Search

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 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]

Major disruptions of the winter season, high-latitude stratospheric polar vortices can result in stratospheric anomalies that persist for months. These sudden stratospheric warming events are recognized as an important potential source of forecast skill for surface climate on subseasonal to seasonal timescales. Realizing this skill in operational subseasonal forecast models remains a challenge, as models must capture both the evolution of the stratospheric polar vortices in addition to their coupling to the troposphere. The processes involved in this coupling remain a topic of open research. We present here the Stratospheric Nudging And Predictable Surface Impacts (SNAPSI) project. SNAPSI is a new model intercomparison protocol designed to study the role of the Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric polar vortex disturbances for surface predictability in subseasonal to seasonal forecast models. Based on a set of controlled, subseasonal ensemble forecasts of three recent events, the protocol aims to address four main scientific goals. First, to quantify the impact of improved stratospheric forecasts on near-surface forecast skill. Second, to attribute specific extreme events to stratospheric variability. Third, to assess the mechanisms by which the stratosphere influences the troposphere in the forecast models. Fourth, to investigate the wave processes that lead to the stratospheric anomalies themselves. Although not a primary focus, the experiments are furthermore expected to shed light on coupling between the tropical stratosphere and troposphere. The output requested will allow for a more detailed, process-based community analysis than has been possible with existing databases of subseasonal forecasts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The stratosphere can be a source of predictability for surface weather on timescales of several weeks to months. However, the potential predictive skill gained from stratospheric variability can be limited by biases in the representation of stratospheric processes and the coupling of the stratosphere with surface climate in forecast systems. This study provides a first systematic identification of model biases in the stratosphere across a wide range of subseasonal forecast systems. It is found that many of the forecast systems considered exhibit warm global-mean temperature biases from the lower to middle stratosphere, too strong/cold wintertime polar vortices, and too cold extratropical upper-troposphere/lower-stratosphere regions. Furthermore, tropical stratospheric anomalies associated with the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation tend to decay toward each system's climatology with lead time. In the Northern Hemisphere (NH), most systems do not capture the seasonal cycle of extreme-vortex-event probabilities, with an underestimation of sudden stratospheric warming events and an overestimation of strong vortex events in January. In the Southern Hemisphere (SH), springtime interannual variability in the polar vortex is generally underestimated, but the timing of the final breakdown of the polar vortex often happens too early in many of the prediction systems. These stratospheric biases tend to be considerably worse in systems with lower model lid heights. In both hemispheres, most systems with low-top atmospheric models also consistently underestimate the upward wave driving that affects the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex. We expect that the biases identified here will help guide model development for subseasonal-to-seasonal forecast systems and further our understanding of the role of the stratosphere in predictive skill in the troposphere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over recent years there have been concomitant advances in the development of stratosphere-resolving numerical models, our understanding of stratosphere–troposphere interaction, and the extension of long-range forecasts to explicitly include the stratosphere. These advances are now allowing for new and improved capability in long-range prediction. We present an overview of this development and show how the inclusion of the stratosphere in forecast systems aids monthly, seasonal, and annual-to-decadal climate predictions and multidecadal projections. We end with an outlook towards the future and identify areas of improvement that could further benefit these rapidly evolving predictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Major disruptions of the winter season, high-latitude, stratospheric polar vortices can result in stratospheric anomalies that persist for months. These sudden stratospheric warming events are recognized as an important potential source of forecast skill for surface climate on subseasonal to seasonal timescales. Realizing this skill in operational subseasonal forecast models remains a challenge, as models must capture both the evolution of the stratospheric polar vortices in addition to their coupling to the troposphere. The processes involved in this coupling remain a topic of open research. We present here the Stratospheric Nudging And Predictable Surface Impacts (SNAPSI) project. SNAPSI is a new model intercomparison protocol designed to study the role of the Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric polar vortices in sub-seasonal to seasonal forecast models. Based on a set of controlled, subseasonal, ensemble forecasts of three recent events, the protocol aims to address four main scientific goals. First, to quantify the impact of improved stratospheric forecasts on near-surface forecast skill. Second, to attribute specific extreme events to stratospheric variability. Third, to assess the mechanisms by which the stratosphere influences the troposphere in the forecast models, and fourth, to investigate the wave processes that lead to the stratospheric anomalies themselves. Although not a primary focus, the experiments are furthermore expected to shed light on coupling between the tropical stratosphere and troposphere. The output requested will allow for a more detailed, process-based community analysis than has been possible with existing databases of subseasonal forecasts. [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]

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]

The agreement between reanalysis datasets, in terms of the zonal-mean momentum budget, is evaluated during sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) events. It is revealed that there is a good agreement among datasets in the lower stratosphere and troposphere concerning zonal-mean zonal wind, but less so in the upper stratosphere. Forcing terms of the momentum equation are also relatively similar in the lower atmosphere, but their uncertainties are typically larger than uncertainties of the zonal-wind tendency. Similar to zonal-wind tendency, the agreement among forcing terms is degraded in the upper stratosphere. Discrepancies among reanalyses increase during the onset of SSW events, a period characterized by unusually large fluxes of planetaryscale waves from the troposphere to the stratosphere, and decrease substantially after the onset. While the largest uncertainties in the resolved terms of the momentum budget are found in the Coriolis torque, momentum flux convergence also presents a non-negligible spread among the reanalyses. Such a spread is reduced in the latest reanalysis products, decreasing the uncertainty of the momentum budget. It is also found that the uncertainties in the Coriolis torque depend on the strength of SSW events: the SSW events that exhibit the most intense deceleration of zonal-mean zonal wind are subject to larger discrepancies among reanalyses. These uncertainties in stratospheric circulation, however, are not communicated to the troposphere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various criteria exist for determining the occurrence of a major sudden stratospheric warming (SSW), but the most common is based on the reversal of the climatological westerly zonal-mean zonal winds at 60° latitude and 10 hPa in the winter stratosphere. This definition was established at a time when observations of the stratosphere were sparse. Given greater access to data in the satellite era, a systematic analysis of the optimal parameters of latitude, altitude, and threshold for the wind reversal is now possible. Here, the frequency of SSWs, the strength of the wave forcing associated with the events, changes in stratospheric temperature and zonal winds, and surface impacts are examined as a function of the stratospheric wind reversal parameters. The results provide a methodical assessment of how to best define a standard metric for major SSWs. While the continuum nature of stratospheric variability makes it difficult to identify a decisively optimal threshold, there is a relatively narrow envelope of thresholds that work well—and the original focus at 60° latitude and 10 hPa lies within this window. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Major, sudden midwinter stratospheric warmings (SSWs) are large and rapid temperature increases in the winter polar stratosphere are associated with a complete reversal of the climatological westerly winds (i.e., the polar vortex). These extreme events can have substantial impacts on winter surface climate, including increased frequency of cold air outbreaks over North America and Eurasia and anomalous warming over Greenland and eastern Canada. Here we present a SSW Compendium (SSWC), a new database that documents the evolution of the stratosphere, troposphere, and surface conditions 60 days prior to and after SSWs for the period 1958-2014. The SSWC comprises data from six different reanalysis products: MERRA2 (1980-2014), JRA-55 (1958-2014), ERA-interim (1979-2014), ERA-40 (1958-2002), NOAA20CRv2c (1958-2011), and NCEP-NCAR I (1958-2014). Global gridded daily anomaly fields, full fields, and derived products are provided for each SSW event. The compendium will allow users to examine the structure and evolution of individual SSWs, and the variability among events and among reanalysis products. [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]

A new data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979-2005 that is strikingly different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances. Here we highlight the important issues raised by the new data and suggest how the climate science community can resolve them. [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]

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 has been recognized to play an important role in the predictability of surface weather on sub-seasonal to seasonal (S2S) timescales. This study evaluates to what extent predictability related to the extratropical stratosphere indeed exists in hindcasts of operational S2S prediction systems in the S2S database. The analysis includes predictability for stratospheric events for the extratropics of both hemispheres and potential precursors of stratospheric predictability in the tropics and extratropics, as well as changes in surface predictability after stratospheric events. It is found that different prediction systems exhibit a wide range of skill in predicting stratospheric events, though skill generally only exists at the deterministic level for daily lead times. Probabilistic skill exists for stratospheric events when including precursor events and teleconnections, though these are only captured by a limited set of models. At the surface, predictability is increased after stratospheric events for all prediction systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]