JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D21117, doi:10.

1029/2011JD016031, 2011

Intraseasonal moist static energy budget in reanalysis data

L. Kiranmayi1 and Eric D. Maloney1
Received 29 March 2011; revised 19 August 2011; accepted 22 August 2011; published 12 November 2011.
[1] The vertically integrated moist static energy (MSE) budget and moisture budgets of
the Madden‐Julian oscillation (MJO) are studied using 16 years of National Centers for
Environmental Prediction Reanalysis II data and European Centre for Medium Range
Weather Forecasts interim reanalysis data. Longitudinal distributions of vertically
integrated MSE and latent heat (Lq) anomalies as well as their advective tendency terms
are studied as a function of MJO phase. They are shown to have similar patterns and
magnitudes, indicating that variations in MSE are mainly governed by moisture on
intraseasonal time scales. MSE anomalies are approximately in phase with precipitation.
Reanalysis MSE budget results are compared with the general circulation model results of
Maloney (2009) (hereinafter M09). Many aspects of the reanalysis MSE budget resemble
those of M09, with strong contributions from horizontal advection in increasing
(decreasing) column MSE before (after) peak MJO convection. Other terms in the
vertically integrated MSE budget, including vertical advection, are relatively larger in the
reanalysis compared to M09 model results. Vertical advection contributes as much or more
than horizontal advection to MSE buildup in advance of MJO convection in the reanalysis
data sets. A large budget residual also exists which appears to suggest a missing
moistening source in advance of MJO convection that provides a caveat to the results
derived here. A positive covariance between radiative and surface fluxes and precipitation
anomalies indicates that these flux terms slow the discharge of column MSE during
an MJO event and may help to destabilize the MJO. As in the work of M09, variability in
synoptic eddy activity as a function of the MJO phase dominates the meridional advection
term. Suppression of synoptic eddies appears to contribute to anomalous moistening of the
atmospheric column in advance of MJO convection.
Citation: Kiranmayi, L., and E. D. Maloney (2011), Intraseasonal moist static energy budget in reanalysis data, J. Geophys.
Res., 116, D21117, doi:10.1029/2011JD016031.

1. Introduction [3] The tropical atmosphere has been shown to be regu-

lated by weak tropical temperature gradients on time and
[2] The Madden‐Julian oscillation (MJO) is the dominant
space scales characteristic of the MJO [e.g., Sobel and
mode of intraseasonal variability in the tropics [Madden and
Bretherton, 2000; Yano and Bonazzola, 2009]. Further,
Julian, 1994; Zhang, 2005]. The MJO was first discovered
observations demonstrate a strong regulation of tropical
by Madden and Julian [1971] and is characterized by east-
convection by tropospheric water vapor [e.g., Bretherton
ward moving precipitation anomalies over the Indian and
et al., 2004; Peters and Neelin, 2006]. Recent studies
west Pacific Oceans with typical periods of 30 to 60 days,
hypothesize that the MJO is a moisture mode, with the
coupled to an anomalous large‐scale circulation. The under-
dynamics of these modes regulated by processes controlling
standing and prediction of the MJO is one of the most the tropospheric moisture field under the assumption of
challenging problems in tropical meteorology. Many pre-
weak tropical temperature gradients [e.g., Raymond and
vious observational studies have documented the structure
Fuchs, 2009; Sugiyama, 2009; Maloney et al., 2010]. Kuang
and characteristics of this phenomenon from observations [2011] described a very similar dynamics, but with tem-
[Madden and Julian, 1972; Knutson et al., 1986; Nakazawa,
perature variations playing an important indirect role in the
1988; Sperber 2003]. However, a consensus on the MJO’s
moisture budget by modifying the vertical structure of
basic physics and an accurate simulation of its timescale and
heating and hence divergent flow. Maloney et al. [2010] and
spatial structure in climate models remains elusive [Zhang,
Landu and Maloney [2011] argued using an aquaplanet
2005].
version of an atmospheric general circulation model that the
MJO is a moisture mode destabilized by wind‐evaporation
1
Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort
feedback and cloud‐radiative feedbacks, and propagated
Collins, Colorado, USA. eastward through horizontal moisture advection. It should be
noted that by no means is the concept of the MJO as a
Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union. moisture mode mutually exclusive from other theories on
0148‐0227/11/2011JD016031

D21117 1 of 12
D21117 KIRANMAYI AND MALONEY: INTRASEASONAL MSE BUDGET IN NCEP AND ERA
MJO dynamics including the importance of cumulus momen-
tum transports to the MJO [e.g., Tung and Yanai, 2002; Majda
and Stechmann, 2009]. For example, the details of the
momentum budget regulate the phase relationship between
surface fluxes and advective moisture tendencies relative to
MJO convection, which can strongly regulate the anomalous
moisture budget.
[4] The moist static energy (MSE) budget has recently
been cited as a useful tool for understanding the MJO and
other tropical disturbances [e.g., Peters and Bretherton, 2006;
Boos and Kuang, 2010; Kuang, 2011; Frierson et al., 2011;
Maloney, 2009, hereinafter M09]. Under weak temperature
gradient theory, the vertically integrated MSE tendency is
equivalent to the latent heat tendency. The role of different
terms like horizontal and vertical advection, and surface
fluxes and radiative heating in the MSE budget can give
insight into the effect of various processes in contributing to
destabilization and propagation of the MJO. Previous stud-
ies have shown that a buildup of moisture and MSE occurs
before an MJO precipitation event, and a decrease occurs
after the MJO precipitation event [e.g., Kemball‐Cook and
Weare, 2001; Kiladis et al., 2005; M09]. A recharge‐
discharge theory for the MJO has been proposed on the basis
of such behavior [e.g., Benedict and Randall, 2007]. Several
previous studies have examined the reanalysis MSE and
energy budgets in the atmosphere [Trenberth and Stepaniak,
2003; Back and Bretherton, 2006; Peters et al., 2008]. For
example, Peters et al. [2008] emphasized the role of orga-
nized convection in producing horizontal eddy advection of
MSE in the central and east Pacific that helped regulate
ITCZ convection. A comprehensive MSE budget during
MJO events has not been specifically addressed in these
studies. However, Haertel et al. [2008] showed using data
during the TOGA‐COARE period that vertical advection
associated with shallow convection supports MSE growth in
advance of deep MJO convection.
[5] The intraseasonal MSE budget in a general circulation
model that produces a robust MJO was discussed in the
work of M09. The results showed the prominent role of
horizontal advection in regulating MSE variations in the
model. The model produced a buildup of MSE before the
MJO precipitation peak, and substantial decline of MSE
during and after the precipitation event, in agreement with
observed MJO behavior. Horizontal advection was the
largest magnitude term in the anomalous column‐integrated
MSE budget, and dominated the anomalous moistening and
drying of the atmospheric column. A prominent role for
zonal advection in MJO propagation was also noted in a
subsequent study by Maloney et al. [2010] that used an
aquaplanet version of this same model. Anomalous zonal
and meridional advection were equally important to the
MSE budget in these modeling studies, although the zonal
advection term appeared unrealistically strong owing to
substantial mean state biases in humidity and winds.
Anomalies in model meridional advection were largely
produced by the action of synoptic eddies advecting moisture
across the mean and anomalous MSE gradients. Increased
eddy activity during the MJO convective phase produced
anomalous equatorial drying through increased equatorward
advection of dry subtropical air in the lower troposphere
above the boundary layer. Likewise, during the MJO low‐
2 of 12
D21117
level easterly period when convection and eddies are sup-
pressed, this drying process is inhibited, leading to anomalous
moistening. Hence, variations in meridional MSE advection
were produced because intraseasonal lower‐tropospheric
easterly (westerly) wind anomalies were associated with
decreased (enhanced) eddy kinetic energy in the model as in
observations [e.g., Maloney and Dickinson, 2003; Hsu et al.,
2011; Hsu and Li, 2011]. Latent heat fluxes were shown to
slow the effect of horizontal advection in building up and
discharging MSE, by incompletely cancelling the advection
anomalies.
[6] The present study seeks to test the model‐derived
results of M09 and compare the intraseasonal moisture and
MSE budgets over the Indian and west Pacific Oceans in
two different reanalysis data sets. Though the reanalysis
products are different from observations, and are strongly
influenced by model parameterizations, we use these data
sets in the present paper because they represent a state‐of‐
the‐art attempt to replicate the observational truth on a
global scale. The data and analysis methodology are
explained in section 2. Section 3 presents an analysis of the
anomalous vertically integrated MSE and latent heat bud-
gets for the MJO across the west Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Section 4 presents a decomposition of anomalous hori-
zontal MSE advection to determine the key processes con-
trolling this term. Discussion and conclusions are provided
in section 5.
2. Data and Methodology
[7] National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)
Reanalysis −2 data [Kanamitsu et al., 2002] and European
Centre for Medium range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)
interim reanalysis data (ERA‐INTERIM, hereinafter ERA‐I)
[Simmons et al., 2006] are used to calculate the vertically
integrated intraseasonal MSE and moisture budgets. We
note that the reanalysis data sets used here are not true
observations, but rather are data assimilation products that
ingest observations. Hence, the reanalysis fields we use may
be strongly constrained by parameterization assumptions
made in the NCEP and ECMWF models. This point should
be noted when considering the results from reanalysis fields
shown below. Relative humidity (RH), specific humidity
(q), temperature (T), geopotential height (z), and horizontal
and vertical winds were downloaded at each vertical level.
The latent heat and sensible heat fluxes at the surface and
shortwave and longwave radiation fluxes at the surface and
top of atmosphere were also obtained. MSE (m) is defined
as m = cpT + gz + Lq, where cp is the specific heat of dry air,
L is the latent heat of condensation, and g is the gravitational
constant. All seasons of sixteen years of data from 1 January
1993 until 31 December 2008 are used. Daily data is used
on a 2.5° × 2.5° grid in case of NCEP reanalysis and 4 times
daily data on a 1.5° × 1.5° grid in case of ERA‐I. Where
appropriate, band‐pass filtering to 30 to 90 day periods
using a digital nonrecursive filter is used to retain variability
on MJO time scales [Kiranmayi and Bhat, 2009]. Tian et al.
[2010] showed that the ability of reanalysis models to accu-
rately capture the phase and amplitude of moisture and tem-
perature anomalies relative to the Atmospheric Infrared
Sounder varied depending on reanalysis data set. For exam-
D21117 KIRANMAYI AND MALONEY: INTRASEASONAL MSE BUDGET IN NCEP AND ERA
ple, while ERA‐I could accurately capture the vertical
structure of MJO moisture anomalies, the amplitude was not
as well captured. Hence, these potential limitations of the
reanalysis data sets should be considered when assessing the
quality of the advective tendencies calculated below.
[8] The vertically integrated MSE budget is calculated as
in the work of M09, and also defined in previous papers
[e.g., Yanai et al., 1973; Neelin and Held, 1987; Back and
Bretherton, 2006]. The MSE budget equation is approxi-
mately given by

 D* E
@m
@m
¼  V  rm  ! þ LH þ SH þ hLW i þ hSW i
@t @p
ð1Þ
*
where V is the horizontal velocity vector, LH and SH are
latent and sensible heat fluxes at the surface, hLWi and hSWi
are net column‐integrated longwave and shortwave heating
rates, and ù is pressure velocity. The parentheses represent
vertical integrals, where vertical integrals are calculated
from the surface to 100 mb. The exception is that the
radiative flux components are defined as the difference
between the surface and top of atmosphere fluxes. Advec-
tive terms in equation (1) and elsewhere were computed
using spherical coordinates.
[9] Similarly, the moisture budget equation is approxi-
mately given as (neglecting cloud water and ice):

 D* E
@q
@q
¼  V  rq  ! PþE ð2Þ
@t @p
where P and E are precipitation and surface evaporation,
respectively. We often multiply the vertically integrated
moisture budget by L in the analysis below for direct
comparison with the MSE budget. In both equations (1) and
(2), a substantial residual also exists, as discussed further
below.
[10] In some of the analysis *below, the horizontal
advection term in equation (1) (−V · rm) is divided into
meridional and zonal components (−n∂m/∂y and −u∂m/∂x).
Variables within these terms are then further separated into
mean and eddy components (e.g., u = ^ u + u′) for better
attribution of the horizontal advection anomalies. The mean
terms (with overbars) represent a 51 day running mean
and eddy terms (with primes) represent the deviation from
51 day running mean, for consistency and direct comparison
with M09.
[11] Composites of MSE and moisture budget terms as a
function of MJO phase are presented in the results. The
phase of the MJO is calculated using the real time multivariate
MJO (RMM) indices of Wheeler and Hendon [2004]. The
indices are available at the following website (http://www.
bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/matw/maproom/RMM). MJO
phase composites are determined in an identical manner to
Wheeler and Hendon [2004] using the two leading RMM
indices. Phase is related to the arctangent of the ratio of the
first two RMM indices, and amplitude represented as the
square root of the sum of their squares. Composites are
generated by averaging all periods with amplitude that
exceeds one standard deviation within bins that span 45° of
phase angle. On average, 57 data points per MJO phase go
into generating the composites shown below. All of the
3 of 12
D21117
results presented below are averaged over the tropical belt of
10°S to 10°N.
3. MSE and Moisture Budget Analysis
[12] The longitudinal distributions of the vertically inte-
grated 30–90 day band‐pass‐filtered MSE and Lq anomalies
versus MJO phase are shown in Figures 1a and 1b using
NCEP and ERA‐I data. The distribution of MSE using both
data sets is similar, although the magnitude of the MSE
anomalies is slightly lower in ERA‐I compared to NCEP.
Slow eastward propagation of MSE and Lq anomalies
occurs until the Dateline. Interestingly, hints of westward
propagation in MSE anomalies, and to a lesser extent in
precipitation, is apparent from 180°E to 240°E. This behavior
appears to be associated with and initiated by convective
variability in the east Pacific warm pool during boreal
summer, and is more prominent to the north of 10°N (not
shown). Maloney et al. [2008, Figures 6 and 8] show that
detail propagation characteristics of intraseasonal convective
variability in the east Pacific during boreal summer show
evidence of westward propagation to the west of 240W.
Boreal summer intraseasonal convective variability in the
east Pacific warm pool appears to be highly coherent with
the MJO, which is consistent with a composite signal in
MSE (and to a lesser extent in precipitation) appearing in
Figure 1. We are conducting an ongoing work to determine
the precise nature of the MJO teleconnection to the east
Pacific warm pool, and the extent to which a strong 50 day
peak can exist in the east Pacific in the absence of forcing
from the west Pacific.
[13] A strong similarity exists in the behavior of MSE and
Lq, especially over the Indo‐Pacific warm pool, indicating
that the variations in MSE on intraseasonal scales are mainly
governed by moisture variations (in the warm pool about
80% of the MSE amplitude is explained by latent heat). The
relationship of the MJO precipitation anomalies to vertically
integrated MSE and Lq anomalies is also shown in Figure 1,
using both NCEP and ERA‐I precipitation data. Precipita-
tion data from the reanalysis data sets are used here rather
than satellite‐derived fields for consistency with the mois-
ture budget shown below. Positive precipitation anomalies
are accompanied by positive anomalies of MSE and q.
Within the Indian and west Pacific Oceans, MSE and pre-
cipitation anomalies are approximately in phase, consistent
with the strong documented relationship between precipita-
tion and column water vapor [e.g., Bretherton et al., 2004].
[14] The phase variations of the budget terms in
equations (1) and (2) at 155°E are shown in Figure 2 using
both ERA‐I and NCEP2 data. Intraseasonal precipitation
anomalies are also shown in the MSE budget plot. Surface
fluxes and vertically integrated radiative heating anomalies
are combined. The phase is shifted in such a way that the
precipitation maximum occurs at 180° phase. The tendency
terms ∂m/∂t and ∂q/∂t are in phase, and are of approximately
the same magnitude, emphasizing the dominance of Lq in
intraseasonal MSE variations. While not shown, the ten-
dencies in m and Lq at the time of peak anomalies are sig-
nificantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level.
Similar to the modeling results of M09, ∂m/∂t is positive
before the precipitation event, and is negative during and
after the precipitation peak. Both reanalysis data sets show
D21117 KIRANMAYI AND MALONEY: INTRASEASONAL MSE BUDGET IN NCEP AND ERA D21117

Figure 1. Longitude ‐phase distribution of vertically integrated MSE (J/m2) anomalies averaged over
10°S–10°N using (a) NCEP2 reanalysis and (b) ERA‐I reanalysis data and vertically integrated (Lq)
anomalies using (c) NCEP2 and (d) ERA‐I reanalysis data. Precipitation anomalies (lines) from NCEP2
(Figures 1a and 1c) and ERA‐I (Figures 1b and 1d) are superimposed on MSE and Lq anomalies. Black
(gray) contours represent positive (negative) anomalies. The contour interval is 1 mm/d. The averaging
interval used for the composites is 45° of phase, and the first interval starts at zero degrees. Hence the
last ordinate point is at 315°E.

similar behavior. However, the magnitude of ∂m/∂t relative
to the precipitation anomaly is higher in the reanalysis MSE
budget compared to the M09 model. The advection terms
and the flux terms have similar phase relationships relative
to precipitation, MSE, and Lq to those in the work of M09.
Horizontal advection leads precipitation and is a significant
contributor to the MSE tendency. Although clearly con-
tributing to a positive tendency in advance of MJO con-
vection, horizontal advection is not exactly in phase with the
MSE tendency, and tends to precede the tendency peak in
time. In fact, the positive tendency in advance of MJO
convection is unbalanced by the sum of the terms shown in
Figure 2. Figure 3 and related discussion below indicates
that a substantial MSE budget residual exists in our budget
calculations, and hence an entirely comprehensive under-
standing of the MSE recharge and discharge process during
MJO events may not be possible from our analysis.
[15] Surface flux and radiative heating anomalies have a
positive covariance with MJO precipitation, consistent with
other observational analyses [e.g., Araligidad and Maloney,
2008; Lin and Mapes, 2004; Grodsky et al., 2009]. Radia-
tive flux anomalies are larger than surface flux anomalies,
which is seen by comparing Figure 2 (bottom) to Figure 2
(top). A difference from M09 is that vertical advection
appears to have a more dominant role in the MSE budget in
reanalysis data than in the model, where it was less than
1/5th of the magnitude of precipitation anomalies. On the
basis of the phase relationship between vertical advection
and the tendency, vertical advection term appears to con-
tribute to the buildup of MSE in advance of MJO convection
in both reanalysis products, consistent with the analysis of
Haertel et al. [2008].
[16] It should be noted that a substantial residual appears
that is as large as the tendency, such that a MSE source
appears to be missing or miscalculated in both reanalysis
products in the growth stage of MSE anomalies in advance
of MJO convection (Figure 3). In ERA‐I, this missing
source appears attributable to errors in moisture tendencies,
although in NCEP reanalysis this is less clear (not shown).
Previous research has noted a misrepresentation of the
moistening process in advance of MJO convection in
reanalysis models. For example, the MERRA reanalysis
product adds an analysis increment to the moisture budget in
advance of MJO convection that accounts for missing

4 of 12
D21117 KIRANMAYI AND MALONEY: INTRASEASONAL MSE BUDGET IN NCEP AND ERA D21117

Figure 2. Vertically integrated anomalous (top) MSE and (bottom) moisture budget terms from
equations (1) and (2) for (left) ERA‐I and (right) NCEP2.

moistening processes (Brian Mapes, personal communica-
tion, 2010). Also, because we are conducting our analysis
using data in interpolated pressure levels and are not using
the precise advection schemes native to the reanalysis
models, further errors in budget terms will inevitably be
introduced owing to working with standard output variables
rather than advective terms output directly from the model
dynamical core. This is especially true as the vertical
advection term in the MSE budget is the small residual of
two large terms (i.e., dry static energy divergence and
moisture convergence) [Neelin and Held, 1987]. We are
conducting experiments with the NCAR Community
Atmosphere model to compare exact advection terms output
from the model dynamical core to those derived in a post-
processed manner from standard output variables that are
interpolated to standard pressure levels to determine how
well MSE and moisture budgets can be closed. We will
report on these investigations in future work. Regardless, the
large residual shown here is clearly a caveat on the budget
analysis we present.
[17] In the case of the latent heat budget, the main balance
is between precipitation and vertical advection anomalies, as
expected. The tendency and horizontal advection terms are
of similar magnitude and are nearly in phase with those from
the MSE budget, and the evaporation term has a peak near
or slightly after the precipitation peak. As with the MSE
budget, the residual term has a magnitude on the same order
as the tendency and horizontal advection terms (not shown).
[18] The moisture budget terms averaged over different
longitudinal bands using ERA‐I data are shown in Figure 4.
Here we show the results from ERA‐I data alone as both
NCEP and ERA‐I show qualitatively similar behavior. In all
the plots, the phase is shifted in such a way that the maxi-
mum precipitation corresponds to 180° phase at the corre-
sponding longitude band. For all longitude bands, some
common features exist. The main balance is between verti-
cal advection and precipitation. An anomalous positive
tendency in Lq exists before the precipitation peak, and
negative tendency after the peak. Horizontal advection and
tendency terms are in phase and have similar magnitude,

5 of 12
D21117 KIRANMAYI AND MALONEY: INTRASEASONAL MSE BUDGET IN NCEP AND ERA D21117

Figure 3. Phase distribution of MSE budget residual term at 155°E relative to precipitation and tendency
terms from ERA‐I and NCEPII reanalysis data.

suggesting a key role for horizontal advection in moistening
(drying) in advance of (after) the peak MJO precipitation at
all longitudes. The residual term is also in phase with these
two terms for all locations, suggesting a missing anomalous
moistening or drying source depending on phase (not
shown). These features are similar to moisture budget terms
at 155°E described earlier.
[19] The longitudinal distributions of the different terms in
equations (1) and (2) versus phase are shown in Figures 5–7.
The intraseasonal precipitation anomalies are shown in
contours in all the plots. Figure 5 shows ∂m/∂t and ∂q/∂t
terms. Over the Indian and west Pacific Oceans, where the
MJO signal dominates, the precipitation and tendency terms
are almost in quadrature with the peak in the tendency fields
leading the precipitation by about 90° of phase. This result is
similar to the modeling result of M09 at 155°E, indicating a
buildup of MSE before precipitation and subsequent dis-
charge during and after precipitation event.
[20] The longitudinal distribution of the vertically inte-
grated anomalous horizontal MSE and Lq advection versus
phase is shown in Figure 6. An eastward propagating pattern
occurs in these fields as in the tendency. Horizontal advec-
tion has a preferred peak before the precipitation maxima
similar to the tendency term, and continuous eastward
propagation occurs over the zonal extent of 50°E to 180°E.
Some westward propagation from 180°E to 240°E is
apparent in horizontal advection, which may help explain
the weak westward propagating signal over this region in
MSE in Figure 1. The distribution of horizontal advection is
very similar between Lq and MSE. These results suggest
that anomalous horizontal advection contributes to the
moistening process and MSE growth in advance of MJO
convection across all longitudes, and the drying process
afterward.
[21] The anomalous vertically integrated vertical advec-
tion of MSE and Lq is shown in Figure 7. The regions of
positive precipitation anomalies coincide with the regions of
enhanced positive vertical advection of Lq, and anomalous
negative vertical MSE advection. The negative anomalies of
the MSE advection during times of positive precipitation
anomalies suggest positive gross moist stability then [e.g.,
Neelin and Held, 1987]. In both fields eastward propagation
is prominent over the Indian and West Pacific oceans.
Within these regions, distinct amplitude maxima are seen

6 of 12
D21117 KIRANMAYI AND MALONEY: INTRASEASONAL MSE BUDGET IN NCEP AND ERA D21117

Figure 4. Vertically integrated anomalous moisture budget terms from equation (2) at different longi-
tudinal bands using ERA‐I data.

over two regions, over the Indian Ocean, centered near 90°E
and over west Pacific, centered around 160°E. The vertical
advection anomalies appear to propagate with a consistent
phase relationship relative to precipitation, moisture, and
MSE anomalies across the entire region. The vertical
advection term appears to contribute to the growth of MSE
anomalies in advance of MJO convection (Figure 7, top)
as also described above. The ultimate effect of vertical
advection on moistening is more complex, however, as it
involves accounting for the cancellation of anomalous
vertical moisture advection by anomalous condensational
drying/moistening. To the extent that weak temperature
gradient theory holds, this should be reflected in the net
column vertical advection of MSE (Figure 7, top).

4. Decomposition of the Horizontal Advection

Budget
[22] To understand the processes contributing to anoma-
lous horizontal MSE and Lq advection, the horizontal
advection is partitioned into zonal and meridional advection
terms as −u∂m/∂x (zonal advection) and −n∂m/∂y (meridi-
onal advection). Figure 8 shows zonal and meridional MSE
advection anomalies as a function of longitude, and Figure 9
shows similar terms, but for Lq advection. The anomalous
meridional advection of MSE shows a more continuous
eastward pattern of eastward propagation as compared to
anomalous zonal advection, suggesting that meridional
advection anomalies may be more important for the MSE Figure 5. Zonal distribution of (a) ∂m/∂t and (b) L∂q/∂t
recharge process than zonal advection. The magnitude of anomalies versus MJO phase using ERA‐I data. Precipita-
both zonal and meridional advection anomalies is similar for tion anomalies are shown as contours with contour intervals
both MSE and Lq, implying a dominant role for moisture of 1 mm/d. Positive anomalies are black, and negative
advection in determining MSE advection. anomalies are gray.

7 of 12
D21117 KIRANMAYI AND MALONEY: INTRASEASONAL MSE BUDGET IN NCEP AND ERA D21117

Figure 6. Anomalous horizontal advection of (a) MSE and Figure 8. Anomalous (a) zonal advection and (b) meridio-
(b) Lq. Precipitation anomalies are shown as contours with a nal advection of MSE. Precipitation anomalies are shown as
contour interval of 1 mm/d. Positive anomalies are black, contours with a contour interval of 1 mm/d. Positive anoma-
and negative anomalies are gray. lies are black, and negative anomalies are gray.

Figure 7. Anomalous vertical advection of (a) MSE and Figure 9. Anomalous (a) zonal advection and (b) meridio-
(b) Lq. Precipitation anomalies are shown as contours with nal advection of Lq. Precipitation anomalies are shown as
a contour interval of 1 mm/d. Positive anomalies are black, contours with a contour interval of 1 mm/d. Positive anoma-
and negative anomalies are gray. lies are black, and negative anomalies are gray.

8 of 12
D21117 KIRANMAYI AND MALONEY: INTRASEASONAL MSE BUDGET IN NCEP AND ERA D21117

Figure 10. Partitioning of (left) zonal and (right) meridional MSE advection as a function of MJO
phase at different longitudinal bands. Phase is shifted such that the local precipitation maximum occurs
at 180°E.

[23] The contribution of mean and eddy components to to the mean state. The terms in equations (3) and (4) are
anomalous meridional and zonal MSE advection at different band‐pass filtered to 30–90 days before compositing.
longitude bands is shown in Figure 10. We partition −(u @m
@x )′ [24] At 155°E, in case of anomalous zonal advection, all
and −(n @m
@y )′ as follows: the terms in equation (3) contribute significantly to the
    total, whereas in case of meridional advection, the term
@m ′ @m′ @m @m′ ′ −(n′∂m′/∂y)′ dominates. Similar behavior was found in the
u  u  u′  u′ ð3Þ
@x @x @x @x modeling study of M09. The distribution at other longitu-
dinal locations shows that zonal advection is sometimes
    dominated by −u′∂m/∂x, which was also found in the model
@m ′ @m′ @m @m′ ′
    ′  ′ ð4Þ results of M09. In case of the meridional advection, the
@y @y @y @y dominance of the term −(n′∂m′/∂y)′ is clear at all the long-
itudes. The longitudinal distribution of −(n′∂m′/∂y)′ versus
where the mean and perturbation quantities are defined as in
phase is shown in Figure 11. Maximum anomalous drying
section 2, and essentially represent the mean state averaged
due to this term lags precipitation by about 60°, and
over the length of an MJO event, and perturbations relative

9 of 12
D21117 KIRANMAYI AND MALONEY: INTRASEASONAL MSE BUDGET IN NCEP AND ERA D21117

Figure 11. Band‐pass‐filtered (−n′∂m′/∂y)′ plotted versus longitude and MJO phase. Precipitation
anomalies are shown as contours with contour intervals of 1 mm/d. Positive anomalies are black,
and negative anomalies are gray.

anomalous moistening due to this term leads precipitation
by about 120–140 degrees. Hence, this term reduces MSE
during MJO precipitation events, and increases MSE in
advance of MJO precipitation events, consistent with the
modeling results of M09.
[25] The modeling study of M09 showed that eddy com-
ponents with timescales of less than 30 days dominated
−(n′∂m′/∂y)′. Observational analyses also indicate an impor-
tant role for synoptic eddies in the tropical time‐mean MSE
budget, especially in the intertropical convergence zone of
the east Pacific [Peters et al., 2008], where disturbances such
as easterly waves are an important means of advecting dry,
cool air into the ITCZ. The contribution of high‐frequency
variations to meridional eddy advection is studied here by
high‐pass filtering n′ and m′ to retain periods less than
30 days before constructing −(n′ @m′ @y )′, and then band‐pass
filtering this entire term to 30–90 days. This result is shown
in Figure 12 for 155°E, and indicates that high frequency
variations provide more than half of the meridional advec-
tion signal, consistent with M09. Maloney and Dickinson
[2003] showed that synoptic eddies such as tropical
depression‐type disturbances and easterly waves are sup-
pressed during the MJO dry phase and enhanced during the
MJO wet phase, consistent with the results shown here.
Enhanced eddy activity during MJO precipitation events
appears to cause enhanced dry advection that reduces near‐
equatorial MSE, and suppression of eddies before precipi-
tation events suppresses drying, producing anomalous
moistening. This contention is supported by the distribution
of synoptic timescale eddy kinetic energy (EKE) as shown
in Figure 13. EKE here is defined as (u″2 + v″2)/2, where a
double prime represents the deviation from the 11 day

Figure 12. High‐frequency (HF) contribution to anoma-

lous meridional eddy transport of MSE (−n′∂m′/∂y)′ at Figure 13. Anomalous EKE distribution versus MJO
155°E. phase at 155°E.

10 of 12
D21117 KIRANMAYI AND MALONEY: INTRASEASONAL MSE BUDGET IN NCEP AND ERA
running mean. The maximum EKE occurs just after the peak
in anomalous MJO precipitation, and EKE is suppressed in
the low‐level easterly period in advance of MJO convection.
These findings are similar to model results of M09, sup-
porting an important influence of synoptic eddies in the col-
umn MSE budget. Such an eddy influence may complement
the potential importance of the eddies to the momentum
budget, diabatic heating structures, and anomalous latent
heat flux of the MJO [e.g., Maloney and Esbensen, 2007;
Biello and Majda, 2010; Hsu et al., 2011; Hsu and Li, 2011].
5. Conclusions
[26] The composite vertically integrated MSE and mois-
ture budgets during MJO events were examined for 16 years
of NCEP II reanalysis and ERA INTERIM data over the
equatorial belt of 10°S to 10°N. The positive tendency in
MSE before an MJO precipitation event and discharge of
MSE during and after the event shown in both reanalysis
products are similar to previous observations and to that in
the general circulation modeling study of Maloney [2009]
(hereinafter M09). Comparison between the MSE and
moisture budget shows that about 80% of the contribution to
column‐integrated MSE tendency is contributed by latent
heat variations.
[27] The individual terms in the anomalous vertically
integrated MSE and moisture budgets were examined in
reanalysis to assess their contributions to the buildup and
discharge of MSE and moisture. The modeling study of
M09 showed that horizontal advection dominated the MSE
advective tendencies during MJO events in their model to
engender growth of MSE anomalies to the east of existing
convection and hence eastward propagation, whereas in the
reanalysis products the horizontal and vertical MSE advec-
tion anomalies are of comparable magnitude in a composite
MSE budget, with vertical advection even being slightly
greater. As expected, vertical advection dominates in the
moisture budget where it substantially cancels the precipi-
tation anomalies. A strong role for vertical MSE advection
in contributing to eastward propagation has been noted by
other observational studies [e.g., Haertel et al., 2008].
Column‐integrated radiative heating and surface heat flux
anomalies maximize near and just after the peak anomalous
precipitation such that a strong covariance exists, effectively
slowing the discharge process owing to vertical and hori-
zontal advection, consistent with M09.
[28] A significant residual exists in the anomalous MSE
budget, such that both reanalysis products appear to be
missing or misrepresenting some MSE recharge process in
advance of MJO convection (e.g., shallow convection). Such
residuals have also been noted in other reanalysis products.
For example, the NASA MERRA product misrepresents the
moistening process in advance of MJO convection such that
a large analysis increment must be added to the model
humidity field to account for this missing source (Brian
Mapes, personal communication, 2011). Reanalysis data is
derived by assimilation of observations with an analysis
model. Thus, the reanalysis fields are dependent on model
parameterizations and approximations and are not a perfect
reconstruction of the real atmosphere. Because a residual
exists in both reanalysis data sets that is of the same order as
the MSE tendency and partially in phase with it, it must be
11 of 12
D21117
acknowledged that key processes for understanding MJO
propagation may be missing in the reanalysis data sets, or
misrepresented because the advective tendencies in this study
are calculated using output variables that are at degraded
resolution relative to the native grid of the reanalysis models.
[29] For the anomalous horizontal advection of MSE,
zonal and meridional advection anomalies are of comparable
importance, similar to the modeling results of M09. Intra-
seasonal meridional advection anomalies due to variations
in synoptic eddy activity are found to dominate the merid-
ional advection term in both the reanalysis data used here
and in the model. This signal is due to suppression of
synoptic eddies and their drying effects during periods
of low‐level MJO easterly anomalies, and enhancement of
eddies and increased meridional dry air transport toward the
equator during periods of MJO westerly anomalies.
[30] The ratio of column‐integrated vertical MSE advec-
tion anomalies relative to precipitation is larger in reanalysis
than in the modeling study of M09, suggesting a higher
gross moist stability [e.g., Neelin and Held, 1987; Raymond
et al., 2009] for the actual tropical atmosphere than in the
model of M09. Reanalysis products also indicate a MSE
budget residual that is of the same order of magnitude as the
tendency term, suggesting errors in the moist physics of the
reanalysis model, and hence the gross moist stability of the
reanalysis models may not be entirely realistic. The residual
maximizes during the time of peak moistening (positive
MSE tendency) in the reanalysis products. The existence of
this residual is an acknowledged limitation of our study, and
suggests that any inferences drawn from our budget analyses
here should be regarded tentatively. Residuals in our study
may also result from differences in how we calculate advec-
tive tendencies relative to how this is done in the model
dynamical core, especially as vertical MSE advection is the
small difference of two large terms (i.e., moisture conver-
gence and dry static energy advection). Work is ongoing
using the NCAR Community Atmosphere model to deter-
mine how well MSE budget advective tendencies can be
calculated using standard output variables relative to exact
advective quantities output from the model dynamical core.
We further intend diagnostic studies to characterize the
gross moist stability of the tropical atmosphere in an
ensemble of climate models, and relate these values to their
relative abilities to simulate the MJO.
[ 31 ] Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank two
reviewers whose insightful reviews greatly improved the manuscript. This
work was supported by the Climate and Large‐Scale Dynamics Program of
the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grants ATM‐0832868 and
AGS‐1025584 and the Science and Technology Center for MultiScale
Modeling of Atmospheric Processes managed by Colorado State University
under cooperative agreement ATM‐0425247. This work has also been
funded by award NA08OAR4320893 from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce.
The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations do not neces-
sarily reflect the views of NSF, NOAA, or the Department of Commerce.
References
Araligidad, N. M., and E. D. Maloney (2008), Wind‐driven latent heat flux
and the intraseasonal oscillation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L04815,
doi:10.1029/2007GL032746.
Back, L. E., and C. S. Bretherton (2006), Geographic variability in the
export of moist static energy and vertical motion profiles in the tropical
Pacific, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L17810, doi:10.1029/2006GL026672.
D21117 KIRANMAYI AND MALONEY: INTRASEASONAL MSE BUDGET IN NCEP AND ERA
Benedict, J. J., and D. A. Randall (2007), Observed characteristics of MJO
relative to maximum rainfall, J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 2332–2354, doi:10.1175/
JAS3968.1.
Biello, J. A., and A. J. Majda (2010), Intraseasonal multi‐scale moist
dynamics of the tropical troposphere, Commun. Math. Sci., 8, 519–540.
Boos, W. R., and Z. Kuang (2010), Mechanisms of poleward‐propagating,
intraseasonal convective anomalies in cloud‐system resolving models,
J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 3673–3691, doi:10.1175/2010JAS3515.1.
Bretherton, C. S., M. E. Peters, and L. E. Back (2004), Relationships
between water vapor path and precipitation over the tropical oceans,
J. Clim., 17, 1517–1528, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<1517:
RBWVPA>2.0.CO;2.
Frierson, D. M. W., D. Kim, I.‐S. Kang, M. I. Lee, and J.‐L. Lin (2011),
Structure of AGCM‐simulated convectively coupled equatorial waves
and sensitivity to convective parameterization, J. Atmos. Sci., 68, 26–45,
doi:10.1175/2010JAS3356.1.
Grodsky, S. A., A. Bentamy, J. A. Carton, and R. T. Pinker (2009), Intra-
seasonal latent heat flux based on satellite observations, J. Clim., 22,
4539–4556, doi:10.1175/2009JCLI2901.1.
Haertel, P. T., G. N. Kiladis, A. Denno, and T. M. Rickenbach (2008),
Vertical‐mode decomposition of 2‐day waves and Madden‐Julian oscilla-
tions, J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 813–833, doi:10.1175/2007JAS2314.1.
Hsu, P.‐C., and T. Li (2011), Interactions between boreal summer intrasea-
sonal oscillations and synoptic‐scale disturbances over the western North
Pacific. part II: Apparent heat and moisture sources and eddy momentum
transport, J. Clim., 24, 942–961, doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3834.1.
Hsu, P.‐C., T. Li, and C.‐H. Tsou (2011), Interactions between boreal
summer intraseasonal oscillations and synoptic‐scale disturbances over
the western North Pacific. part I: Energetics diagnosis, J. Clim., 24,
927–941, doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3833.1.
Kanamitsu, M., W. Ebisuzaki, J. Wollen, S. Yang, J. J. Hnilo, M. Fiorino,
and G. L. Plotter (2002), NCEP–DOE AMIP‐II reanalysis (R‐2), Bull.
Am. Meteorol. Soc., 83, 1631–1643, doi:10.1175/BAMS-83-11-1631.
Kemball‐Cook, S. R., and B. C. Weare (2001), The onset of convection in
the Madden‐Julian oscillation, J. Clim., 14, 780–793, doi:10.1175/1520-
0442(2001)014<0780:TOOCIT>2.0.CO;2.
Kiladis, G. N., K. H. Straub, and P. T. Haertel (2005), Zonal and vertical
structure of the Madden‐Julian oscillation, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 2790–
2809, doi:10.1175/JAS3520.1.
Kiranmayi, L., and G. S. Bhat (2009), Quasi‐periodic, global oscillations in
sea level pressure on intraseasonal time scales, Clim. Dyn., 32, 925–934,
doi:10.1007/s00382-008-0413-7.
Knutson, T. R., K. M. Weickmann, and J. E. Kutzbach (1986), Global‐
scale intraseasonal oscillations of outgoing longwave radiation and
250 mb zonal wind during Northern Hemisphere summer, Mon. Weather
Rev., 114, 605–623, doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1986)114<0605:
GSIOOO>2.0.CO;2.
Kuang, Z. (2011), The wavelength dependence of the gross moist stability
and the scale selection in the instability of column integrated moist static
energy, J. Atmos. Sci., 68, 61–74, doi:10.1175/2010JAS3591.1.
Landu, K., and E. D. Maloney (2011), Effect of SST distribution and radi-
ative feedbacks on the simulation of intraseasonal variability in an aqua-
planet GCM, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 89, 195–210, doi:10.2151/
jmsj.2011-302.
Lin, J., and B. E. Mapes (2004), Radiation budget of tropical intraseasonal
oscillation, J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 2050–2062, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(2004)
061<2050:RBOTTI>2.0.CO;2.
Madden, R. A., and P. R. Julian (1971), Detection of a 40–50 day oscilla-
tion in the zonal wind in the tropical Pacific, J. Atmos. Sci., 28, 702–708,
doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1971)028<0702:DOADOI>2.0.CO;2.
Madden, R. A., and P. R. Julian (1972), Description of global scale circu-
lation cells in the tropics with a 40–50 day period, J. Atmos. Sci., 29,
1109–1123, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1972)029<1109:DOGSCC>2.0.
CO;2.
Madden, R. A., and P. R. Julian (1994), Observations of 40–50 day tropical
oscillation—A review, Mon. Weather Rev., 122, 814–837, doi:10.1175/
1520-0493(1994)122<0814:OOTDTO>2.0.CO;2.
Majda, A. J., and S. N. Stechmann (2009), The skeleton of tropical intra-
seasonal oscillations, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 106, 8417–8422,
doi:10.1073/pnas.0903367106.
Maloney, E. D. (2009), The moist static energy budget of a composite trop-
ical intraseasonal oscillation in a climate model, J. Clim., 22, 711–729,
doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2542.1.
Maloney, E. D., and M. J. Dickinson (2003), The intraseasonal oscillation
and the energetic of summertime tropical western North Pacific synoptic‐
12 of 12
D21117
scale disturbances, J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 2153–2168, doi:10.1175/1520-
0469(2003)060<2153:TIOATE>2.0.CO;2.
Maloney, E. D., and S. K. Esbensen (2007), Satellite and buoy observations
of boreal summer intraseasonal variability in the tropical northeast
Pacific, Mon. Weather Rev., 135, 3–19, doi:10.1175/MWR3271.1.
Maloney, E. D., D. B. Chelton, and S. K. Esbensen (2008), Subseasonal
SST variability in the tropical eastern North Pacific during boreal sum-
mer, J. Clim., 21, 4149–4167, doi:10.1175/2007JCLI1856.1.
Maloney, E. D., A. H. Sobel, and W. M. Hannah (2010), Intraseasonal var-
iability in an aquaplanet general circulation model, J. Adv. Model. Earth.
Syst., 2, article 5, 24 pp.
Nakazawa, T. (1988), Tropical super clusters within intraseasonal varia-
tions over the western Pacific, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 66, 823–839.
Neelin, J. D., and I. M. Held (1987), Modeling tropical convergence based
on the moist static energy budget, Mon. Weather Rev., 115, 3–12,
doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1987)115<0003:MTCBOT>2.0.CO;2.
Peters, M. E., and C. S. Bretherton (2006), Structure of tropical variability
from a vertical mode perspective, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn., 20, 501–
524, doi:10.1007/s00162-006-0034-x.
Peters, M. E., Z. Kuang, and C. C. Walker (2008), Analysis of atmospheric
energy transport in ERA‐40 and implications for simple models of the
mean tropical circulation, J. Clim., 21, 5229–5241, doi:10.1175/
2008JCLI2073.1.
Peters, O., and J. D. Neelin (2006), Critical phenomena in atmospheric pre-
cipitation, Nat. Phys., 2, 393–396, doi:10.1038/nphys314.
Raymond, D. J., and Z. Fuchs (2009), Moisture modes and the Madden‐
Julian oscillation, J. Clim., 22, 3031–3046, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2739.1.
Raymond, D. J., S. L. Sessions, A. H. Sobel, and Z. Fuchs (2009),
The mechanics of gross moist stability, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 1,
Art. #9, 20 pp., doi:10.3894/JAMES.2009.1.9.
Simmons, A., S. Uppala, D. Dee, and S. Kobayashi (2006), ERA‐Interim:
New ECMWF reanalysis product from 1989 onwards, ECMWF Newslett.
110, pp. 25–35, Eur. Cent. for Med.–Range Weather Forecasts, Reading,
U. K.
Sobel, A. H., and C. S. Bretherton (2000), Modeling tropical precipitation
in a single column, J. Clim., 13, 4378–4392, doi:10.1175/1520-0442
(2000)013<4378:MTPIAS>2.0.CO;2.
Sperber, K. R. (2003), Propagation and the vertical structure of the Madden‐
Julian oscillation, Mon. Weather Rev., 131, 3018–3037, doi:10.1175/
1520-0493(2003)131<3018:PATVSO>2.0.CO;2.
Sugiyama, M. (2009), The moisture mode in the quasi‐equilibrium tropical
circulation model, part I: Analysis based on the weak temperature
gradient approximation, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 1507–1523, doi:10.1175/
2008JAS2690.1.
Tian, B., D. E. Waliser, E. J. Fetzer, and Y. L. Yung (2010), Vertical moist
thermodynamic structure of the Madden‐Julian oscillation in Atmo-
spheric Infrared Sounder retrievals: An update and a comparison to
ECMWF interim reanalysis, Mon. Weather Rev., 138, 4576–4582,
doi:10.1175/2010MWR3486.1.
Trenberth, K. E., and D. P. Stepaniak (2003), Seamless poleward atmo-
spheric energy transports and implications for the Hadley circulation,
J. Clim., 16, 3706–3722, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<3706:
SPAETA>2.0.CO;2.
Tung, W.‐W., and M. Yanai (2002), Convective momentum transport
observed during the TOGA COARE IOP. part I: General features,
J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 1857–1871, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059<1857:
CMTODT>2.0.CO;2.
Wheeler, M., and H. H. Hendon (2004), An all‐season real‐time multivariate
MJO index: Analysis of clouds and temperature in the wavenumber‐
frequency domain, J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 374–399, doi:10.1175/1520-0469
(1999)056<0374:CCEWAO>2.0.CO;2.
Yanai, M., S. Esbensen, and J.‐H. Chu (1973), Determination of bulk
properties of tropical cloud clusters from large‐scale heat and moisture
budgets, J. Atmos. Sci., 30, 611–627, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1973)
030<0611:DOBPOT>2.0.CO;2.
Yano, J.‐I., and M. Bonazzola (2009), Scale analysis for large‐scale tropi-
cal atmospheric dynamics, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 159–172, doi:10.1175/
2008JAS2687.1.
Zhang, C. (2005), Madden‐Julian oscillation, Rev. Geophys., 43, RG2003,
doi:10.1029/2004RG000158.
L. Kiranmayi and E. D. Maloney, Department of Atmospheric Science,
Colorado State University, 1371 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO
80523‐1371, USA. (kiran@atmos.colostate.edu)