Articles | Volume 20, issue 17
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-10531-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-10531-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
10 Sep 2020
Research article |
| 10 Sep 2020
| 10 Sep 2020
The effect of interactive ozone chemistry on weak and strong stratospheric polar vortex events
Jessica Oehrlein
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Applied Physics & Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, United States
Gabriel Chiodo
Department of Applied Physics & Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, United States
Department of Environmental Systems Science, Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Lorenzo M. Polvani
Department of Applied Physics & Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, United States
Related authors
No articles found.
Clara Orbe, Alison Ming, Gabriel Chiodo, Michael Prather, Mohamadou Diallo, Qi Tang, Andreas Chrysanthou, Hiroaki Naoe, Xin Zhou, Irina Thaler, Dillon Elsbury, Ewa Bednarz, Jonathon S. Wright, Aaron Match, Shingo Watanabe, James Anstey, Tobias Kerzenmacher, Stefan Versick, Marion Marchand, Feng Li, and James Keeble
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2761, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2761, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) is the main source of wind fluctuations in the tropical stratosphere, which can couple to surface climate. However, models do a poor job of simulating the QBO in the lower stratosphere, for reasons that remain unclear. One possibility is that models do not completely represent how ozone influences the QBO-associated wind variations. Here we propose a multi-model framework for assessing how ozone influences the QBO in recent past and future climates.
Simone Tilmes, Ewa M. Bednarz, Andrin Jörimann, Daniele Visioni, Douglas E. Kinnison, Gabriel Chiodo, and David Plummer
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 6001–6023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-6001-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-6001-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we describe the details of a new multi-model intercomparison experiment to assess the effects of Stratospheric Aerosol Intervention (SAI) on stratospheric chemistry and dynamics and, therefore, ozone. Second, we discuss the advantages and differences of the more constrained experiment compared to fully interactive model experiments. This way, we advance the process-level understanding of the drivers of SAI-induced atmospheric responses.
Tyler P. Janoski, Ivan Mitevski, Ryan J. Kramer, Michael Previdi, and Lorenzo M. Polvani
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3065–3079, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3065-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3065-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We developed ClimKern, a Python package and radiative kernel repository, to simplify calculating radiative feedbacks and make climate sensitivity studies more reproducible. Testing of ClimKern with sample climate model data reveals that radiative kernel choice may be more important than previously thought, especially in polar regions. Our work highlights the need for kernel sensitivity analyses to be included in future studies.
Ales Kuchar, Timofei Sukhodolov, Gabriel Chiodo, Andrin Jörimann, Jessica Kult-Herdin, Eugene Rozanov, and Harald H. Rieder
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 3623–3634, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3623-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3623-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In January 2022, the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai (HTHH) volcano erupted, sending massive amounts of water vapour into the atmosphere. This event had a significant impact on stratospheric and lower-mesospheric chemical composition. Two years later, stratospheric conditions were disturbed during so-called sudden stratospheric warmings. Here we simulate a novel pathway by which this water-rich eruption may have contributed to conditions during these events and consequently impacted the surface climate.
Andrin Jörimann, Timofei Sukhodolov, Beiping Luo, Gabriel Chiodo, Graham Mann, and Thomas Peter
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-145, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-145, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosol particles in the stratosphere affect our climate. Climate models therefore need an accurate description of their properties and evolution. Satellites measure how strongly aerosol particles extinguish light passing through the stratosphere. We describe a method to use such aerosol extinction data to retrieve the number and sizes of the aerosol particles and calculate their optical effects. The resulting data sets for models are validated against ground-based and balloon observations.
Jingyu Wang, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, Blanca Ayarzagüena, William T. Ball, Mohamadou Diallo, Birgit Hassler, James Keeble, Peer Nowack, Clara Orbe, and Sandro Vattioni
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-340, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-340, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed the ozone response under elevated CO2 using the data from CMIP6 DECK experiments. We then looked at the relations between ozone response and temperature and circulation changes to identify drivers of the ozone change. The climate feedback of ozone is investigated by doing offline calculations and comparing models with and without interactive chemistry. We find that ozone-climate interactions are important for Earth System Models, thus should be considered in future model development.
Yunqian Zhu, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Valentina Aquila, Elisabeth Asher, Ewa M. Bednarz, Slimane Bekki, Christoph Brühl, Amy H. Butler, Parker Case, Simon Chabrillat, Gabriel Chiodo, Margot Clyne, Lola Falletti, Peter R. Colarco, Eric Fleming, Andrin Jörimann, Mahesh Kovilakam, Gerbrand Koren, Ales Kuchar, Nicolas Lebas, Qing Liang, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Graham Mann, Michael Manyin, Marion Marchand, Olaf Morgenstern, Paul Newman, Luke D. Oman, Freja F. Østerstrøm, Yifeng Peng, David Plummer, Ilaria Quaglia, William Randel, Samuel Rémy, Takashi Sekiya, Stephen Steenrod, Timofei Sukhodolov, Simone Tilmes, Kostas Tsigaridis, Rei Ueyama, Daniele Visioni, Xinyue Wang, Shingo Watanabe, Yousuke Yamashita, Pengfei Yu, Wandi Yu, Jun Zhang, and Zhihong Zhuo
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3412, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3412, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To understand the climate impact of the 2022 Hunga volcanic eruption, we developed a climate model-observation comparison project. The paper describes the protocols and models that participate in the experiments. We designed several experiments to achieve our goal of this activity: 1. evaluate the climate model performance; 2. understand the Earth system responses to this eruption.
Sandro Vattioni, Rahel Weber, Aryeh Feinberg, Andrea Stenke, John A. Dykema, Beiping Luo, Georgios A. Kelesidis, Christian A. Bruun, Timofei Sukhodolov, Frank N. Keutsch, Thomas Peter, and Gabriel Chiodo
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7767–7793, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7767-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7767-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We quantified impacts and efficiency of stratospheric solar climate intervention via solid particle injection. Microphysical interactions of solid particles with the sulfur cycle were interactively coupled to the heterogeneous chemistry scheme and the radiative transfer code of an aerosol–chemistry–climate model. Compared to injection of SO2 we only find a stronger cooling efficiency for solid particles when normalizing to the aerosol load but not when normalizing to the injection rate.
Rachel W.-Y. Wu, Gabriel Chiodo, Inna Polichtchouk, and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 12259–12275, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12259-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12259-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Strong variations in the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex can profoundly affect surface weather extremes; therefore, accurately predicting the stratosphere can improve surface weather forecasts. The research reveals how uncertainty in the stratosphere is linked to the troposphere. The findings suggest that refining models to better represent the identified sources and impact regions in the troposphere is likely to improve the prediction of the stratosphere and its surface impacts.
Sandro Vattioni, Andrea Stenke, Beiping Luo, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, Elia Wunderlin, and Thomas Peter
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4181–4197, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4181-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4181-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the sensitivity of aerosol size distributions in the presence of strong SO2 injections for climate interventions or after volcanic eruptions to the call sequence and frequency of the routines for nucleation and condensation in sectional aerosol models with operator splitting. Using the aerosol–chemistry–climate model SOCOL-AERv2, we show that the radiative and chemical outputs are sensitive to these settings at high H2SO4 supersaturations and how to obtain reliable results.
Christina V. Brodowsky, Timofei Sukhodolov, Gabriel Chiodo, Valentina Aquila, Slimane Bekki, Sandip S. Dhomse, Michael Höpfner, Anton Laakso, Graham W. Mann, Ulrike Niemeier, Giovanni Pitari, Ilaria Quaglia, Eugene Rozanov, Anja Schmidt, Takashi Sekiya, Simone Tilmes, Claudia Timmreck, Sandro Vattioni, Daniele Visioni, Pengfei Yu, Yunqian Zhu, and Thomas Peter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 5513–5548, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The aerosol layer is an essential part of the climate system. We characterize the sulfur budget in a volcanically quiescent (background) setting, with a special focus on the sulfate aerosol layer using, for the first time, a multi-model approach. The aim is to identify weak points in the representation of the atmospheric sulfur budget in an intercomparison of nine state-of-the-art coupled global circulation models.
Franziska Zilker, Timofei Sukhodolov, Gabriel Chiodo, Marina Friedel, Tatiana Egorova, Eugene Rozanov, Jan Sedlacek, Svenja Seeber, and Thomas Peter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13387–13411, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13387-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13387-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Montreal Protocol (MP) has successfully reduced the Antarctic ozone hole by banning chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that destroy the ozone layer. Moreover, CFCs are strong greenhouse gases (GHGs) that would have strengthened global warming. In this study, we investigate the surface weather and climate in a world without the MP at the end of the 21st century, disentangling ozone-mediated and GHG impacts of CFCs. Overall, we avoided 1.7 K global surface warming and a poleward shift in storm tracks.
Gabriel Chiodo, Marina Friedel, Svenja Seeber, Daniela Domeisen, Andrea Stenke, Timofei Sukhodolov, and Franziska Zilker
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10451–10472, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10451-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10451-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric ozone protects the biosphere from harmful UV radiation. Anthropogenic activity has led to a reduction in the ozone layer in the recent past, but thanks to the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, the ozone layer is projected to recover. In this study, we show that projected future changes in Arctic ozone abundances during springtime will influence stratospheric climate and thereby actively modulate large-scale circulation changes in the Northern Hemisphere.
Marina Friedel, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, James Keeble, Thomas Peter, Svenja Seeber, Andrea Stenke, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Eugene Rozanov, David Plummer, Patrick Jöckel, Guang Zeng, Olaf Morgenstern, and Béatrice Josse
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10235–10254, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10235-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10235-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Previously, it has been suggested that springtime Arctic ozone depletion might worsen in the coming decades due to climate change, which might counteract the effect of reduced ozone-depleting substances. Here, we show with different chemistry–climate models that springtime Arctic ozone depletion will likely decrease in the future. Further, we explain why models show a large spread in the projected development of Arctic ozone depletion and use the model spread to constrain future projections.
Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Alan Robock, Simone Tilmes, Jim Haywood, Olivier Boucher, Mark Lawrence, Peter Irvine, Ulrike Niemeier, Lili Xia, Gabriel Chiodo, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, John C. Moore, and Helene Muri
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5149–5176, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Geoengineering indicates methods aiming to reduce the temperature of the planet by means of reflecting back a part of the incoming radiation before it reaches the surface or allowing more of the planetary radiation to escape into space. It aims to produce modelling experiments that are easy to reproduce and compare with different climate models, in order to understand the potential impacts of these techniques. Here we assess its past successes and failures and talk about its future.
Marina Friedel, Gabriel Chiodo, Andrea Stenke, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, and Thomas Peter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 13997–14017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13997-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13997-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In spring, winds the Arctic stratosphere change direction – an event called final stratospheric warming (FSW). Here, we examine whether the interannual variability in Arctic stratospheric ozone impacts the timing of the FSW. We find that Arctic ozone shifts the FSW to earlier and later dates in years with high and low ozone via the absorption of UV light. The modulation of the FSW by ozone has consequences for surface climate in ozone-rich years, which may result in better seasonal predictions.
Nora Bergner, Marina Friedel, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Darryn Waugh, and Gabriel Chiodo
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 13915–13934, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13915-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13915-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Polar vortex extremes, particularly situations with an unusually weak cyclonic circulation in the stratosphere, can influence the surface climate in the spring–summer time in the Southern Hemisphere. Using chemistry-climate models and observations, we evaluate the robustness of the surface impacts. While models capture the general surface response, they do not show the observed climate patterns in midlatitude regions, which we trace back to biases in the models' circulations.
Kevin DallaSanta and Lorenzo M. Polvani
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8843–8862, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8843-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8843-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Volcanic eruptions cool the earth by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. Paradoxically, it has been suggested that they may also warm the surface, but the evidence for this is scant. Here, we show that a small warming can be seen in a climate model for large-enough eruptions. However, even for eruptions much larger than those that have occurred in the past two millennia, post-eruption winters over Eurasia are indistinguishable from those occurring without a prior eruption.
Debra K. Weisenstein, Daniele Visioni, Henning Franke, Ulrike Niemeier, Sandro Vattioni, Gabriel Chiodo, Thomas Peter, and David W. Keith
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2955–2973, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper explores a potential method of geoengineering that could be used to slow the rate of change of climate over decadal scales. We use three climate models to explore how injections of accumulation-mode sulfuric acid aerosol change the large-scale stratospheric particle size distribution and radiative forcing response for the chosen scenarios. Radiative forcing per unit sulfur injected and relative to the change in aerosol burden is larger with particulate than with SO2 injections.
Adam A. Scaife, Mark P. Baldwin, Amy H. Butler, Andrew J. Charlton-Perez, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Steven C. Hardiman, Peter Haynes, Alexey Yu Karpechko, Eun-Pa Lim, Shunsuke Noguchi, Judith Perlwitz, Lorenzo Polvani, Jadwiga H. Richter, John Scinocca, Michael Sigmond, Theodore G. Shepherd, Seok-Woo Son, and David W. J. Thompson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2601–2623, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Great progress has been made in computer modelling and simulation of the whole climate system, including the stratosphere. Since the late 20th century we also gained a much clearer understanding of how the stratosphere interacts with the lower atmosphere. The latest generation of numerical prediction systems now explicitly represents the stratosphere and its interaction with surface climate, and here we review its role in long-range predictions and projections from weeks to decades ahead.
Timofei Sukhodolov, Tatiana Egorova, Andrea Stenke, William T. Ball, Christina Brodowsky, Gabriel Chiodo, Aryeh Feinberg, Marina Friedel, Arseniy Karagodin-Doyennel, Thomas Peter, Jan Sedlacek, Sandro Vattioni, and Eugene Rozanov
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5525–5560, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5525-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5525-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper features the new atmosphere–ocean–aerosol–chemistry–climate model SOCOLv4.0 and its validation. The model performance is evaluated against reanalysis products and observations of atmospheric circulation and trace gas distribution, with a focus on stratospheric processes. Although we identified some problems to be addressed in further model upgrades, we demonstrated that SOCOLv4.0 is already well suited for studies related to chemistry–climate–aerosol interactions.
Antara Banerjee, Amy H. Butler, Lorenzo M. Polvani, Alan Robock, Isla R. Simpson, and Lantao Sun
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6985–6997, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We find that simulated stratospheric sulfate geoengineering could lead to warmer Eurasian winters alongside a drier Mediterranean and wetting to the north. These effects occur due to the strengthening of the Northern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex, which shifts the North Atlantic Oscillation to a more positive phase. We find the effects in our simulations to be much more significant than the wintertime effects of large tropical volcanic eruptions which inject much less sulfate aerosol.
James Keeble, Birgit Hassler, Antara Banerjee, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Gabriel Chiodo, Sean Davis, Veronika Eyring, Paul T. Griffiths, Olaf Morgenstern, Peer Nowack, Guang Zeng, Jiankai Zhang, Greg Bodeker, Susannah Burrows, Philip Cameron-Smith, David Cugnet, Christopher Danek, Makoto Deushi, Larry W. Horowitz, Anne Kubin, Lijuan Li, Gerrit Lohmann, Martine Michou, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Dirk Olivié, Sungsu Park, Øyvind Seland, Jens Stoll, Karl-Hermann Wieners, and Tongwen Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5015–5061, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric ozone and water vapour are key components of the Earth system; changes to both have important impacts on global and regional climate. We evaluate changes to these species from 1850 to 2100 in the new generation of CMIP6 models. There is good agreement between the multi-model mean and observations, although there is substantial variation between the individual models. The future evolution of both ozone and water vapour is strongly dependent on the assumed future emissions scenario.
Rei Chemke, Michael Previdi, Mark R. England, and Lorenzo M. Polvani
The Cryosphere, 14, 4135–4144, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4135-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4135-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The increase in Antarctic surface mass balance (SMB, precipitation vs. evaporation/sublimation) is projected to mitigate sea-level rise. Here we show that nearly half of this increase over the 20th century is attributed to stratospheric ozone depletion and ozone-depleting substance (ODS) emissions. Our results suggest that the phaseout of ODS by the Montreal Protocol, and the recovery of stratospheric ozone, will act to decrease the SMB over the 21st century and the mitigation of sea-level rise.
Lorenzo M. Polvani and Suzana J. Camargo
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 13687–13700, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13687-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13687-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
On the basis of questionable early studies, it is widely believed that low-latitude volcanic eruptions cause winter warming over Eurasia. However, we here demonstrate that the winter warming over Eurasia following the 1883 Krakatau eruption was unremarkable and, in all likelihood, unrelated to that eruption. Confirming similar findings for the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, the new research demonstrates that no detectable Eurasian winter warming is to be expected after eruptions of similar magnitude.
Cited articles
Albers, J. R. and Nathan, T. R.: Pathways for communicating the effects of
stratospheric ozone to the polar vortex: Role of zonally asymmetric ozone,
J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 785–801, 2012. a
Ayarzaguëna, B. and Serrano, E.: Monthly Characterization of the Tropospheric
Circulation over the Euro-Atlantic Area in Relation with the Timing of
Stratospheric Final Warmings, J. Climate, 22, 6313–6324,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2913.1, 2009. a, b
Ayarzagüena, B., Polvani, L. M., Langematz, U., Akiyoshi, H., Bekki, S., Butchart, N., Dameris, M., Deushi, M., Hardiman, S. C., Jöckel, P., Klekociuk, A., Marchand, M., Michou, M., Morgenstern, O., O'Connor, F. M., Oman, L. D., Plummer, D. A., Revell, L., Rozanov, E., Saint-Martin, D., Scinocca, J., Stenke, A., Stone, K., Yamashita, Y., Yoshida, K., and Zeng, G.: No robust evidence of future changes in major stratospheric sudden warmings: a multi-model assessment from CCMI, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 11277–11287, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11277-2018, 2018. a
Baldwin, M. P. and Dunkerton, T. J.: Stratospheric Harbingers of Anomalous
Weather Regimes, Science, 294, 581–584, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1063315,
2001. a, b
Baldwin, M. P. and Thompson, D. W.: A critical comparison of
stratosphere-troposphere coupling indices, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 135, 1661–1672, 2009. a
Baldwin, M. P., Stephenson, D. B., Thompson, D. W. J., Dunkerton, T. J.,
Charlton, A. J., and O'Neill, A.: Stratospheric memory and skill of
extended‐range weather forecast, Science, 301, 636–640,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1087143, 2003. a
Beerli, R. and Grams, C. M.: Stratospheric modulation of the large-scale
circulation in the Atlantic-European region and its implications for
surface weather events, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 145, 3732–3750, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3653, 2019. a
Black, R. X., McDaniel, B. A., and Robinson, W. A.: Stratosphere-Troposphere
coupling during spring onset, J. Climate, 19, 4891–4901,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3907.1, 2006. a
Butler, A. H. and Gerber, E. P.: Optimizing the Definition of a Sudden
Stratospheric Warming, J. Climate, 31, 2337–2344,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0648.1,
2018. a, b
Butler, A. H., Sjoberg, J. P., Seidel, D. J., and Rosenlof, K. H.: A sudden stratospheric warming compendium, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9, 63–76, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-63-2017, 2017. a, b
Butler, A. H., Charlton-Perez, A., Domeisen, D. I. V., Simpson, I. R., and
Sjoberg, J.: Predictability of Northern Hemisphere Final Stratospheric
Warmings and Their Surface Impacts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46,
10578–10588, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083346, 2019. a
Calvo, N., Polvani, L. M., and Solomon, S.: On the surface impact of Arctic
stratospheric ozone extremes, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 094003,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094003,
2015. a, b, c, d
Cao, C., Chen, Y.-H., Rao, J., Liu, S.-M., Li, S.-Y., Ma, M.-H., and Wang,
Y.-B.: Statistical Characteristics of Major Sudden Stratospheric
Warming Events in CESM1-WACCM: A Comparison with the JRA55 and
NCEP/NCAR Reanalyses, Atmosphere, 10, 519, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10090519, 2019. a
Charlton, A. J. and Polvani, L. M.: A New Look at Stratospheric Sudden
Warmings. Part I: Climatology and Modeling Benchmarks, J.
Climate, 20, 449–469, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3996.1,
2007a. a, b, c
Charlton, A. J. and Polvani, L. M.: A New Look at Stratospheric Sudden
Warmings. Part II: Evaluation of Numerical Modeling
Simulations, J. Climate, 20, 470–488, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3994.1,
2007b. a
Charlton-Perez, A. J. and Polvani, L. M.: CORRIGENDUM, J. Climate,
24, 5951–5951, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00348.1,
2011. a
de la Cámara, A., Abalos, M., Hitchcock, P., Calvo, N., and Garcia, R. R.: Response of Arctic ozone to sudden stratospheric warmings, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 16499–16513, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16499-2018, 2018. a, b, c
Gerber, E. P. and Martineau, P.: Quantifying the variability of the annular modes: reanalysis uncertainty vs. sampling uncertainty, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 17099–17117, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17099-2018, 2018. a, b
Gerber, E. P., Baldwin, M. P., Akiyoshi, H., Austin, J., Bekki, S., Braesicke,
P., Butchart, N., Chipperfield, M., Dameris, M., Dhomse, S., Frith, S. M.,
Garcia, R. R., Garny, H., Gettelman, A., Hardiman, S. C., Karpechko, A.,
Marchand, M., Morgenstern, O., Nielsen, J. E., Pawson, S., Peter, T.,
Plummer, D. A., Pyle, J. A., Rozanov, E., Scinocca, J. F., Shepherd, T. G.,
and Smale, D.: Stratosphere-troposphere coupling and annular mode variability
in chemistry-climate models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
115, D00M06, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013770,
2010. a, b, c
Gettelman, A., Mills, M. J., Kinnison, D. E., Garcia, R. R., Smith, A. K.,
Marsh, D. R., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Bardeen, C. G., McInerney, J., Liu,
H.-L., Solomon, S. C., Polvani, L. M., Emmons, L. K., Lamarque, J.-F.,
Richter, J. H., Glanville, A. S., Bacmeister, J. T., Phillips, A. S., Neale,
R. B., Simpson, I. R., DuVivier, A. K., Hdzic, A., and Randel, W. J.: The
Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 6 (WACCM6),
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 12380–12403, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030943,
2019. a
Hardiman, S. C. E. A.: Improved predictability of the troposphere using
stratospheric final warmings, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
116, D18113, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD015914, 2011. a
Ivy, D. J., Solomon, S., Calvo, N., and Thompson, D. W. J.: Observed
connections of Arctic stratospheric ozone extremes to Northern
Hemisphere surface climate, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 024004,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa57a4,
2017. a, b, c
Karpechko, A. Y., Perlwitz, J., and Manzini, E.: A model study of the
tropospheric impacts of the Arctic ozone depletion of 2011, J.
Geophys. Res., 119, 7999–8014, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021350, 2014. a
Keeble, J., Hassler, B., Banerjee, A., Checa-Garcia, R., Chiodo, G., Davis, S., Eyring, V., Griffiths, P. T., Morgenstern, O., Nowack, P., Zeng, G., Zhang, J., Bodeker, G., Cugnet, D., Danabasoglu, G., Deushi, M., Horowitz, L. W., Li, L., Michou, M., Mills, M. J., Nabat, P., Park, S., and Wu, T.: Evaluating stratospheric ozone and water vapor changes in CMIP6 models from 1850–2100, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-1202, in review, 2020. a
Kiesewetter, G., Sinnhuber, B.-M., Vountas, M., Weber, M., and Burrows, J. P.:
A long‐term stratospheric ozone data set from assimilation of satellite
observations: High‐latitude ozone anomalies, J. Geophys.
Res., 115, D10307, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013362, 2010. a
Kinnison, D. E., Brasseur, G. P., Walters, S., Garcia, R. R., Marsh, D. R.,
Sassi, F., Harvey, V. L., Randall, C. E., Emmons, L., Lamarque, J. F., Hess,
P., Orlando, J. J., Tie, X. X., Randel, W., Pan, L. L., Gettelman, A.,
Granier, C., Diehl, T., Niemeier, U., and Simmons, A. J.: Sensitivity of
chemical tracers to meteorological parameters in the MOZART‐3 chemical
transport model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, D20302,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007879, 2007. a
Li, L., Li, C., Pan, J., and Tan, Y.: On the differences and climate impacts of
early and late stratospheric polar vortex breakup, Adv. Atmos.
Sci., 29, 1119–1128, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-012-1012-4, 2012. a
Limpasuvan, V., Thompson, D. W. J., and Hartmann, D. L.: The Life Cycle of the
Northern Hemisphere Sudden Stratospheric Warmings, J. Climate,
17, 2584–2596, 2004. a
Lin, P., Paynter, D., Polvani, L., Correa, G. J. P., Ming, Y., and Ramaswamy,
V.: Dependence of model-simulated response to ozone depletion on
stratospheric polar vortex climatology: Response to ozone depends on climatology, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 6391–6398,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073862, 2017. a
Marsh, D. R., Mills, M. J., Kinnison, D. E., Lamarque, J.-F., Calvo, N., and
Polvani, L. M.: Climate Change from 1850 to 2005 Simulated in
CESM1(WACCM), J. Climate, 26, 7372–7391,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00558.1,
2013. a, b
Neely, R. R., Marsh, D. R., Smith, K. L., Davis, S. M., and Polvani, L. M.:
Biases in southern hemisphere climate trends induced by coarsely specifying
the temporal resolution of stratospheric ozone, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
41, 8602–8610, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061627,
2014. a, b
Newman, P. A., Nash, E. R., and Rosenfield, J. E.: What controls the
temperature of the Arctic stratosphere during the spring?, J.
Geophys. Res., 106, 19999–20010, 2001. a
Previdi, M. and Polvani, L. M.: Climate system response to stratospheric ozone
depletion and recovery, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 140, 2401–2419, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2330, 2014. a
Rieder, H. E., Chiodo, G., Fritzer, J., Wienerroither, C., and Polvani, L. M.:
Is interactive ozone chemistry important to represent polar cap stratospheric
temperature variability in Earth-System Models?, Environ. Res.
Lett., 14, 044026, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab07ff, 2019. a
Scaife, A. A., Karpechko, A. Y., Baldwin, M. P., Brookshaw, A., Butler, A. H.,
Eade, R., Gordon, M., MacLachlan, C., Martin, N., Dunstone, N., and Smith,
D.: Seasonal winter forecasts and the stratosphere, Atmos. Sci.
Lett., 17, 51–56, https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.598, 2016. a, b
Simpson, I. R., Hitchcock, P., Shepherd, T. G., and Scinocca, J. F.:
Stratospheric variability and tropospheric annular-mode timescales,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L20806, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL049304, 2011. a
Smith, K. L. and Polvani, L. M.: The surface impacts of Arctic stratospheric
ozone anomalies, Environ. Res. Lett., 9, 074015,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/7/074015,
2014. a, b, c
Smith, K. L., Neely, R. R., Marsh, D. R., and Polvani, L. M.: The Specified
Chemistry Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model
(SC-WACCM), J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 6, 883–901,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014MS000346, 2014. a, b, c, d
Smith, K. L., Polvani, L. M., and Tremblay, L. B.: The Impact of
Stratospheric Circulation Extremes on Minimum Arctic Sea Ice
Extent, J. Climate, 31, 7169–7183, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0495.1,
2018. a, b
Strahan, S. E. and Douglass, A. R.: Evaluating the credibility of transport
processes in simulations of ozone recovery using the Global Modeling
Initiative three‐dimensional model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 109, D05110, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004238, 2004. a
Strahan, S. E., Douglass, A. R., and Steenrod, S. D.: Chemical and Dynamical
Impacts of Stratospheric Sudden Warmings on Arctic Ozone Variability,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 11836–11851,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025128, 2016. a
Thieblemont, R., Ayarzaguena, B., Matthes, K., Bekki, S., Abalichin, J., and
Langematz, U.: Drivers and Surface Signal of Interannual Variability of
Boreal Stratospheric Final Warmings, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 5400–5417, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029852, 2019. a
Thompson, D. W. J. and Wallace, J. M.: The Arctic Oscillation signature in
the wintertime geopotential height and temperature fields, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 25, 1297–1300, 1998. a
Tripathi, O. P., Charlton-Perez, A., Sigmond, M., and Vitart, F.: Enhanced
long-range forecast skill in boreal winter following stratospheric strong
vortex conditions, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 104007,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/104007,
2015.
a, b
Wei, K., Chen, W., and Huang, R. H.: Dynamical diagnosis of the breakup of the
stratospheric polar vortex in the Northern Hemisphere, Sci. China Ser. D,
50, 1369–1379, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-007-0100-2, 2007. a
Short summary
Winter winds in the stratosphere 10–50 km above the surface impact climate at the surface. Prior studies suggest that this interaction between the stratosphere and the surface is affected by ozone. We compare two ways of including ozone in computer simulations of climate. One method is more realistic but more expensive. We find that the method of including ozone in simulations affects the surface climate when the stratospheric winds are unusually weak but not when they are unusually strong.
Winter winds in the stratosphere 10–50 km above the surface impact climate at the surface....
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint