skip to main content

Title: Why Are Stratospheric Sudden Warmings Sudden (and Intermittent)?
This paper examines the role of wave–mean flow interaction in the onset and suddenness of stratospheric sudden warmings (SSWs). Evidence is presented that SSWs are, on average, a threshold behavior of finite-amplitude Rossby waves arising from the competition between an increasing wave activity A and a decreasing zonal-mean zonal wind [Formula: see text]. The competition puts a limit to the wave activity flux that a stationary Rossby wave can transmit upward. A rapid, spontaneous vortex breakdown occurs once the upwelling wave activity flux reaches the limit, or equivalently, once [Formula: see text] drops below a certain fraction of u REF , a wave-free, reference-state wind inverted from the zonalized quasigeostrophic potential vorticity. This fraction is 0.5 in theory and about 0.3 in reanalyses. We propose [Formula: see text] as a local, instantaneous measure of the proximity to vortex breakdown (i.e., preconditioning). The ratio r generally stays above the threshold during strong-vortex winters until a pronounced final warming, whereas during weak-vortex winters it approaches the threshold early in the season, culminating in a precipitous drop in midwinter as SSWs form. The essence of the threshold behavior is captured by a semiempirical 1D model of SSWs, similar to the “traffic jam” model more » of Nakamura and Huang for atmospheric blocking. This model predicts salient features of SSWs including rapid vortex breakdown and downward migration of the wave activity/zonal wind anomalies, with analytical expressions for the respective time scales. The model’s response to a variety of transient wave forcing and damping is discussed. « less
; ;
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
943 to 964
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract. Stratospheric circulation is a critical part of the Arctic ozone cycle.Sudden stratospheric warming events (SSWs) manifest the strongest alterationof stratospheric dynamics. During SSWs, changes in planetary wavepropagation vigorously influence zonal mean zonal wind, temperature, andtracer concentrations in the stratosphere over the high latitudes. In thisstudy, we examine six persistent major SSWs from 2004 to 2020 using theModern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2(MERRA-2). Using the unique density of observations around the Greenlandsector at high latitudes, we perform comprehensive comparisons of high-latitude observations with the MERRA-2 ozone dataset during the six majorSSWs. Our results show that MERRA-2 captures the high variability of mid-stratospheric ozone fluctuations during SSWs over high latitudes. However,larger uncertainties are observed in the lower stratosphere and troposphere.The zonally averaged stratospheric ozone shows a dramatic increase of9 %–29 % in total column ozone (TCO) near the time of each SSW, which lastsup to 2 months. This study shows that the average shape of the Arcticpolar vortex before SSWs influences the geographical extent, timing, andmagnitude of ozone changes. The SSWs exhibit a more significant impact onozone over high northern latitudes when the average polar vortex is mostlyelongated as seen in 2009 and 2018 compared to the events in whichmore »the polarvortex is displaced towards Europe. Strong correlation (R2=90  %) isobserved between the magnitude of change in average equivalent potentialvorticity before and after SSWs and the associated averaged total columnozone changes over high latitudes. This paper investigates the differentterms of the ozone continuity equation using MERRA-2 circulation, whichemphasizes the key role of vertical advection in mid-stratospheric ozoneduring the SSWs and the magnified vertical advection in elongated vortexshape as seen in 2009 and 2018.« less
  2. The two-way interaction between Madden–Julian oscillation (MJO) and higher-frequency waves (HFW) over the Maritime Continent (MC) during boreal winter of 1984–2005 is investigated. It is noted from observational analysis that strengthened (weakened) HFW activity appears to the west (east) of and under MJO convection during the MJO active phase and the opposite is seen during the MJO suppressed phase. Sensitivity model experiments indicate that the control of HFW activity by MJO is through change of the background vertical wind shear and specific humidity. The upscale feedbacks from HFW to MJO through nonlinear rectification of condensational heating and eddy momentum transport are also investigated with observational data. A significantly large amount (25%–40%) of positive heating anomaly ([Formula: see text]) at low levels to the east of MJO convection is contributed by nonlinear rectification of HFW. This nonlinear rectification is primarily attributed to eddy meridional moisture advection. A momentum budget diagnosis reveals that 60% of MJO zonal wind tendency at 850 hPa is attributed to the nonlinear interaction of HFW with other scale flows. Among them, the largest contribution arises from eddy zonal momentum flux divergence [Formula: see text]. Easterly (westerly) vertical shear to the west (east) of MJO convection during themore »MJO active phase causes the strengthening (weakening) of the HFW zonal wind anomaly. This leads to the increase (decrease) of eddy momentum flux activity to the east (west) of the MJO convection, which causes a positive (negative) eddy zonal momentum flux divergence in the zonal wind transitional region during the MJO active (suppressed) phase, favoring the eastward propagation of the MJO.« less
  3. 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. The tropospheric response to midwinter sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) is examined using an idealized model. SSW events are triggered by imposing high-latitude stratospheric heating perturbations of varying magnitude for only a few days, spun off from a free-running control integration (CTRL). The evolution of the thermally triggered SSWs is then compared with naturally occurring SSWs identified in CTRL. By applying a heating perturbation, with no modification to the momentum budget, it is possible to isolate the tropospheric response directly attributable to a change in the stratospheric polar vortex, independent of any planetary wave momentum torques involved in the initiation of an SSW. Zonal-wind anomalies associated with the thermally triggered SSWs first propagate downward to the high-latitude troposphere after ~2 weeks, before migrating equatorward and stalling at midlatitudes, where they straddle the near-surface jet. After ~3 weeks, the circulation and eddy fluxes associated with thermally triggered SSWs evolve very similarly to SSWs in CTRL, despite the lack of initial planetary wave driving. This suggests that at longer lags, the tropospheric response to SSWs is generic and it is found to be linearly governed by the strength of the lower-stratospheric warming, whereas at shorter lags, the initial formation of the SSW potentiallymore »plays a large role in the downward coupling. In agreement with previous studies, synoptic waves are found to play a key role in the persistent tropospheric jet shift at long lags. Synoptic waves appear to respond to the enhanced midlatitude baroclinicity associated with the tropospheric jet shift, and preferentially propagate poleward in an apparent positive feedback with changes in the high-latitude refractive index.« less
  5. 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