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 El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is known to modulate the strength and frequency of stratosphere-to-troposphere transport (STT) of ozone over the Pacific–North American region during late winter to early summer. Dynamical processes that have been proposed to account for this variability include variations in the amount of ozone in the lowermost stratosphere that is available for STT and tropospheric circulation-related variations in the frequency and geographic distribution of individual STT events. Here we use a large ensemble of Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM) simulations (forced by sea-surface temperature (SST) boundary conditions consistent with each phase of ENSO) to show that variability in lower-stratospheric ozone and shifts in the Pacific tropospheric jet constructively contribute to the amount of STT of ozone in the North American region during both ENSO phases. In terms of stratospheric variability, ENSO drives ozone anomalies resembling the Pacific–North American teleconnection pattern that span much of the lower stratosphere below 50 hPa. These ozone anomalies, which dominate over other ENSO-driven changes in the Brewer–Dobson circulation (including changes due to both the stratospheric residual circulation and quasi-isentropic mixing), strongly modulate the amount of ozone available for STT transport. As a result, during late winter (February–March), the stratospheric ozone response to the teleconnections constructively reinforces anomalous ENSO-jet-driven STT of ozone. However, as ENSO forcing weakens as spring progresses into summer (April–June), the direct effects of the ENSO-jet-driven STT transport weaken. Nevertheless, the residual impacts of the teleconnections on the amount of ozone in the lower stratosphere persist, and these anomalies in turn continue to cause anomalous STT of ozone. These results should prove helpful for interpreting the utility of ENSO as a subseasonal predictor of both free-tropospheric ozone and the probability of stratospheric ozone intrusion events that may cause exceedances in surface air quality standards. [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]

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 of 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 sub-seasonal to seasonal forecast systems, and further our understanding of the role of the stratosphere for predictive skill in the troposphere. [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]

Process studies are designed to improve our understanding of poorly described physical processes that are central to the behavior of the climate system. They typically include coordinated efforts of intensive field campaigns in the atmosphere and/or ocean to collect a carefully planned set of in situ observations. Ideally the observational portion of a process study is paired with numerical modeling efforts that lead to better representation of a poorly simulated or previously neglected physical process in operational and research models. This article provides a framework of best practices to help guide scientists in carrying out more productive, collaborative, and successful process studies. Topics include the planning and implementation of a process study and the associated web of logistical challenges; the development of focused science goals and testable hypotheses; and the importance of assembling an integrated and compatible team with a diversity of social identity, gender, career stage, and scientific background. Guidelines are also provided for scientific data management, dissemination, and stewardship. Above all, developing trust and continual communication within the science team during the field campaign and analysis phase are key for process studies. We consider a successful process study as one that ultimately will improve our quantitative understanding of the mechanisms responsible for climate variability and enhance our ability to represent them in climate models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) are large, rapid temperature rises in the winter polar stratosphere, occurring predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere. Major SSWs are also associated with a reversal of the climatological westerly zonal-mean zonal winds. Circulation anomalies associated with SSWs can descend into the troposphere with substantial surface weather impacts, such as wintertime extreme cold air outbreaks. After their discovery in 1952, SSWs were classified by the World Meteorological Organization. An examination of the literature suggests that a single, original reference for an exact definition of SSWs is elusive, but in many references a definition involves the reversal of the meridional temperature gradient and, for major warmings, the reversal of the zonal circulation poleward of 60° latitude at 10 hPa. Though versions of this definition are still commonly used to detect SSWs, the details of the definition and its implementation remain ambiguous. In addition, other SSW definitions have been used in the last few decades, resulting in inconsistent classification of SSW events. We seek to answer the questions: How has the SSW definition changed, and how sensitive is the detection of SSWs to the definition used? For what kind of analysis is a "standard" definition useful? We argue that a standard SSW definition is necessary for maintaining a consistent and robust metric to assess polar stratospheric wintertime variability in climate models and other statistical applications. To provide a basis for, and to encourage participation in, a communitywide discussion currently underway, we explore what criteria are important for a standard definition and propose possible ways to update the definition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]