Search

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., Weather and Climate Dynamics Discussions, ISSN:2698-4024

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 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.

The stratospheric polar vortex is a westerly circulation that forms over the winter pole around 10-50 km above the surface, which is known to influence mid-latitude weather patterns. During 2018-19, the Arctic polar vortex demonstrated an unusually large amount of variability,\ud including a strong and persistent sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event, a strong vortex event, and a dynamic final stratospheric warming (FSW). In this article we discuss the evolution of the vortex, placing it in the context of wider observed climatology, and comment on its apparent impacts on tropospheric weather patterns – notably, the lack of a surface climate response to the SSW of similar magnitude to the February-March 2018 “Beast from the East” cold-wave.

The stratosphere can have a signi_cant 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 tropo sphere: (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. Prob abilistic skill exists for stratospheric events when including extratropical tropospheric precursors over the North Paci_c 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 Nin~o 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 USA, 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.

The stratosphere has been identified as an important source of predictability for a range of processes on subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) timescales. 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 mid‐winter sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) 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 SSW events. In general, skill is limited to the deterministic range of one to two 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.

The stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere at heights between 10-50 km, is an important source of variability for the weather and climate at the Earth’s surface on timescales of weeks to decades. Since the stratospheric circulation evolves more slowly than that of the troposphere below, it can contribute to predictability at the surface. Our synthesis of studies on the coupling between the stratosphere and the troposphere reveals that the stratosphere also contributes substantially to a wide range of climate-related extreme events. These extreme events include cold air outbreaks and extreme heat, air pollution, wildfires, wind extremes, and storm clusters, as well as changes in tropical cyclones and sea ice cover, and they can have devastating consequences for human health, infrastructure, and ecosystems. A better understanding of the vertical coupling in the atmosphere, along with improved representation in numerical models, is therefore expected to help predict extreme events on timescales from weeks to decades in terms of the event type, magnitude, frequency, location, and timing. With a better understanding of stratosphere-troposphere coupling, it may be possible to link more tropospheric extremes to stratospheric forcing, which will be crucial for emergency planning and management., Communications Earth & Environment, 1 (1), ISSN:2662-4435

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. ISSN:0148-0227 ISSN:2169-897X

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 (Dec-Mar) 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 intra-seasonal to seasonal timescales, 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.

The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a major driver of Northern Hemisphere wintertime variability and, generally, the key ingredient used in seasonal forecasts of wintertime surface climate. Modeling studies have recently suggested that ENSO teleconnections might involve both a tropospheric pathway and a stratospheric one. Here, using reanalysis data, we carefully distinguish between the two. We first note that the temperature and circulation anomalies associated with the tropospheric pathway are nearly equal and opposite during the warm (El Niño) and cold (La Niña) phases of ENSO, whereas those associated with the stratospheric pathway are of the same sign, irrespective of the ENSO phase. We then exploit this fact to isolate the two pathways. Our decomposition reveals that ENSOs climate impacts over North America are largely associated with the tropospheric pathway, whereas ENSOs climate impacts over the North Atlantic and Eurasia are greatly affected by the stratospheric pathway. The stratospheric pathway, which we here define on the basis of the occurrence of one or more sudden stratospheric warmings in a given winter, and whose signature projects very strongly on the North Atlantic Oscillation, is found to be present 60% of the time during ENSO winters (of either phase): it therefore likely plays an important role in improving seasonal forecasts, notably over the North Atlantic and the Eurasian continent.

We describe the main differences in simulations of stratospheric climate and variability by models within the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) that have a model top above the stratopause and relatively fine stratospheric vertical resolution (high-top), and those that have a model top below the stratopause (low-top). Although the simulation of mean stratospheric climate by the two model ensembles is similar, the low-top model ensemble has very weak stratospheric variability on daily and interannual time scales. The frequency of major sudden stratospheric warming events is strongly underestimated by the low-top models with less than half the frequency of events observed in the reanalysis data and high-top models. The lack of stratospheric variability in the low-top models affects their stratosphere-troposphere coupling, resulting in short-lived anomalies in the Northern Annular Mode, which do not produce long-lasting tropospheric impacts, as seen in observations. The lack of stratospheric variability, however, does not appear to have any impact on the ability of the low-top models to reproduce past stratospheric temperature trends. We find little improvement in the simulation of decadal variability for the high-top models compared to the low-top, which is likely related to the fact that neither ensemble produces a realistic dynamical response to volcanic eruptions. Citation: Charlton-Perez, A. J., et al. (2013), On the lack of stratospheric dynamical variability in low-top versions of the CMIP5 models, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 2494-2505, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50125.

We present a comparison of temperature trends using different satellite and radiosonde observations and climate (GCM) and chemistry-climate model (CCM) outputs, focusing on the role of photochemical ozone depletion in the Antarctic lower stratosphere during the second half of the twentieth century. Ozone-induced stratospheric cooling peaks during November at an altitude of approximately 100 hPa in radiosonde observations, with 1969 to 1998 trends in the range of -3.8 to -4.7 K/dec. This stratospheric cooling trend is more than 50% greater than the previously estimated value of -2.4 K/dec, which suggested that the CCMs were overestimating the stratospheric cooling, and that the less complex GCMs forced by prescribed ozone were matching observations better. Corresponding ensemble mean model trends are -3.8K/dec for the CCMs, -3.5K/dec for the CMIP5 GCMs, and -2.7K/dec for the CMIP3 GCMs. Accounting for various sources of uncertainty-including sampling uncertainty, measurement error, model spread, and trend confidence intervals-observations and CCM and GCM ensembles are consistent in this new analysis. This consistency does not apply to each individual that makes up the GCM and CCM ensembles, and some do not show significant ozone-induced cooling. Nonetheless, analysis of the joint ozone and temperature trends in the CCMs suggests that the modeled cooling/ozone-depletion relationship is within the range of observations. Overall, this study emphasizes the need to use a wide range of observations for model validation as well as sufficient accounting of uncertainty in both models and measurements.

Recent studies have suggested that El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) may have a considerable impact on Northern Hemisphere wintertime stratospheric conditions. Notably, during El Niño the stratosphere is warmer than during ENSO-neutral winters, and the polar vortex is weaker. Opposite-signed anomalies have been reported during La Niña, but are considerably smaller in amplitude than during El Niño. This has led to the perception that El Niño is able to substantially affect stratospheric conditions, but La Niña is of secondary importance. Here we revisit this issue, but focus on the extreme events that couple the troposphere to the stratosphere: major, mid-winter stratospheric sudden warmings (SSWs). We examine 53 years of reanalysis data and find, as expected, that SSWs are nearly twice as frequent during ENSO winters as during non-ENSO winters. Surprisingly, however, we also find that SSWs occur with equal probability during El Niño and La Niña winters. These findings corroborate the impact of ENSO on stratospheric variability, and highlight that both phases of ENSO are important in enhancing stratosphere-troposphere dynamical coupling via an increased frequency of SSWs.

Every spring, the stratospheric polar vortex transitions from its westerly wintertime state to its easterly summertime state due to seasonal changes in incoming solar radiation, an event known as the “final stratospheric warming” (FSW). While FSWs tend to be less abrupt than reversals of the boreal polar vortex in midwinter, known as sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) events, their timing and characteristics can be significantly modulated by atmospheric planetary-scale waves. While SSWs are commonly classified according to their wave geometry, either by how the vortex evolves (whether the vortex displaces off the pole or splits into two vortices) or by the dominant wavenumber of the vortex just prior to the SSW (wave-1 vs. wave-2), little is known about the wave geometry of FSW events. We here show that FSW events for both hemispheres in most cases exhibit a clear wave geometry. Most FSWs can be classified into wave-1 or wave-2 events, but wave-3 also plays a significant role in both hemispheres. The timing and classification of the FSW are sensitive to which pressure level the FSW central date is defined, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) where trends in the FSW dates associated with ozone depletion and recovery are more evident at 50 than 10 hPa. However, regardless of which FSW definition is selected, we find the wave geometry of the FSW affects total column ozone anomalies in both hemispheres and tropospheric circulation over North America. In the Southern Hemisphere, the timing of the FSW is strongly linked to both total column ozone before the event and the tropospheric circulation after the event., Weather and Climate Dynamics, 2 (2), ISSN:2698-4016, ISSN:2698-4008

We describe the main differences in simulations of stratospheric climate and variability by models within the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) that have a model top above the stratopause and relatively fine stratospheric vertical resolution (high-top), and those that have a model top below the stratopause (low-top). Although the simulation of mean stratospheric climate by the two model ensembles is similar, the low-top model ensemble has very weak stratospheric variability on daily and interannual time scales. The frequency of major sudden stratospheric warming events is strongly underestimated by the low-top models with less than half the frequency of events observed in the reanalysis data and high-top models. The lack of stratospheric variability in the low-top models affects their stratosphere-troposphere coupling, resulting in short-lived anomalies in the Northern Annular Mode, which do not produce long-lasting tropospheric impacts, as seen in observations. The lack of stratospheric variability, however, does not appear to have any impact on the ability of the low-top models to reproduce past stratospheric temperature trends. We find little improvement in the simulation of decadal variability for the high-top models compared to the low-top, which is likely related to the fact that neither ensemble produces a realistic dynamical response to volcanic eruptions.

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., Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123 (15), ISSN:0148-0227, ISSN:2169-897X

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.