

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The author revised the manuscript carefully and addressed most of my concerns - except the issue about causality, which I am still not happy with (see below).

While reading the revised manuscript I found a few minor issues, and I am not sure whether these are new ones of I just did not stumble acrosse them upon my first reading. In any case I think these minor issues should be addressed before publication.

Overall I think this is thought-provoking and useful contribution which should definitely published.

Minor issues

Lines 42-43: you may want to add a recent reference about the limit of (intrinsic and practical) predictability in midlatitudes, namely T. Selz, M. Riemer, and G. C. Craig: The transition from practical to intrinsic predictability of midlatitude weather. J. Atmos. Sci., 79, 2013–2030, 2022.

Line 50:” They further require spatial variations in the mean state to be gentle enough to not interfere with wave propagation.” Is that really true? To be sure, linear wave theory requires quadratic terms to be small compared to the linear ones, but does it make any assumptions about spatial variations? The latter sounds as if you are referring to the WKB approximation. However, the WKB approximation is not part of linear wave theory (although it is sometimes made in addition to linear wave theory).

Line 93: I still do not see how causality (in general) is lost in stationary wave theory. As I said earlier, the (external) forcing is the cause for the emerging wave train. In my eyes, this is NOT analogous to the diagnostic relation between the geostrophic wind and the pressure gradient, which clearly precludes any interpretation in terms of cause and effect.

Line 118: “….because it transforms teleconnections from statistical relations to a causal chain of events….”: well, to the extent that linear wave theory applies, it does provide a causal explanation in my eyes. Again, the problem is not that the Hoskins-Karoly theory lacks causality, the problem is rather to understand why or whether it can be applied to the problem of teleconnections.

Line 152: better “…. the EP-flux, the divergence of which….”

Line 169: “…the required mean state cannot represent zonal asymmetries….” , well, this drawback can also be overcome, at least in a practical sense, see C. Polster and V. Wirth: A new atmospheric background state to diagnose local waveguidability. GRL, 50:DOI:10.1029/2023GL106166, 2023.

Line 182: „….the mean state (Fig. 3a, d) remains a poor representation of the varying conditions non-stationary Rossby waves might encounter …”: just to be sure, the novel background state of Polster and Wirth (2013) can be computed from just a single snapshot, and it does vary (smoothly, though) from day to day.

You make a good point in Fig 3. However, the problem may be not so much the need to choose a background state in order to define a “wave”, but rather that in the past the chosen background state was inappropriate.

Hide

RR by Daniela Domeisen (03 Mar 2024)

For final publication, the manuscript should be

accepted as is

accepted subject to technical corrections

accepted subject to minor revisions

reconsidered after major revisions

rejected

Were a revised manuscript to be sent for another round of reviews:

I would be willing to review the revised manuscript.

I would not be willing to review the revised manuscript.

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

REVIEW of „WCD Ideas: Teleconnections through weather rather than stationary waves" by C. Spensberger
Review by D. Domeisen

SUMMARY and OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

I would like to thank the author for considering my comments and addressing them in much detail. I think the manuscript has improved a lot during the revision. I have a range of remaining minor comments, after which I think the manuscript can be published without another round by the reviewers.

Line numbers used below refer to the annotated manuscript.

COMMENTS:

Line 26: it’s not clear what “this idea” refers to here. It sounds like it refers to “The stationary wave paradigm” used in the sentence before, but I don’t think that’s what the author intended.

For the parts describing the MJO teleconnection, I have a few more suggestions for references that may be useful, especially with respect to the prediction aspect, I’m listing them in the “references” section. I leave it up to the author to decide which ones (if any) are useful for this manuscript.

I think all the references to Figure 3 should refer to Figure 2 instead, as Figure 2 is not referred to in the text, please correct (apologies if I missed it).

Overall, the manuscript is still rather Europe-centric. I understand this might be the goal, in which case I do not want to interfere here, but I would like to point out that it would be rather straight forward to make the manuscript more globally applicable by considering e.g. MJO teleconnections to other extratropical regions, such as e.g. line 46: the MJO is important in S2S prediction not just for the North Atlantic region.

Lines 46-51: I think it needs to be made clear here that the first sentence talks about deterministic predictability, while S2S prediction, which is the focus of this study, is entirely based on ensemble prediction. I would recommend to avoid mixing the two concepts here. We considered the deterministic limit here, maybe interesting: Domeisen et al: "How predictable are the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations? Exploring the variability and predictability of the Northern Hemisphere." Journal of Climate 31.3 (2018): 997-1014.

Line 93: hence, a “teleconnection event” would be a case where the MJO has a teleconnection to the North Atlantic?

Section 6: I appreciate the additions in this section which helped a lot to clarify the plans / concept of this study.

TECHNICAL COMMENTS:

Line 73: “the missing causal explanation” suggestion to add sth like “explanation of …”

Line 82: “within the teleconnection”: above (line 80) “teleconnections between the MJO and the North Atlantic” was used in plural, would be consistent here

Line 149: “The conceptual reframing of teleconnections suggested breaks down” potential for confusion, re-formulate?

Line 92: “or within teleconnections” I think this is something I remarked in my first review, where the term “teleconnection” is used in the sense of local pattern rather than long-distance teleconnections.

Line 151: “there is” -> “there are”

Figure 2 caption: “a chains of weather events” -> “a chain of weather events”

Figure 2 caption: “similarity in state” not clear

POTENTIALLY USEFUL REFERENCES

Franzke et al. "Systematic decomposition of the MJO and its Northern Hemispheric extratropical response into Rossby and inertio‐gravity components." Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 145.720 (2019): 1147-1164.

Garfinkel et al. "Impact of the MJO on the boreal winter extratropical circulation." Geophysical Research Letters 41.16 (2014): 6055-6062.

Garfinkel et al. "The winter North Pacific teleconnection in response to ENSO and the MJO in operational subseasonal forecasting models is too weak." Journal of Climate35.24 (2022): 8013-8030.

Garfinkel et al. "Observed connection between stratospheric sudden warmings and the Madden‐Julian Oscillation." Geophysical Research Letters 39.18 (2012).

Garfinkel and Schwartz. "MJO‐related tropical convection anomalies lead to more accurate stratospheric vortex variability in subseasonal forecast models." Geophysical research letters 44.19 (2017): 10-054.

Schwartz & Garfinkel. "Relative roles of the MJO and stratospheric variability in North Atlantic and European winter climate." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres122.8 (2017): 4184-4201.

Schwartz & Garfinkel. "Troposphere‐stratosphere coupling in subseasonal‐to‐seasonal models and its importance for a realistic extratropical response to the Madden‐Julian Oscillation." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 125.10 (2020): e2019JD032043.

Stan et al. "Advances in the prediction of MJO teleconnections in the S2S forecast systems." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 103.6 (2022): E1426-E1447.

Vitart. "Madden—Julian Oscillation prediction and teleconnections in the S2S database." Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 143.706 (2017): 2210-2220.

Yadav et al. "The role of the stratosphere in teleconnections arising from fast and slow MJO episodes." Geophysical Research Letters 51.1 (2024): e2023GL104826.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (04 Mar 2024) by Stephan Pfahl

AR by Clemens Spensberger on behalf of the Authors (11 Mar 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (15 Mar 2024) by Stephan Pfahl

AR by Clemens Spensberger on behalf of the Authors (18 Mar 2024) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

30 Apr 2024

WCD Ideas: Teleconnections through weather rather than stationary waves

Clemens Spensberger

Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 659–669, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-659-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-659-2024, 2024

Short summary

Clemens Spensberger

Viewed

Total article views: 362 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
217	131	14	362	7	7

HTML: 217
PDF: 131
XML: 14
Total: 362
BibTeX: 7
EndNote: 7

Views and downloads (calculated since 19 Oct 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2023	116	79	4	199
Nov 2023	21	10	1	32
Dec 2023	31	8	2	41
Jan 2024	15	3	1	19
Feb 2024	6	11	2	19
Mar 2024	12	13	1	26
Apr 2024	16	7	3	26

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 19 Oct 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2023	116	79	4	199
Nov 2023	21	10	1	32
Dec 2023	31	8	2	41
Jan 2024	15	3	1	19
Feb 2024	6	11	2	19
Mar 2024	12	13	1	26
Apr 2024	16	7	3	26

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 348 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 348 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 30 Apr 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (1139 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

It is well-established that variations in convection in the tropical Indo-Pacific can influence weather in far-away regions. In this idea, I argue that the main theory used to explain this influence over large distances is incomplete. I propose hypotheses that could lead the way towards a more fundamental explanation, and outline a novel approach that could be used to test the hypotheses I raise. The suggested approach might be useful to address also other long-standing questions.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0