Search

While weakening of the boreal polar vortex may be caused by autumnal Arctic sea ice loss, less is known about the interannual influence of Antarctic sea ice on stratosphere‐troposphere coupling in the Southern Hemisphere. Identifying any relationship over the short satellite period is difficult due to sampling variability and anthropogenic modification of the austral polar vortex. To circumvent these issues, we use large ensembles of fixed boundary condition simulations from the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) and Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM) to assess if and how interannual fluctuations in winter Antarctic sea ice influence spring planetary‐scale waves and the coupled stratosphere‐troposphere circulation. Low Antarctic sea ice conditions are found to modulate tropospheric stationary waves to project constructively onto the climatological stationary wave, enhancing upward planetary wave propagation into the austral polar stratosphere. In WACCM, the resulting vortex weakening coincides with development of negative Southern Annular Mode conditions during September–November. Plain Language Summary: Antarctic sea ice concentrations vary from year to year, and the presence or lack of sea ice can change how the atmosphere above it responds. Here we use two specially designed experiments to understand how year to year variations in Antarctic sea ice affect the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere. We find that the winds in the stratosphere are slower than normal in years with less than normal sea ice. These changes in winds high up in the atmosphere may invoke changes in winds closer to the surface and in precipitation, but this result is model‐dependent. Key Points: Anomalously low Antarctic sea ice in austral winter amplifies upward planetary wave propagation in the spring, weakening the polar vortexTwo climate models show the polar vortex weakening though it's only robust in one. This model has a negative Southern Annular Mode responseLarge polar vortex variability in early spring can mask the tropospheric circulation response to sea ice anomalies [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We analyze the sources for spread in the response of the Northern Hemisphere wintertime stratospheric polar vortex (SPV) to global warming in Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and Phase 6 (CMIP6) model projections. About half of the intermodel spread in SPV projections by CMIP6 models, but less than a third in CMIP5 models, can be attributed to the intermodel spread in stationary planetary wave driving. In CMIP6, SPV weakening is mostly driven by increased upward wave flux from the troposphere, while SPV strengthening is associated with increased equatorward wave propagation away from the polar stratosphere. We test hypothesized factors contributing to changes in the upward and equatorward planetary wave fluxes and show that an across‐model regression using projected global warming rates, strengthening of the subtropical jet and basic state lower stratospheric wind biases as predictors can explain nearly the same fraction in the CMIP6 SPV spread as the planetary wave driving (r = 0.67). The dependence of the SPV spread on the model biases in the basic state winds offers a possible emergent constraint; however, a large uncertainty prevents a substantial reduction of the projected SPV spread. The lack of this dependence in CMIP5 further calls for better understanding of underlying causes. Our results improve understanding of projected SPV uncertainty; however, further narrowing of the uncertainty remains challenging. Plain Language Summary: Previous studies showed that changes in the strength of the Northern Hemisphere wintertime stratospheric polar vortex can affect near‐surface weather on various timescales. However, climate models do not agree on whether the polar vortex will weaken or strengthen during the 21st century. Here, we use Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and Phase 6 (CMIP6) experiments to better understand how the polar vortex will respond to future greenhouse gas emissions. We show that changes in the propagation of large‐scale atmospheric waves can explain nearly half of the spread in the vortex strength projections by the end of the 21st century by CMIP6 models. Increased upward propagation of the waves to the stratosphere leads to vortex weakening while increased equatorward propagation within the stratosphere leads to strengthening. We identify three factors associated with projected changes in the vortex strength across CMIP6 models: projected rates of global warming, projected rates of subtropical jet stream strengthening and model errors in lower stratospheric winds in the past climate. Stronger global warming rates and stronger past lower stratospheric winds are associated with vortex strengthening, while larger strengthening of the subtropical jet stream is associated with weakening. However, these relationships are weak in CMIP5 models. Key Points: About half of the projected stratospheric polar vortex (SPV) uncertainty in Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) can be attributed to stationary planetary wave drivingProjected polar vortex weakening and strengthening are linked to increased upward and equatorward wave propagation respectivelyA relationship is found between past lower stratospheric wind biases and SPV projections across CMIP6 models [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) on the atmosphere and surface climate depend on when and where the sulfate aerosol precursors are injected, as well as on how much surface cooling is to be achieved. We use a set of CESM2(WACCM6) SAI simulations achieving three different levels of global mean surface cooling and demonstrate that unlike some direct surface climate impacts driven by the reflection of solar radiation by sulfate aerosols, the SAI‐induced changes in the high latitude circulation and ozone are more complex and could be non‐linear. This manifests in our simulations by disproportionally larger Antarctic springtime ozone loss, significantly larger intra‐ensemble spread of the Arctic stratospheric jet and ozone responses, and non‐linear impacts on the extratropical modes of surface climate variability under the strongest‐cooling SAI scenario compared to the weakest one. These potential non‐linearities may add to uncertainties in projections of regional surface impacts under SAI. Plain Language Summary: The injection of reflective aerosols, or their precursors, into the lower stratosphere (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, SAI) has been proposed as a temporary measure to offset some of the adverse impacts of climate change whilst atmospheric concentrations of greenhouses are being stabilized and, ultimately, reduced. The impacts of SAI on the atmosphere and surface climate would depend on when and where the sulfate aerosol precursors are injected, as well as on how much surface cooling is to be achieved. Here we analyze SAI impacts on stratospheric climate and ozone in a set of Earth system model simulations under varying magnitudes of the SAI‐induced global mean cooling. We demonstrate that unlike some of the direct surface climate impacts from the reflection of solar radiation by sulfate aerosols, the SAI‐induced changes in stratospheric circulation, chemistry and climate are more complex, with the model simulations pointing toward more non‐linear behavior of the high latitude circulation and ozone under higher SAI scenarios. These potential non‐linearities may add to uncertainties in projections of regional surface impacts under SAI. Key Points: Impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) depend on how much surface cooling is to be achievedHigh latitude circulation, ozone and modes of extratropical variability can vary non‐linearly with the SAI‐induced global surface coolingThese potential non‐linearities may add to uncertainties in projections of regional surface impacts under SAI [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dominant pattern of Northern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability is the Northern Annular Mode (NAM), which in wintertime represents the coupling of the stratospheric and tropospheric circulations. The internal variability associated with the NAM has been shown to give rise to substantial uncertainty in climate projections of regional surface air temperatures (SATs), but it's unclear how much of this variability arises from stratosphere‐troposphere coupling processes. Here, using three large‐ensemble coupled climate model simulations from 1850 to 2100 with varying fidelity of stratosphere‐troposphere coupling processes, we demonstrate that regional SAT variability across timescales is amplified when the tropospheric NAM is coupled to the stratospheric NAM. Moreover, models that lack adequate simulation of stratosphere‐troposphere coupling processes may not capture the magnitude of uncertainty in near‐term SAT projections associated with this coupling. Plain Language Summary: Large‐scale atmospheric circulation variability drives substantial variation in regional surface air temperatures (SATs), so that even on 30–40 year timescales local cooling trends are possible even as global‐mean temperatures increase. We provide evidence that when the stratospheric mean flow is coupled to the tropospheric mean flow, the decadal variability of SATs is amplified in some regions. Some models do not represent well the observed coupling of the stratosphere to the troposphere, and these models may underestimate decadal variability associated with this coupling. Key Points: The Northern Annular Mode (NAM) exhibits decadal variability that can accelerate or slow the rate of anthropogenic regional surface warmingAmplified decadal variability of extratropical surface temperatures occurs when the NAM is coupled from the stratosphere to the troposphereModels that fail to adequately capture vertical coupling may underestimate the magnitude of decadal variations in surface air temperatures [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) strategies on the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) are analyzed with the Community Earth System Model. Using a set of simulations with fixed single‐point SO2 injections we demonstrate the first‐order dependence of the SAM response on the latitude of injection, with the northern hemispheric and equatorial injections driving a response corresponding to a positive phase of SAM and the southern hemispheric injections driving a negative phase of SAM. We further demonstrate that the results can to first order explain the differences in the SAM responses diagnosed from the two recent large ensembles of geoengineering simulations utilizing more complex injection strategies – Geoengineering Large Ensemble and Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (GLENS and ARISE‐SAI) – as driven by the differences in the simulated sulfate aerosol distributions. Our results point to the meridional extent of aerosol‐induced lower stratospheric heating as an important driver of the sensitivity of the SAM response to the injection location. Plain Language Summary: Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is a proposed climate intervention method in which sulfate aerosol precursors are injected into the lower stratosphere to mitigate some of the negative impacts of climate change. Here we analyze SAI impact on the Southern Annular Mode (SAM), a dominant mode of interannual climate variability in the southern mid‐ and high latitudes, using the Community Earth System Model. Using a set of simulations with fixed single‐point injections of aerosol precursors we demonstrate the first‐order dependence of the SAM response on the latitude of injection, with the northern hemispheric and equatorial injections driving a response corresponding to a positive phase of SAM and the southern hemispheric injections driving a negative phase of SAM. We further demonstrate that our results can to first order explain the differences in the SAM responses diagnosed from the two recent large ensembles of geoengineering simulations utilizing more complex injection strategies as driven by the differences in the simulated sulfate aerosol distributions. Our findings illustrate the complex interplay of the microphysical, radiative and dynamical processes contributing to the SAI responses on regional scales. Key Points: Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) impacts the Southern Annular Mode (SAM), and the response is strongly sensitive to the latitude of SAIInjections in the Northern Hemisphere drive positive SAM response and injections in the Southern Hemisphere drive negative SAM responseMeridional extent of lower stratospheric aerosol heating likely an important contributor to the sensitivity to injection latitude [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper introduces the special collection in Geophysical Research Letters and Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres on the exceptional stratospheric polar vortex in 2019/2020. Papers in this collection show that the 2019/2020 stratospheric polar vortex was the strongest, most persistent, and coldest on record in the Arctic. The unprecedented Arctic chemical processing and ozone loss in spring 2020 have been studied using numerous satellite and ground‐based data sets and chemistry‐transport models. Quantitative estimates of chemical loss are broadly consistent among the studies and show profile loss of about the same magnitude as in the Arctic in 2011, but with most loss at lower altitudes; column loss was comparable to or larger than that in 2011. Several papers show evidence of dynamical coupling from the mesosphere down to the surface. Studies of tropospheric influence and impacts link the exceptionally strong vortex to reflection of upward propagating waves and show coupling to tropospheric anomalies, including extreme heat, precipitation, windstorms, and marine cold air outbreaks. Predictability of the exceptional stratospheric polar vortex in 2019/2020 and related predictability of surface conditions are explored. The exceptionally strong stratospheric polar vortex in 2019/2020 highlights the extreme interannual variability in the Arctic winter/spring stratosphere and the far‐reaching consequences of such extremes. Plain Language Summary: The Arctic stratospheric polar vortex—a band of strong winds roughly encircling the pole at about 65°N latitude from about 15 to 50 km above the Earth's surface that forms every winter—was exceptionally strong during the 2019/2020 winter. The strong vortex in the stratosphere was linked to unusual conditions at both higher and lower altitudes. This collection of papers explores the far‐reaching consequences of the exceptionally strong stratospheric polar vortex in 2019/2020, including impacts on Arctic chemical ozone loss and on surface weather conditions. Chemical ozone loss in spring 2020 matched or exceeded the most previously on record (for 2011) and showed some features similar to the larger loss that occurs over the Antarctic every spring. The exceptionally strong stratospheric polar vortex was linked to weather extremes, including record heat, unusual patterns of precipitation, marine cold air outbreaks, and windstorms. Key Points: The stratospheric polar vortex in 2019/2020 was the strongest and longest‐lasting on record as described in this special collectionThis exceptionally strong and cold polar vortex led to unprecedented Arctic ozone loss, approaching that in some Antarctic wintersCirculation anomalies linked to the vortex spanned the mesosphere to the surface with implications for extreme weather and predictability [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Projected changes in the Northern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex are analyzed using Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 experiments. Previous studies showed that projections of the wintertime zonally averaged polar vortex strength diverge widely between climate models with no agreement on the sign of change, and that this uncertainty contributes to the regional climate change uncertainty. Here, we show that there remains large uncertainty in the projected strength of the polar vortex in experiments with global warming levels ranging from moderate (SSP245 runs) to large (Abrupt‐4xCO2 runs), and that the uncertainty maximizes in winter. Partitioning of the uncertainty in wintertime polar vortex strength projections reveals that, by the end of the 21st century, model uncertainty contributes half of the total uncertainty, with scenario uncertainty contributing only 10%. Regression analysis shows that up to 20% of the intermodel spread in projected precipitation over the Iberian Peninsula and northwestern US, and 20%–30% in near‐surface temperature over western US and northern Eurasian, can be associated with the spread in vortex strength projections after accounting for global warming. While changes in the magnitude and sign of the zonally averaged vortex strength are uncertain, most models (>95%) predict an eastward shift of the vortex by 8°–20° degrees in longitude relative to its historical location with the magnitude of the shift increasing for larger global warming levels. There is less agreement across models on a latitudinal shift, whose direction and magnitude correlate with changes in the zonally averaged vortex strength so that vortex weakening/strengthening corresponds to a southward/poleward shift. Plain Language Summary: Previous studies showed that changes in the strength of the winds in the Northern Hemisphere wintertime stratosphere, the so‐called polar vortex, can affect near‐surface winds and precipitation on various timescales. However, climate models do not agree on whether the polar vortex will weaken or strengthen during the 21st century. Here, we use Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 experiments to better understand how the polar vortex will respond to future greenhouse gas emissions. We show that half of the uncertainty in the vortex strength projections by the end of the 21st century is due to climate model errors (model uncertainty). We show that the uncertainty in the vortex strength projections is linked to the uncertainty in projected precipitation over the Iberian Peninsula and northwestern US and projected near‐surface temperature over the western US and northern Eurasia. Most models predict an eastward shift of the vortex relative to its historical location but we do not detect any influence of the vortex longitudinal shift on surface precipitation and temperatures. There is less agreement across models on a latitudinal shift, whose direction and magnitude correlate with changes in the vortex strength so that vortex weakening/strengthening corresponds to a southward/poleward shift of the vortex. Key Points: Model uncertainty contributes half of the total uncertainty in the projected strength of the Northern winter stratospheric polar vortexUncertainty in the projected polar vortex strength is linked to uncertainty in projected regional surface temperature and precipitationMost climate models project an eastward shift of the Northern winter stratospheric polar vortex [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mainstream and popular science media are rife with misunderstandings about what a "polar vortex" is. The term most aptly describes the stratospheric polar vortex, a single feature dominating the cool‐season circulation from ∼15–50 km. Regional jet stream variations dominate the tropospheric circulation, which is not well‐described as a polar vortex; indeed, there is no single consistent definition of a tropospheric polar vortex in the literature. Stratospheric polar vortex disturbances profoundly influence extreme weather events, including cold air outbreaks (CAOs). How the stratospheric polar vortex affects tropospheric jets, whose local excursions drive CAOs, is not fully understood. Public‐facing parts of publications describing research on this topic are not always clear about how the "polar vortex" is defined; greater clarity could improve communications both within the community and with non‐specialist audiences. Plain Language Summary: What is a "polar vortex"? The atmospheric science community most commonly uses this term to describe the stratospheric polar vortex, a band of winds extending from about 15–50 km altitude that flows around the pole of each hemisphere during their respective fall through spring seasons. However, the term "polar vortex" has been used in mainstream media and popular science platforms to instead describe local variations in the upper tropospheric jet streams (winds that blow most strongly between about 8 and 13 km altitude) and even individual extreme cold weather events. We argue that the term should be used only in reference to the stratospheric polar vortex, which is a single feature that predominantly controls dynamical and chemical variability in the winter polar stratosphere. The stratospheric polar vortex is related to but distinct from more regional jet stream excursions and associated weather extremes; further study is needed to fully understand these relationships. Key Points: The stratospheric polar vortex is a well‐defined feature dominating the cool‐season circulation in each hemisphere from ∼15–50 km altitudeThe tropospheric circulation does not constitute a single coherent structure and is most aptly described by regional jet stream variationsAccuracy in defining and describing the "polar vortex" and its effects is key to improving understanding by non‐specialist audiences [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) are impressive fluid dynamical events in which large and rapid temperature increases in the winter polar stratosphere (∼10–50 km) are associated with a complete reversal of the climatological wintertime westerly winds. SSWs are caused by the breaking of planetary‐scale waves that propagate upwards from the troposphere. During an SSW, the polar vortex breaks down, accompanied by rapid descent and warming of air in polar latitudes, mirrored by ascent and cooling above the warming. The rapid warming and descent of the polar air column affect tropospheric weather, shifting jet streams, storm tracks, and the Northern Annular Mode, making cold air outbreaks over North America and Eurasia more likely. SSWs affect the atmosphere above the stratosphere, producing widespread effects on atmospheric chemistry, temperatures, winds, neutral (nonionized) particles and electron densities, and electric fields. These effects span both hemispheres. Given their crucial role in the whole atmosphere, SSWs are also seen as a key process to analyze in climate change studies and subseasonal to seasonal prediction. This work reviews the current knowledge on the most important aspects of SSWs, from the historical background to dynamical processes, modeling, chemistry, and impact on other atmospheric layers.Plain Language Summary: The stratosphere is the layer of the atmosphere from ∼10 to 50 km, with pressures decreasing to ∼1 hPa (0.1% of surface pressure) at the top. The polar stratosphere during winter is normally very cold, with strong westerly winds. Roughly every 2 years in the Northern Hemisphere, the quiescent vortex suddenly warms over a week or two, and the winds slow dramatically, resulting in easterly winds that are more similar to the summer. These events, known as sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs), were discovered in the early 1950s, and today, they are observed in detail by satellites. After several decades researching SSWs, considerable progress has been made in dynamical aspects of SSWs, but our understanding of how they affect both surface weather and the upper atmosphere is incomplete. We observe that variability of the stratospheric circulation (SSWs being an extreme event) is associated with shifts in the jet stream and the paths of storms, with associated effects on rainfall and temperatures. The likelihood of cold weather spells and damaging wind storms is also affected. Almost all SSWs have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but there was one spectacular major SSW in 2002 in the Southern Hemisphere.Key Points: Sudden stratospheric warmings are dramatic events of the polar stratosphere that affect the atmosphere from the surface to the thermosphereOur understanding of sudden stratospheric warmings has accelerated recently, particularly the predictability of surface weather effectsMore observations, improved climate models, and big data methods will address uncertainties in key aspects of sudden stratospheric warmings [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Northern Hemisphere (NH) polar winter stratosphere of 2019/2020 featured an exceptionally strong and cold stratospheric polar vortex. Wave activity from the troposphere during December–February was unusually low, which allowed the polar vortex to remain relatively undisturbed. Several transient wave pulses nonetheless served to help create a reflective configuration of the stratospheric circulation by disturbing the vortex in the upper stratosphere. Subsequently, multiple downward wave coupling events took place, which aided in dynamically cooling and strengthening the polar vortex. The persistent strength of the stratospheric polar vortex was accompanied by an unprecedentedly positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation in the troposphere during January–March, which was consistent with large portions of observed surface temperature and precipitation anomalies during the season. Similarly, conditions within the strong polar vortex were ripe for allowing substantial ozone loss: The undisturbed vortex was a strong transport barrier, and temperatures were low enough to form polar stratospheric clouds for over 4 months into late March. Total column ozone amounts in the NH polar cap decreased and were the lowest ever observed in the February–April period. The unique confluence of conditions and multiple broken records makes the 2019/2020 winter and early spring a particularly extreme example of two‐way coupling between the troposphere and stratosphere. Plain Language Summary: Wintertime westerly winds in the polar stratosphere (from ∼15–50 km), known as the stratospheric polar vortex, were extraordinarily strong during the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2019/2020. The exceptional strength of the stratospheric polar vortex had consequences for winter and early spring weather near the surface and for stratospheric ozone depletion. Typically atmospheric waves generated in the troposphere spread outward and upward into the stratosphere where they can disturb and weaken the polar vortex, but tropospheric wave activity was unusually weak during the 2019/2020 winter. In addition, an unusual configuration of the stratospheric polar vortex developed that reflected waves traveling upward from the troposphere back downward. These unique conditions allowed the vortex to remain strong and cold for several months. During January–March 2020, the strong stratospheric polar vortex was closely linked to a near‐surface circulation pattern that resembles the positive phase of the so‐called "Arctic Oscillation" (AO). This positive AO pattern was also of record strength and influenced the regional distributions of temperatures and precipitation during the late winter and early spring. Cold and stable conditions within the polar vortex also allowed strong ozone depletion to take place, leading to lower ozone levels than ever before seen above the Arctic in spring. Key Points: The Arctic stratospheric polar vortex during the 2019/2020 winter was the strongest and most persistently cold in over 40 yearsLow tropospheric planetary wave driving and a wave‐reflecting configuration of the stratosphere supported the strong and cold polar vortexSeasonal records in the Arctic Oscillation and stratospheric ozone loss were related to the strong polar vortex [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The winter of 2019–2020 was dominated by an extremely strong stratospheric polar vortex and positive tropospheric Arctic Oscillation (AO). Here, we analyze forecasts from six different prediction systems contributing to the C3S seasonal forecast database. Most performed very strongly, with consistently high skill for January–March 2020 from forecasts launched through October–December 2019. Although the magnitude of the anomalies was underestimated, the performance of most prediction systems was extremely high for a positive AO winter relative to the common hindcast climate. Ensemble members which better predicted the extremely strong stratospheric vortex better predicted the extreme tropospheric state. We find a significant relationship between forecasts of the anomalous midlatitude tropospheric wave pattern in early winter, which destructively interfered with the climatological stationary waves and the strength of the stratospheric vortex later in the winter. Our results demonstrate a strong interdependence between the accuracy of stratospheric vortex and AO forecasts. Plain Language Summary: Westerly winds during the winter of 2019–2020 were unusually strong and long lasting through a deep layer of the atmosphere. We investigate how well this was predicted months ahead of time. We find that seasonal weather forecast systems predicted the winter pattern very well, especially when compared with previous winters. Forecasts which better predicted the strength of the winds higher in the atmosphere did better overall. We find that there was a link between predictions of the weather patterns lower down in the atmosphere and how they suppressed large‐scale atmospheric waves in the midlatitudes, which likely helped the winds remain stronger higher up. Key Points: Forecasts from six seasonal prediction systems consistently predicted the large‐scale winter patterns with unusually high accuracyEnsemble members which better predicted the extreme stratospheric state also better predicted the extreme tropospheric stateAccurate prediction of the midlatitude tropospheric wave pattern was associated with more accurate stratospheric forecasts [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two recent occurrences in February 2018 and January 2019 of a dynamic split in the Northern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex are compared in terms of their evolution and predictability. The 2018 split vortex was associated with primarily wavenumber‐2 wave forcing that was not well predicted more than 7–10 days ahead of time, and was followed by persistent coupling to the surface with strong weather impacts. In 2019 the vortex was first displaced by slow wavenumber‐1 amplification into the stratosphere, which was predictable at longer lead times and then split; the surface impacts following the event were weaker. Here we examine the role of large‐scale climate influences, such as the phase of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, the Quasi‐biennial Oscillation and the Madden–Julian Oscillation, on the wave forcing, surface impacts and predictability of these two events. Linkages between the forecast error in the stratospheric polar vortex winds with the forecast error in the Quasi‐biennial Oscillation and Madden–Julian Oscillation are examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The stratospheric polar vortex forms each winter 10-50 km above the surface over the pole, and variations in its strength and position are known to influence the weather we experience. During winter 2018-2019, the Arctic polar vortex was highly variable - with both a sudden stratospheric warming and a strong vortex event. The strong recovery of the SPV following the SSW is dynamically consistent with the prolonged period of easterly winds - these effectively "shield" the mid-to-upper stratosphere from tropospheric planetary wave activity, which can only propagate into westerly flow, allowing the vortex to be undisturbed and redevelop through radiative cooling. Vertical dashed lines indicate (from left to right) the vortex spin-up, the major SSW, the peak of the strong vortex event and the final warming. gl. [Extracted from the article]

Sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) have been linked with anomalously cold temperatures at the surface in the middle to high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere as climatological westerly winds in the stratosphere tend to weaken and turn easterly. However, previous studies have largely relied on reanalyses and model simulations to infer the role of SSWs on surface climate and SSW relationships with extremes have not been fully analyzed. Here, we use observed daily gridded temperature and precipitation data over Europe to comprehensively examine the response of climate extremes to the occurrence of SSWs. We show that for much of Scandinavia, winters with SSWs are on average at least 1 °C cooler, but the coldest day and night of winter is on average at least 2 °C colder than in non‐SSW winters. Anomalously high pressure over Scandinavia reduces precipitation on the northern Atlantic coast but increases overall rainfall and the number of wet days in southern Europe. In the 60 days after SSWs, cold extremes are more intense over Scandinavia with anomalously high pressure and drier conditions prevailing. Over southern Europe there is a tendency toward lower pressure, increased precipitation and more wet days. The surface response in cold temperature extremes over northwest Europe to the 2018 SSW was stronger than observed for any SSW during 1979–2016. Our analysis shows that SSWs have an effect not only on mean climate but also extremes over much of Europe. Only with carefully designed analyses are the relationships between SSWs and climate means and extremes detectable above synoptic‐scale variability. Plain Language Summary: Sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) are rapid warming events that occur tens of kilometers above the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere. They are often associated with cold winter weather at the surface in the Northern Hemisphere, but previously, the connection between SSWs and cold extremes has been made using reanalyses and models rather than observational data. We performed the first comprehensive analysis of the link between SSWs and climate extremes in Europe. We found that winters with SSWs are substantially colder than average in areas like Scandinavia. Below‐average temperatures tend to precede SSW events, but the intensity of cold extremes, such as the coldest night of the month, tends to be strongest after the SSW event. Precipitation tends to decrease in northern Europe in winters with SSWs, but in southern Europe the aftermath of an SSW is often associated with more precipitation and an above‐average number of wet days. The 2018 SSW, for which the subsequent surface cold event was referred to as "The Beast from the East," exhibited stronger cold anomalies in extreme indices over northwest Europe than any SSW in the 1979–2016 period. Through this analysis we found a link between SSWs and European wintertime climate extremes. Key Points: Using gridded observational surface data, we find a link between SSWs and European climate means and extremesCooler average temperatures precede SSWs over much of northern Europe, but the intensity of cold extremes is greater after SSWsMethodological design has a large effect on the apparent strength of relationship between SSWs and European climate [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Each spring, the climatological westerly winds of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) stratospheric polar vortex turn easterly as the stratospheric equator‐to‐pole temperature gradient relaxes. The timing of this event is dictated both by the annual return of sunlight to the pole and by dynamical influences from the troposphere. Here we consider the predictability of NH final stratospheric warmings in multimodel hindcasts from the Subseasonal to Seasonal project database. We evaluate how well the Subseasonal to Seasonal prediction systems perform in capturing the timing of final warmings. We compare the predictability of early warmings (which are more strongly driven by wave forcing) and late warmings and find that late warmings are more skillfully predicted at longer lead times. Finally, we find significantly increased predictive skill of NH near‐surface temperature anomalies at Weeks 3–4 lead times following only early final warmings. Key Points: Final stratospheric warmings that occur in early spring are less predictable than those that occur in late springThe interannual variability in the timing of the final warming is well predicted more than 4 weeks in advanceEarly final warmings provide a source of surface climate predictive skill at Weeks 3–4 in Northern Hemisphere spring [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While a connection between the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Northern Hemisphere wintertime stratospheric polar vortex appears robust in observational studies focusing on the period before 1979 and in many modeling studies, this connection is not evident over the past few decades. In this study, the factors that have led to the disappearance of the ENSO‐vortex relationship are assessed by comparing this relationship in observational data and in operational subseasonal forecasting models over the past few decades. For reforecasts initialized in December, the models simulate a significantly weaker vortex during El Niño than La Niña (LN) as occurred before 1979, but no such effect was observed to have occurred. The apparent cause of this is the eastern European and western Siberian height anomalies present during ENSO. The observed LN events were associated with persistent ridging over eastern Europe as compared to El Niño. Although the Subseasonal‐to‐Seasonal models are initialized with this ridge, the ridge quickly dissipates. As ridging over this region enhances wave flux entering the stratosphere, the net effect is no robust stratospheric response to ENSO in the observations despite a North Pacific teleconnection that would, in isolation, lead to less wave flux for LN. The anomalies in the eastern European sector in response to ENSO likely reflect unforced internal atmospheric variability. Key Points: The strength of the connection between the Arctic stratospheric vortex and ENSO has weakened in the past few decadesThe apparent cause of this was height anomalies over eastern Europe; LN events were associated with persistent ridging as compared to ENAnomalies in the eastern European sector can modulate the vortex,but this effect likely was not forced by ENSO, rather is internal variability [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

El Niño and La Niña events in the tropical Pacific have significant and disrupting impacts on the global atmospheric and oceanic circulation. El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) impacts also extend above the troposphere, affecting the strength and variability of the stratospheric polar vortex in the high latitudes of both hemispheres, as well as the composition and circulation of the tropical stratosphere. El Niño events are associated with a warming and weakening of the polar vortex in the polar stratosphere of both hemispheres, while a cooling can be observed in the tropical lower stratosphere. These impacts are linked by a strengthened Brewer‐Dobson circulation. Anomalous upward wave propagation is observed in the extratropics of both hemispheres. For La Niña, these anomalies are often opposite. The stratosphere in turn affects surface weather and climate over large areas of the globe. Since these surface impacts are long‐lived, the changes in the stratosphere can lead to improved surface predictions on time scales of weeks to months. Over the past decade, our understanding of the mechanisms through which ENSO can drive impacts remote from the tropical Pacific has improved. This study reviews the possible mechanisms connecting ENSO to the stratosphere in the tropics and the extratropics of both hemispheres while also considering open questions, including nonlinearities in the teleconnections, the role of ENSO diversity, and the impacts of climate change and variability. Plain Language Summary: El Niño and La Niña events, the irregular warming and cooling of the tropical Pacific that occurs every couple of years, have disrupting impacts spanning the entire world. These remote impacts, so‐called "teleconnections", also reach the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere starting at around 10 km above the Earth's surface. El Niño leads to a warming of the stratosphere in both hemispheres, while the lower tropical stratosphere cools. These signatures are linked by a strengthened stratospheric circulation from the tropics to the polar regions. El Niño also leads to more frequent breakdowns of the stratospheric polar vortex, a band of strong eastward winds in the polar stratosphere. For La Niña, these effects tend to be opposite, though they are not always robust, suggesting nonlinear or nonstationary effects, long‐term variability, and trends in the teleconnections. The observational data record is not yet long enough to make conclusions with certainty, and models that try to reproduce the teleconnections indicate that teleconnections might be more linear than the limited number of observations indicate. Further research will be needed to separate the El Niño and La Niña teleconnections from other effects and to determine to what extent nonlinearity and nonstationarity are indeed present. Key Points: ENSO has a detectable impact on the composition and circulation of the stratosphere in the tropics and extratropicsThe changes in stratospheric variability due to ENSO have implications for improving surface predictionRecent advances in modeling have helped to put the response to the small sample of observed ENSO events in context [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The effect of the Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation (QBO) on the Northern Hemisphere wintertime stratospheric polar vortex is evaluated in five operational subseasonal forecasting models. Of these five models, the three with the best stratospheric resolution all indicate a weakened vortex during the easterly phase of the QBO relative to its westerly phase, consistent with the Holton‐Tan effect. The magnitude of this effect is well captured for initializations in late October and November in the model with the largest ensemble size. While the QBO appears to modulate the extratropical tropospheric circulation in some of the models as well, the importance of a polar stratospheric pathway, through the Holton‐Tan effect, for the tropospheric anomalies is unclear. Overall, knowledge of the QBO can contribute to enhanced predictability, at least in a probabilistic sense, of the Northern Hemisphere winter climate on subseasonal timescales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Factors governing the strength and frequency of stratospheric ozone intrusions over the Pacific‐North American region are considered for their role in modulating tropospheric ozone on interannual timescales. The strength of the association between two major modes of climate variability—the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Northern Annular Mode (NAM)—and the amount of ozone contained in stratospheric intrusions are tested in the context of two mechanisms that modulate stratosphere‐to‐troposphere transport (STT) of ozone: (StratVarO3) the winter season buildup of ozone abundances in the lowermost stratosphere (LMS) and (JetVar) Pacific jet and wave breaking variability during spring. In essence, StratVarO3 corresponds to variability in the amount of ozone per intrusion, while JetVar governs the frequency of intrusions. The resulting analysis, based on two different reanalysis products, suggests that StratVarO3 is more important than JetVar for driving interannual variations in STT of ozone over the Pacific‐North American region. In particular, the abundance of ozone in the LMS at the end of winter is shown to be a robust indicator of the amount of ozone that will be contained in stratospheric intrusions during the ensuing spring. Additionally, it is shown that the overall strength of the winter season stratospheric NAM is a useful predictor of ozone intrusion strength. The results also suggest a nuanced relationship between the phase of ENSO and STT of ozone. While ENSO‐related jet variability is associated with STT variability, it is wave breaking frequency rather than typical ENSO teleconnection patterns that is responsible for the ENSO‐STT relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arctic Oscillation (AO) variability impacts climate anomalies over the middle to high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Recently, state-of-the-art climate prediction models have proved capable of skillfully predicting the AO during the winter, revealing a previously unrealized source of climate predictability. Hindcasts from the North American Multimodel Ensemble (NMME) show that the seasonal, ensemble mean 200 hPa AO index is skillfully predicted up to 7 months in advance and that this skill, especially at longer leads, is coincident with previously unknown and strong relations ( r > 0.9) with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The NMME is a seasonal prediction system that comprises eight models and up to 100 members with forecasts out to 12 months. Observed ENSO-AO correlations are within the spread of the NMME member correlations, but the majority of member correlations are stronger than observed, consistent with too high predictability in the model, or overconfidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper synthesizes and summarizes atmospheric variability on time scales from seconds to decades through a phenomenological census. We focus mainly on unforced variability in the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere. In addition to atmosphere-only modes, our scope also includes coupled modes, in which the atmosphere interacts with the other components of the Earth system, such as the ocean, hydrosphere, and cryosphere. The topics covered include turbulence on time scales of seconds and minutes, gravity waves on time scales of hours, weather systems on time scales of days, atmospheric blocking on time scales of weeks, the Madden-Julian Oscillation on time scales of months, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation and El Niño-Southern Oscillation on time scales of years, and the North Atlantic, Arctic, Antarctic, Pacific Decadal, and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations on time scales of decades. The paper serves as an introduction to a special collection of Geophysical Research Letters on atmospheric variability. We hope that both this paper and the collection will serve as a useful resource for the atmospheric science community and will act as inspiration for setting future research directions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using an international, multi-model suite of historical forecasts from the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) Climate-system Historical Forecast Project (CHFP), we compare the seasonal prediction skill in boreal wintertime between models that resolve the stratosphere and its dynamics ('high-top') and models that do not ('low-top'). We evaluate hindcasts that are initialized in November, and examine the model biases in the stratosphere and how they relate to boreal wintertime (December-March) seasonal forecast skill. We are unable to detect more skill in the high-top ensemble-mean than the low-top ensemble-mean in forecasting the wintertime North Atlantic Oscillation, but model performance varies widely. Increasing the ensemble size clearly increases the skill for a given model. We then examine two major processes involving stratosphere-troposphere interactions (the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO)) and how they relate to predictive skill on intraseasonal to seasonal time-scales, particularly over the North Atlantic and Eurasia regions. High-top models tend to have a more realistic stratospheric response to El Niño and the QBO compared to low-top models. Enhanced conditional wintertime skill over high latitudes and the North Atlantic region during winters with El Niño conditions suggests a possible role for a stratospheric pathway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors examine the observed relationships between large-scale climate variability and concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Southern Hemisphere. The results reveal that month-to-month variations in the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 at Palmer Station on the Antarctic Peninsula are significantly related to fluctuations in the dominant mode of Southern Hemisphere atmospheric variability, the so-called Southern Annular Mode (SAM). A similar but weaker relationship between the SAM and atmospheric CO2 is evident at Syowa Station in eastern Antarctica, but not at the South Pole or stations located in Southern Hemisphere middle latitudes. Hence the SAM is most clearly related to fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 at locations that sample the westerly flow over the high latitudes of the Southern Ocean. Results based on CO2 flux estimates from the Atmospheric Tracer Transport Model Intercomparison Project (TransCom) suggest the observed relationships at least partially reflect the impact of the SAM on the flux of CO2 over the Southern Ocean. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The stratosphere has been identified as an important source of predictability for a range of processes on subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) time scales. Knowledge about S2S predictability within the stratosphere is however still limited. This study evaluates to what extent predictability in the extratropical stratosphere exists in hindcasts of operational prediction systems in the S2S database. The stratosphere is found to exhibit extended predictability as compared to the troposphere. Prediction systems with higher stratospheric skill tend to also exhibit higher skill in the troposphere. The analysis also includes an assessment of the predictability for stratospheric events, including early and midwinter sudden stratospheric warming events, strong vortex events, and extreme heat flux events for the Northern Hemisphere and final warming events for both hemispheres. Strong vortex events and final warming events exhibit higher levels of predictability as compared to sudden stratospheric warming events. In general, skill is limited to the deterministic range of 1 to 2 weeks. High‐top prediction systems overall exhibit higher stratospheric prediction skill as compared to their low‐top counterparts, pointing to the important role of stratospheric representation in S2S prediction models. Key Points: High‐top models have more skill in the stratosphere and the troposphere compared to low‐top modelsExtreme stratospheric events are predictable at 1‐ to 2‐week lead times in S2S modelsSSW events tend to be less predictable than strong vortex events or final warming events [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The stratosphere can have a significant impact on winter surface weather on subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) timescales. This study evaluates the ability of current operational S2S prediction systems to capture two important links between the stratosphere and troposphere: (1) changes in probabilistic prediction skill in the extratropical stratosphere by precursors in the tropics and the extratropical troposphere and (2) changes in surface predictability in the extratropics after stratospheric weak and strong vortex events. Probabilistic skill exists for stratospheric events when including extratropical tropospheric precursors over the North Pacific and Eurasia, though only a limited set of models captures the Eurasian precursors. Tropical teleconnections such as the Madden‐Julian Oscillation, the Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation, and El Niño–Southern Oscillation increase the probabilistic skill of the polar vortex strength, though these are only captured by a limited set of models. At the surface, predictability is increased over the United States, Russia, and the Middle East for weak vortex events, but not for Europe, and the change in predictability is smaller for strong vortex events for all prediction systems. Prediction systems with poorly resolved stratospheric processes represent this skill to a lesser degree. Altogether, the analyses indicate that correctly simulating stratospheric variability and stratosphere‐troposphere dynamical coupling are critical elements for skillful S2S wintertime predictions. Key Points: Tropospheric precursors of SSW events are better represented for the North Pacific than for EurasiaTeleconnections from the tropics add probabilistic skill but are only represented by a few modelsWeak and strong vortex events in the NH stratosphere can contribute to surface skill 3–4 weeks later [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]