More Like this

1. The impact of split and displacement sudden stratospheric warmings on the troposphere

   https://doi.org/https://doi. org/10.1029/2020JD033989  

   White, I. P. ( April 2021 , Journal of geophysical research)

   Although sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) can improve subseasonal-to-seasonal forecasts, it is unclear whether the two types of SSW - displacements and splits - have different near- surface effects. To examine the longer-term (i.e., multi-week lead) tropospheric response to displacements and splits, we utilize an intermediate-complexity model and impose wave-1 and wave-2 stratospheric heating perturbations spun-off from a control run. At longer lags, the tropospheric response is found to be insensitive to both the wavenumber and location of the imposed heating, in agreement with freely evolving displacements and splits identified in the control run. At shorter lags, however, large differences are found between displacements and splits in both the control run and the different wavenumber- forced events. In particular, in the control run, the free-running splits have an immediate barotropic response throughout the stratosphere and troposphere whereas displacements take 1–2 weeks before a near-surface response becomes evident. Interestingly, this barotropic response found during CTRL splits is not captured by the barotropically forced wave-2 events, indicating that the zonal-mean tropospheric circulation is somehow coupled with the generation of the wave-2 splits. It is also found that in the control run, displacements yield stronger Polar-Cap temperature anomalies than splits, yet both still yieldmore »similar magnitude tropospheric responses. Hence, the strength of the stratospheric warming is not the only governing factor in the surface response. Overall, SSW classification based on vortex morphology may be useful for subseasonal but not seasonal tropospheric prediction.« less
2. Is our dynamical understanding of the circulation changes associated with the Antarctic ozone hole sensitive to the choice of reanalysis dataset?

   https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-7451-2021  

   Orr, Andrew ; Lu, Hua ; Martineau, Patrick ; Gerber, Edwin P. ; Marshall, Gareth J. ; Bracegirdle, Thomas J. ( January 2021 , Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics)

   Abstract. This study quantifies differences among four widely usedatmospheric reanalysis datasets (ERA5, JRA-55, MERRA-2, and CFSR) in theirrepresentation of the dynamical changes induced by springtime polarstratospheric ozone depletion in the Southern Hemisphere from 1980 to 2001.The intercomparison is undertaken as part of the SPARC(Stratosphere–troposphere Processes and their Role in Climate) ReanalysisIntercomparison Project (S-RIP). The reanalyses are generally in goodagreement in their representation of the strengthening of the lowerstratospheric polar vortex during the austral spring–summer season,associated with reduced radiative heating due to ozone loss, as well as thedescent of anomalously strong westerly winds into the troposphere duringsummer and the subsequent poleward displacement and intensification of thepolar front jet. Differences in the trends in zonal wind between thereanalyses are generally small compared to the mean trends. The exception isCFSR, which exhibits greater disagreement compared to the other threereanalysis datasets, with stronger westerly winds in the lower stratospherein spring and a larger poleward displacement of the tropospheric westerlyjet in summer. The dynamical changes associated with the ozone hole are examined byinvestigating the momentum budget and then the eddy heat and momentumfluxes in terms of planetary- and synoptic-scale Rossby wave contributions.The dynamical changes are consistently represented across the reanalysesand support our dynamical understanding ofmore »the response of the coupledstratosphere–troposphere system to the ozone hole. Although our resultssuggest a high degree of consistency across the four reanalysis datasets inthe representation of these dynamical changes, there are larger differencesin the wave forcing, residual circulation, and eddy propagation changes compared to the zonal wind trends. In particular, there is a noticeabledisparity in these trends in CFSR compared to the other three reanalyses,while the best agreement is found between ERA5 and JRA-55. Greateruncertainty in the components of the momentum budget, as opposed to meancirculation, suggests that the zonal wind is better constrained by theassimilation of observations compared to the wave forcing, residualcirculation, and eddy momentum and heat fluxes, which are more dependent onthe model-based forecasts that can differ between reanalyses. Lookingforward, however, these findings give us confidence that reanalysis datasetscan be used to assess changes associated with the ongoing recovery ofstratospheric ozone.« less
3. Sensitivity of Sudden Stratospheric Warmings to Previous Stratospheric Conditions

   https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-17-0136.1  

   Cámara, Alvaro de ; Albers, John R. ; Birner, Thomas ; Garcia, Rolando R. ; Hitchcock, Peter ; Kinnison, Douglas E. ; Smith, Anne K. ( September 2017 , Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences)

   Abstract The Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model, version 4 (WACCM4), is used to investigate the influence of stratospheric conditions on the development of sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs). To this end, targeted experiments are performed on selected modeled SSW events. Specifically, the model is reinitialized three weeks before a given SSW, relaxing the surface fluxes, winds, and temperature below 10 km to the corresponding fields from the free-running simulation. Hence, the tropospheric wave evolution is unaltered across the targeted experiments, but the stratosphere itself can evolve freely. The stratospheric zonal-mean state is then altered 21 days prior to the selected SSWs and rerun with an ensemble of different initial conditions. It is found that a given tropospheric evolution concomitant with the development of an SSW does not uniquely determine the occurrence of an event and that the stratospheric conditions are relevant to the subsequent evolution of the stratospheric flow toward an SSW, even for a fixed tropospheric evolution. It is also shown that interpreting the meridional heat flux at 100 hPa as a proxy of the tropospheric injection of wave activity into the stratosphere should be regarded with caution and that stratospheric dynamics critically influence the heat flux at that altitude.
4. Surface Control of the Frequency of Stratospheric Sudden Warming Events

   https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0801.1  

   Wu, Zheng ; Reichler, Thomas ( July 2019 , Journal of Climate)

   The frequency of stratospheric sudden warming events (SSWs) is an important characteristic of the coupled stratosphere–troposphere system. However, many modern climate models are unable to reproduce the observed SSW frequency. A previous study suggested that one of the reasons could be the momentum damping at the surface. The goal of the present study is to understand what determines the climatological SSW frequency and how the surface damping comes into play. To this end, we conduct a parameter sweep with an idealized model, using a wide range of values for the surface damping. It is found that the SSW frequency is a strong and nonlinear function of the surface damping. Various tropospheric and stratospheric factors are identified to link the surface damping to the SSW frequency. The factors include the magnitude of the surface winds, the meridional and vertical wind shear, the synoptic eddy activity in the troposphere, the transient wave activity flux at the lower stratosphere, and the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex. Mathematical–statistical modeling, informed by the parameter sweep, is used to quantify how the different factors relate to each other. This successfully reproduces the complex variations of the SSW frequency with the surface damping seen inmore »the parameter sweep. The results may help in explaining some of the difficulties that climate models have in simulating the observed SSW frequency.

   « less
5. Limited surface impacts of the January 2021 sudden stratospheric warming

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28836-1  

   Davis, N. A. ; Richter, J. H. ; Glanville, A. A. ; Edwards, J. ; LaJoie, E. ( March 2022 , Nature Communications)

   Subseasonal weather prediction can reduce economic disruption and loss of life, especially during “windows of opportunity” when noteworthy events in the Earth system are followed by characteristic weather patterns. Sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs), breakdowns of the winter stratospheric polar vortex, are one such event. They often precede warm temperatures in Northern Canada and cold, stormy weather throughout Europe and the United States - including the most recent SSW on January 5th, 2021. Here we assess the drivers of surface weather in the weeks following the SSW through initial condition “scrambling” experiments using the real-time CESM2(WACCM6) Earth system prediction framework. We find that the SSW itself had a limited impact, and that stratospheric polar vortex stretching and wave reflection had no discernible contribution to the record cold in North America in February. Instead, the tropospheric circulation and bidirectional coupling between the troposphere and stratosphere were dominant contributors to variability.