Articles | Volume 21, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021
© Author(s) 2021. 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-21-6985-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
07 May 2021
Research article |
| 07 May 2021
| 07 May 2021
Robust winter warming over Eurasia under stratospheric sulfate geoengineering – the role of stratospheric dynamics
Antara Banerjee
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Chemical Sciences
Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA
Amy H. Butler
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Chemical Sciences
Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA
Lorenzo M. Polvani
Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia
University, New York, NY, USA
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Isla R. Simpson
Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for
Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
Lantao Sun
Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, CO, USA
Related authors
Shlomi Ziskin Ziv, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Sean Davis, and Antara Banerjee
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 7523–7538, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7523-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7523-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric water vapor is important for Earth's overall greenhouse effect and for ozone chemistry; however the factors governing its variability on interannual timescales are not fully known, and previous modeling studies have indicated that models struggle to capture this interannual variability. We demonstrate that nonlinear interactions are important for determining overall water vapor concentrations and also that models have improved in their ability to capture these connections.
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.
Blanca Ayarzagüena, Amy H. Butler, Peter Hitchcock, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Zac D. Lawrence, Wuhan Ning, Philip Rupp, Zheng Wu, Hilla Afargan-Gerstman, Natalia Calvo, Álvaro de la Cámara, Martin Jucker, Gerbrand Koren, Daniel De Maeseneire, Gloria L. Manney, Marisol Osman, Masakazu Taguchi, Cory Barton, Dong-Chang Hong, Yu-Kyung Hyun, Hera Kim, Jeff Knight, Piero Malguzzi, Daniele Mastrangelo, Jiyoung Oh, Inna Polichtchouk, Jadwiga H. Richter, Isla R. Simpson, Seok-Woo Son, Damien Specq, and Tim Stockdale
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3611, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3611, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Weather and Climate Dynamics (WCD).
Short summary
Short summary
Sudden Stratospheric Warmings (SSWs) are known to follow a sustained wave dissipation in the stratosphere, which depends on both the tropospheric and stratospheric states. However, the relative role of each state is still unclear. Using a new set of subseasonal to seasonal forecasts, we show that the stratospheric state does not drastically affect the precursors of three recent SSWs, but modulates the stratospheric wave activity, with impacts depending on SSW features.
Nathan P. Gillett, Isla R. Simpson, Gabi Hegerl, Reto Knutti, Dann Mitchell, Aurélien Ribes, Hideo Shiogama, Dáithí Stone, Claudia Tebaldi, Piotr Wolski, Wenxia Zhang, and Vivek K. Arora
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4399–4416, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4399-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4399-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model simulations of the response to human and natural influences together, natural climate influences alone and greenhouse gases alone are key to quantifying human influence on the climate. The last set of such coordinated simulations underpinned key findings in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Here we propose a new set of such simulations to be used in the next generation of attribution studies and to underpin the next IPCC report.
Beth Dingley, James A. Anstey, Marta Abalos, Carsten Abraham, Tommi Bergman, Lisa Bock, Sonya Fiddes, Birgit Hassler, Ryan J. Kramer, Fei Luo, Fiona M. O'Connor, Petr Šácha, Isla R. Simpson, Laura J. Wilcox, and Mark D. Zelinka
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3189, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3189, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
This manuscript defines as a list of variables and scientific opportunities which are requested from the CMIP7 Assessment Fast Track to address open atmospheric science questions. The list reflects the output of a large public community engagement effort, coordinated across autumn 2025 through to summer 2025.
Alexey Yu. Karpechko, Amy H. Butler, and Frederic Vitart
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2556, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2556, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We study how the knowledge of future tropical and stratospheric conditions could improve forecasts in winter remotely, via teleconnections, 3–6 weeks ahead. We find that the tropics improve forecasts of sea level pressure in subtropics, Europe, and North America. The stratosphere improves forecasts in high latitudes and Europe. Improvements are small for temperature and precipitation. Larger forecast ensembles than usually available for research are needed to predict teleconnection signals.
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.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, Xinyue Wang, Zhihong Zhuo, Wandi Yu, Georgiy Stenchikov, Matthew Toohey, and Yunqian Zhu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1970, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1970, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Injection of sulfur and water vapour by the Hunga volcanic eruption significantly altered chemical composition and radiative budget of the stratosphere. Yet, whether the eruption could also affect surface climate, especially via indirect pathways, remains poorly understood. Here we investigate these effects using large ensembles of simulations with the CESM2(WACCM6) Earth system model.
Ying Dai, Peter Hitchcock, Amy H. Butler, Chaim I. Garfinkel, and William J. M. Seviour
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-484, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-484, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Using a new database of S2S forecasts generated by SNAPSI, we find that with a successful forecast of the sudden warming, S2S models can capture the European precipitation signals after the 2018 SSW several weeks in advance. The findings indicate that the stratosphere represents an important source of S2S predictability for precipitation over Europe and call for consideration of stratospheric variability in hydrological prediction at S2S timescales.
Chaim I. Garfinkel, Zachary D. Lawrence, Amy H. Butler, Etienne Dunn-Sigouin, Irene Erner, Alexey Y. Karpechko, Gerbrand Koren, Marta Abalos, Blanca Ayarzagüena, David Barriopedro, Natalia Calvo, Alvaro de la Cámara, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Judah Cohen, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Javier García-Serrano, Neil P. Hindley, Martin Jucker, Hera Kim, Robert W. Lee, Simon H. Lee, Marisol Osman, Froila M. Palmeiro, Inna Polichtchouk, Jian Rao, Jadwiga H. Richter, Chen Schwartz, Seok-Woo Son, Masakazu Taguchi, Nicholas L. Tyrrell, Corwin J. Wright, and Rachel W.-Y. Wu
Weather Clim. Dynam., 6, 171–195, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-171-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-171-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Variability in the extratropical stratosphere and troposphere is coupled, and because of the longer timescales characteristic of the stratosphere, this allows for a window of opportunity for surface prediction. This paper assesses whether models used for operational prediction capture these coupling processes accurately. We find that most processes are too weak; however downward coupling from the lower stratosphere to the near surface is too strong.
John Patrick Dunne, Helene T. Hewitt, Julie Arblaster, Frédéric Bonou, Olivier Boucher, Tereza Cavazos, Paul J. Durack, Birgit Hassler, Martin Juckes, Tomoki Miyakawa, Matthew Mizielinski, Vaishali Naik, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O’Rourke, Robert Pincus, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Isla R. Simpson, and Karl E. Taylor
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3874, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3874, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This manuscript provides the motivation and experimental design for the seventh phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) to coordinate community based efforts to answer key and timely climate science questions and facilitate delivery of relevant multi-model simulations for: prediction and projection, characterization, attribution and process understanding; vulnerability, impacts and adaptations analysis; national and international climate assessments; and society at large.
Thomas J. Ballinger, Kent Moore, Qinghua Ding, Amy H. Butler, James E. Overland, Richard L. Thoman, Ian Baxter, Zhe Li, and Edward Hanna
Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 1473–1488, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1473-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1473-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study chronicles the meteorological conditions that led to the anomalous, tandem March 2023 ice melt event in the Labrador and Bering seas. A sudden stratospheric warming event initiated the development of an anticyclonic circulation pattern over the Greenland–Labrador region, while the La Niña background state supported ridging conditions over Alaska, both of which aided northward transport of warm, moist air and drove the concurrent sea ice melt extremes.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Ben B. B. Booth, John Dunne, Veronika Eyring, Rosie A. Fisher, Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew J. Gidden, Tomohiro Hajima, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Andrew King, Charles D. Koven, David M. Lawrence, Jason Lowe, Nadine Mengis, Glen P. Peters, Joeri Rogelj, Chris Smith, Abigail C. Snyder, Isla R. Simpson, Abigail L. S. Swann, Claudia Tebaldi, Tatiana Ilyina, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Séférian, Bjørn H. Samset, Detlef van Vuuren, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8141–8172, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We discuss how, in order to provide more relevant guidance for climate policy, coordinated climate experiments should adopt a greater focus on simulations where Earth system models are provided with carbon emissions from fossil fuels together with land use change instructions, rather than past approaches that have largely focused on experiments with prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We discuss how these goals might be achieved in coordinated climate modeling experiments.
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.
Benjamin Mark Sanderson, Victor Brovkin, Rosie Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris Jones, Torben Koenigk, Charles Koven, Hongmei Li, David Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Andrew Macdougall, Nadine Mengis, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Anastasia Romanou, Marit Sandstad, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Seferian, Lori Sentman, Isla Simpson, Chris Smith, Norman Steinert, Abigail Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3356, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3356, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates how climate models warm in response to simplified carbon emissions trajectories, refining understanding of climate reversibility and commitment. Metrics are defined for warming response to cumulative emissions and for the cessation or ramp-down to net-zero and net-negative levels. Results indicate that previous concentration-driven experiments may have overstated zero emissions commitment due to emissions rates exceeding historical levels.
Daniele Visioni, Alan Robock, Jim Haywood, Matthew Henry, Simone Tilmes, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Sarah J. Doherty, John Moore, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Olivier Boucher, Abu Syed, Temitope S. Egbebiyi, Roland Séférian, and Ilaria Quaglia
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2583–2596, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a new experimental protocol for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). In it, we describe the details of a new simulation of sunlight reflection using the stratospheric aerosols that climate models are supposed to run, and we explain the reasons behind each choice we made when defining the protocol.
Marika M. Holland, Cecile Hannay, John Fasullo, Alexandra Jahn, Jennifer E. Kay, Michael Mills, Isla R. Simpson, William Wieder, Peter Lawrence, Erik Kluzek, and David Bailey
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1585–1602, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1585-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1585-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate evolves in response to changing forcings, as prescribed in simulations. Models and forcings are updated over time to reflect new understanding. This makes it difficult to attribute simulation differences to either model or forcing changes. Here we present new simulations which enable the separation of model structure and forcing influence between two widely used simulation sets. Results indicate a strong influence of aerosol emission uncertainty on historical climate.
Woon Mi Kim, Santos J. González-Rojí, Isla R. Simpson, and Daniel Kennedy
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-252, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-252, 2024
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates temporal characteristics and typical circulation conditions associated with onsets and terminations of soil moisture droughts in Europe. More understanding of drought onsets and terminations can aid in improving early predictions for devastating intense droughts.
Sam S. Rabin, William J. Sacks, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Lili Xia, and Alan Robock
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7253–7273, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7253-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7253-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models can help us simulate how the agricultural system will be affected by and respond to environmental change, but to be trustworthy they must realistically reproduce historical patterns. When farmers plant their crops and what varieties they choose will be important aspects of future adaptation. Here, we improve the crop component of a global model to better simulate observed growing seasons and examine the impacts on simulated crop yields and irrigation demand.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, Daniele Visioni, Yan Zhang, Ben Kravitz, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13665–13684, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We use a state-of-the-art Earth system model and a set of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies to achieve the same level of global mean surface cooling through different combinations of location and/or timing of the injection. We demonstrate that the choice of SAI strategy can lead to contrasting impacts on stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures, circulation, and chemistry (including stratospheric ozone), thereby leading to different impacts on regional surface climate.
Kristian Strommen, Tim Woollings, Paolo Davini, Paolo Ruggieri, and Isla R. Simpson
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 853–874, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-853-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-853-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present evidence which strongly suggests that decadal variations in the intensity of the North Atlantic winter jet stream can be predicted by current forecast models but that decadal variations in its position appear to be unpredictable. It is argued that this skill at predicting jet intensity originates from the slow, predictable variability in sea surface temperatures in the sub-polar North Atlantic.
Alan Robock, Lili Xia, Cheryl S. Harrison, Joshua Coupe, Owen B. Toon, and Charles G. Bardeen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 6691–6701, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6691-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6691-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
A nuclear war could produce a nuclear winter, with catastrophic consequences for global food supplies. Nuclear winter theory helped to end the nuclear arms race in the 1980s, but more than 10 000 nuclear weapons still exist. This means they can be used, by unstable leaders, accidently from technical malfunctions or human error, or by terrorists. Therefore, it is urgent for scientists to study these issues, broadly communicate their results, and work for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
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.
Dillon Elsbury, Amy H. Butler, John R. Albers, Melissa L. Breeden, and Andrew O'Neil Langford
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5101–5117, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5101-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5101-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
One of the global hotspots where stratosphere-to-troposphere transport (STT) of ozone takes place is over Pacific North America (PNA). However, we do not know how or if STT over PNA will change in response to climate change. Using climate model experiments forced with
worst-casescenario Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 climate change, we find that changes in net chemical production and transport of ozone in the lower stratosphere increase STT of ozone over PNA in the future.
John R. Albers, Amy H. Butler, Andrew O. Langford, Dillon Elsbury, and Melissa L. Breeden
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 13035–13048, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13035-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13035-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Ozone transported from the stratosphere contributes to background ozone concentrations in the free troposphere and to surface ozone exceedance events that affect human health. The physical processes whereby the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) modulates North American stratosphere-to-troposphere ozone transport during spring are documented, and the usefulness of ENSO for predicting ozone events that may cause exceedances in surface air quality standards are assessed.
Stephen G. Yeager, Nan Rosenbloom, Anne A. Glanville, Xian Wu, Isla Simpson, Hui Li, Maria J. Molina, Kristen Krumhardt, Samuel Mogen, Keith Lindsay, Danica Lombardozzi, Will Wieder, Who M. Kim, Jadwiga H. Richter, Matthew Long, Gokhan Danabasoglu, David Bailey, Marika Holland, Nicole Lovenduski, Warren G. Strand, and Teagan King
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6451–6493, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6451-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6451-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth system changes over a range of time and space scales, and some of these changes are predictable in advance. Short-term weather forecasts are most familiar, but recent work has shown that it is possible to generate useful predictions several seasons or even a decade in advance. This study focuses on predictions over intermediate timescales (up to 24 months in advance) and shows that there is promising potential to forecast a variety of changes in the natural environment.
Zachary D. Lawrence, Marta Abalos, Blanca Ayarzagüena, David Barriopedro, Amy H. Butler, Natalia Calvo, Alvaro de la Cámara, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Etienne Dunn-Sigouin, Javier García-Serrano, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Neil P. Hindley, Liwei Jia, Martin Jucker, Alexey Y. Karpechko, Hera Kim, Andrea L. Lang, Simon H. Lee, Pu Lin, Marisol Osman, Froila M. Palmeiro, Judith Perlwitz, Inna Polichtchouk, Jadwiga H. Richter, Chen Schwartz, Seok-Woo Son, Irene Erner, Masakazu Taguchi, Nicholas L. Tyrrell, Corwin J. Wright, and Rachel W.-Y. Wu
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 977–1001, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-977-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-977-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Forecast models that are used to predict weather often struggle to represent the Earth’s stratosphere. This may impact their ability to predict surface weather weeks in advance, on subseasonal-to-seasonal (S2S) timescales. We use data from many S2S forecast systems to characterize and compare the stratospheric biases present in such forecast models. These models have many similar stratospheric biases, but they tend to be worse in systems with low model tops located within the stratosphere.
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.
Peter Hitchcock, Amy Butler, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Tim Stockdale, James Anstey, Dann Mitchell, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Tongwen Wu, Yixiong Lu, Daniele Mastrangelo, Piero Malguzzi, Hai Lin, Ryan Muncaster, Bill Merryfield, Michael Sigmond, Baoqiang Xiang, Liwei Jia, Yu-Kyung Hyun, Jiyoung Oh, Damien Specq, Isla R. Simpson, Jadwiga H. Richter, Cory Barton, Jeff Knight, Eun-Pa Lim, and Harry Hendon
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5073–5092, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes an experimental protocol focused on sudden stratospheric warmings to be carried out by subseasonal forecast modeling centers. These will allow for inter-model comparisons of these major disruptions to the stratospheric polar vortex and their impacts on the near-surface flow. The protocol will lead to new insights into the contribution of the stratosphere to subseasonal forecast skill and new approaches to the dynamical attribution of extreme events.
Shlomi Ziskin Ziv, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Sean Davis, and Antara Banerjee
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 7523–7538, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7523-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7523-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric water vapor is important for Earth's overall greenhouse effect and for ozone chemistry; however the factors governing its variability on interannual timescales are not fully known, and previous modeling studies have indicated that models struggle to capture this interannual variability. We demonstrate that nonlinear interactions are important for determining overall water vapor concentrations and also that models have improved in their ability to capture these connections.
Shima Bahramvash Shams, Von P. Walden, James W. Hannigan, William J. Randel, Irina V. Petropavlovskikh, Amy H. Butler, and Alvaro de la Cámara
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 5435–5458, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5435-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5435-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Large-scale atmospheric circulation has a strong influence on ozone in the Arctic, and certain anomalous dynamical events, such as sudden stratospheric warmings, cause dramatic alterations of the large-scale circulation. A reanalysis model is evaluated and then used to investigate the impact of sudden stratospheric warmings on mid-atmospheric ozone. Results show that the position of the cold jet stream over the Arctic before these events influences the variability of ozone.
Davide Zanchettin, Claudia Timmreck, Myriam Khodri, Anja Schmidt, Matthew Toohey, Manabu Abe, Slimane Bekki, Jason Cole, Shih-Wei Fang, Wuhu Feng, Gabriele Hegerl, Ben Johnson, Nicolas Lebas, Allegra N. LeGrande, Graham W. Mann, Lauren Marshall, Landon Rieger, Alan Robock, Sara Rubinetti, Kostas Tsigaridis, and Helen Weierbach
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2265–2292, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2265-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2265-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper provides metadata and first analyses of the volc-pinatubo-full experiment of CMIP6-VolMIP. Results from six Earth system models reveal significant differences in radiative flux anomalies that trace back to different implementations of volcanic forcing. Surface responses are in contrast overall consistent across models, reflecting the large spread due to internal variability. A second phase of VolMIP shall consider both aspects toward improved protocol for volc-pinatubo-full.
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.
Nicholas A. Davis, Patrick Callaghan, Isla R. Simpson, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 197–214, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-197-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-197-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Specified dynamics schemes attempt to constrain the atmospheric circulation in a climate model to isolate the role of transport in chemical variability, evaluate model physics, and interpret field campaign observations. We show that the specified dynamics scheme in CESM2 erroneously suppresses convection and induces circulation errors that project onto errors in tracers, even using the most optimal settings. Development of a more sophisticated scheme is necessary for future progress.
Keith B. Rodgers, Sun-Seon Lee, Nan Rosenbloom, Axel Timmermann, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Clara Deser, Jim Edwards, Ji-Eun Kim, Isla R. Simpson, Karl Stein, Malte F. Stuecker, Ryohei Yamaguchi, Tamás Bódai, Eui-Seok Chung, Lei Huang, Who M. Kim, Jean-François Lamarque, Danica L. Lombardozzi, William R. Wieder, and Stephen G. Yeager
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 1393–1411, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1393-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1393-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A large ensemble of simulations with 100 members has been conducted with the state-of-the-art CESM2 Earth system model, using historical and SSP3-7.0 forcing. Our main finding is that there are significant changes in the variance of the Earth system in response to anthropogenic forcing, with these changes spanning a broad range of variables important to impacts for human populations and ecosystems.
Wouter Dorigo, Irene Himmelbauer, Daniel Aberer, Lukas Schremmer, Ivana Petrakovic, Luca Zappa, Wolfgang Preimesberger, Angelika Xaver, Frank Annor, Jonas Ardö, Dennis Baldocchi, Marco Bitelli, Günter Blöschl, Heye Bogena, Luca Brocca, Jean-Christophe Calvet, J. Julio Camarero, Giorgio Capello, Minha Choi, Michael C. Cosh, Nick van de Giesen, Istvan Hajdu, Jaakko Ikonen, Karsten H. Jensen, Kasturi Devi Kanniah, Ileen de Kat, Gottfried Kirchengast, Pankaj Kumar Rai, Jenni Kyrouac, Kristine Larson, Suxia Liu, Alexander Loew, Mahta Moghaddam, José Martínez Fernández, Cristian Mattar Bader, Renato Morbidelli, Jan P. Musial, Elise Osenga, Michael A. Palecki, Thierry Pellarin, George P. Petropoulos, Isabella Pfeil, Jarrett Powers, Alan Robock, Christoph Rüdiger, Udo Rummel, Michael Strobel, Zhongbo Su, Ryan Sullivan, Torbern Tagesson, Andrej Varlagin, Mariette Vreugdenhil, Jeffrey Walker, Jun Wen, Fred Wenger, Jean Pierre Wigneron, Mel Woods, Kun Yang, Yijian Zeng, Xiang Zhang, Marek Zreda, Stephan Dietrich, Alexander Gruber, Peter van Oevelen, Wolfgang Wagner, Klaus Scipal, Matthias Drusch, and Roberto Sabia
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5749–5804, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5749-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5749-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The International Soil Moisture Network (ISMN) is a community-based open-access data portal for soil water measurements taken at the ground and is accessible at https://ismn.earth. Over 1000 scientific publications and thousands of users have made use of the ISMN. The scope of this paper is to inform readers about the data and functionality of the ISMN and to provide a review of the scientific progress facilitated through the ISMN with the scope to shape future research and operations.
Amy H. Butler and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 453–474, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-453-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-453-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We classify by wave geometry the stratospheric polar vortex during the final warming that occurs every spring in both hemispheres due to a combination of radiative and dynamical processes. We show that the shape of the vortex, as well as the timing of the seasonal transition, is linked to total column ozone prior to and surface weather following the final warming. These results have implications for prediction and our understanding of stratosphere–troposphere coupling processes in springtime.
John R. Albers, Amy H. Butler, Melissa L. Breeden, Andrew O. Langford, and George N. Kiladis
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 433–452, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-433-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-433-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Weather variability controls the transport of ozone from the stratosphere to the Earth’s surface and water vapor from oceanic source regions to continental land masses. Forecasting these types of transport has high societal value because of the negative impacts of ozone on human health and the role of water vapor in governing precipitation variability. We use upper-level wind forecasts to assess the potential for predicting ozone and water vapor transport 3–6 weeks ahead of time.
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.
Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Olivier Boucher, Jason N. S. Cole, Jim Haywood, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Alan Robock, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 4231–4247, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates multi-model response to idealized geoengineering (high CO2 with solar reduction) across two different generations of climate models. We find that, with the exception of a few cases, the results are unchanged between the different generations. This gives us confidence that broad conclusions about the response to idealized geoengineering are robust.
Margot Clyne, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Michael J. Mills, Myriam Khodri, William Ball, Slimane Bekki, Sandip S. Dhomse, Nicolas Lebas, Graham Mann, Lauren Marshall, Ulrike Niemeier, Virginie Poulain, Alan Robock, Eugene Rozanov, Anja Schmidt, Andrea Stenke, Timofei Sukhodolov, Claudia Timmreck, Matthew Toohey, Fiona Tummon, Davide Zanchettin, Yunqian Zhu, and Owen B. Toon
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 3317–3343, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3317-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3317-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study finds how and why five state-of-the-art global climate models with interactive stratospheric aerosols differ when simulating the aftermath of large volcanic injections as part of the Model Intercomparison Project on the climatic response to Volcanic forcing (VolMIP). We identify and explain the consequences of significant disparities in the underlying physics and chemistry currently in some of the models, which are problems likely not unique to the models participating in this study.
Melissa L. Breeden, Amy H. Butler, John R. Albers, Michael Sprenger, and Andrew O'Neil Langford
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 2781–2794, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2781-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2781-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Prior research has found a maximum in deep stratosphere-to-troposphere mass/ozone transport over the western United States in boreal spring, which can enhance surface ozone concentrations, reducing air quality. We find that the winter-to-summer evolution of the north Pacific jet increases the frequency of stratospheric intrusions that drive transport, helping explain the observed maximum. The El Niño–Southern Oscillation affects the timing of the spring jet transition and therefore transport.
Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, Anthony C. Jones, Simone Tilmes, Ben Kravitz, and Alan Robock
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1287–1304, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Two different methods of simulating a geoengineering scenario are compared using data from two different Earth system models. One method is very idealised while the other includes details of a plausible mechanism. The results from both models agree that the idealised approach does not capture an impact found when detailed modelling is included, namely that geoengineering induces a positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation which leads to warmer, wetter winters in northern Europe.
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.
Jessica Oehrlein, Gabriel Chiodo, and Lorenzo M. Polvani
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 10531–10544, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-10531-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-10531-2020, 2020
Short summary
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.
Cited articles
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.
Ayarzagüena, B., Charlton-Perez, A. J., Butler, A. H., Hitchcock, P.,
Simpson, I. R., Polvani, L. M., Butchart, N., Gerber, E. P., Gray, L.,
Hassler, B., Lin, P., Lott, F., Manzini, E., Mizuta, R., Orbe, C., Osprey,
S., Saint-Martin, D., Sigmond, M., Taguchi, M., Volodin, E. M., and Watanabe,
S.: Uncertainty in the Response of Sudden Stratospheric Warmings and
Stratosphere-Troposphere Coupling to Quadrupled CO2 Concentrations in
CMIP6 Models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD032345, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032345,
2020.
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.
Baldwin, M. P. and Thompson, D. W. J.: A critical comparison of
stratosphere-troposphere coupling indices, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 135,
1661–1672, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.479, 2009.
Banerjee, A.: antara-banerjee/GeoengineeringLE_WinterWarming: Publication Code (Version v1.0.0), Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4713591, 2021.
Chiodo, G. and Polvani, L. M.: Reduced Southern Hemispheric circulation
response to quadrupled CO2 due to stratospheric ozone feedback, Geophys.
Res. Letts., 44, 465–474, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071011, 2017.
Chiodo, G. and Polvani, L. M.: The Response of the Ozone Layer to Quadrupled
CO2 Concentrations: Implications for Climate, J. Climate, 32,
7629–7642, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0086.1, 2019.
Crutzen, P. J.: Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A
Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?, Climatic Change, 77,
211–220, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y, 2006.
Deser, C., Phillips, A., Bourdette, V., and Teng, H.: Uncertainty in climate
change projections: the role of internal variability, Clim. Dynam.,
38, 527–546, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0977-x, 2012.
Domeisen, D. I. V., Sun, L., and Chen, G.: The role of synoptic eddies in the
tropospheric response to stratospheric variability, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
40, 4933–4937, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50943, 2013.
Duan, L., Cao, L., Bala, G., and Caldeira, K.: Climate Response to Pulse
Versus Sustained Stratospheric Aerosol Forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46,
8976–8984, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083701, 2019.
Fasullo, J. T., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G.,
Mills, M. J., and Simpson, I. R.: Persistent polar ocean warming in a
strategically geoengineered climate, Nat. Geosci., 11, 910–914,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0249-7, 2018.
Ferraro, A. J., Charlton-Perez, A. J., and Highwood, E. J.: Stratospheric
dynamics and midlatitude jets under geoengineering with space mirrors and
sulfate and titania aerosols, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 414–429,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022734, 2015.
Fischer, E. M., Luterbacher, J., Zorita, E., Tett, S. F. B., Casty, C., and
Wanner, H.: European climate response to tropical volcanic eruptions over
the last half millennium, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L05707,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027992, 2007.
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., 115, D00M06,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013770, 2010.
Graf, H.-F., Kirchner, I., Robock, A., and Schult, I.: Pinatubo eruption
winter climate effects: model versus observations, Clim. Dynam., 9,
81–93, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00210011, 1993.
Graf, H.-F., Li, Q., and Giorgetta, M. A.: Volcanic effects on climate: revisiting the mechanisms, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 4503–4511, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-4503-2007, 2007.
Guo, S., Bluth, G. J. S., Rose, W. I., Watson, I. M., and Prata, A. J.:
Re-evaluation of SO2 release of the 15 June 1991 Pinatubo eruption
using ultraviolet and infrared satellite sensors, Geochem. Geophy.
Geosy., 5, Q04001, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GC000654, 2004.
Haynes, P. H., McIntyre, M. E., Shepherd, T. G., Marks, C. J., and Shine, K.
P.: On the “Downward Control” of Extratropical Diabatic Circulations by
Eddy-Induced Mean Zonal Forces, J. Atmos. Sci., 48,
651–678, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1991)048<0651:OTCOED>2.0.CO;2, 1991.
Hitchcock, P. and Simpson, I. R.: The Downward Influence of Stratospheric
Sudden Warmings, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 3856–3876,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0012.1, 2014.
Hitchcock, P. and Simpson, I. R.: Quantifying Eddy Feedbacks and Forcings in
the Tropospheric Response to Stratospheric Sudden Warmings, J.
Atmos. Sci., 73, 3641–3657, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0056.1, 2016.
Jiang, J., Cao, L., MacMartin, D. G., Simpson, I. R., Kravitz, B., Cheng,
W., Visioni, D., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., and Mills, M. J.: Stratospheric
Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering Could Alter the High-Latitude Seasonal Cycle,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 14153–14163, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085758, 2019.
Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., Jones, A. C., Tilmes, S., Kravitz, B., and Robock, A.: North Atlantic Oscillation response in GeoMIP experiments G6solar and G6sulfur: why detailed modelling is needed for understanding regional implications of solar radiation management, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1287–1304, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, 2021.
Khodri, M., Izumo, T., Vialard, J., Janicot, S., Cassou, C., Lengaigne, M.,
Mignot, J., Gastineau, G., Guilyardi, E., Lebas, N., Robock, A., and
McPhaden, M. J.: Tropical explosive volcanic eruptions can trigger El
Niño by cooling tropical Africa, Nat. Commun., 8, 778,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00755-6, 2017.
Kidston, J., Scaife, A. A., Hardiman, S. C., Mitchell, D. M., Butchart, N.,
Baldwin, M. P., and Gray, L. J.: Stratospheric influence on tropospheric jet
streams, storm tracks and surface weather, Nat. Geosci., 8, 433–440,
https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2424, 2015.
Kodera, K.: Influence of volcanic eruptions on the troposphere through
stratospheric dynamical processes in the northern hemisphere winter, J.
Geophys. Res., 99, 1273–1282, https://doi.org/10.1029/93JD02731, 1994.
Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Mills, M. J., Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Tribbia, J. J., and Vitt, F.: First Simulations of Designing
Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering to Meet Multiple Simultaneous
Climate Objectives, J. Geophys. Res., 122, 12616–12634, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026874, 2017.
Lorenz, D. J. and DeWeaver, E. T.: Tropopause height and zonal wind response
to global warming in the IPCC scenario integrations, J. Geophys. Res.,
112, D10119, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008087, 2007.
Kushner, P. K. and Polvani, L. M.: Stratosphere–Troposphere Coupling in a
Relatively Simple AGCM: The Role of Eddies, J. Climate, 17, 629–639, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<0629:SCIARS>2.0.CO;2, 2004.
MacMartin, D. G., Ricke, K. L., and Keith, D. W.: Solar geoengineering as
part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5 ∘C Paris target,
Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 376, 20160454, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0454,
2018.
Malik, A., Nowack, P. J., Haigh, J. D., Cao, L., Atique, L., and Plancherel, Y.: Tropical Pacific climate variability under solar geoengineering: impacts on ENSO extremes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 15461–15485, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15461-2020, 2020.
Manzini, E., Karpechko, A. Yu., Anstey, J., Baldwin, M. P., Black, R. X.,
Cagnazzo, C., Calvo, N., Charlton-Perez, A., Christiansen, B., Davini, P.,
Gerber, E., Giorgetta, M., Gray, L., Hardiman, S. C., Lee, Y.-Y., Marsh, D.
R., McDaniel, B. A., Purich, A., Scaife, A. A., Shindell, D., Son, S.-W.,
Watanabe, S., and Zappa, G.: Northern winter climate change: Assessment of
uncertainty in CMIP5 projections related to stratosphere-troposphere
coupling, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 7979–7998,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021403, 2014.
Mills, M. J., Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G.,
Glanville, A. A., Tribbia, J. J., Lamarque, J., Vitt, F., Schmidt, A.,
Gettelman, A., Hannay, C., Bacmeister, J. T., and Kinnison, D. E.: Radiative
and Chemical Response to Interactive Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols in Fully
Coupled CESM1(WACCM), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 13061–13078,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027006, 2017.
National Research Council: Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool
Earth, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., available at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth (last access: 1 May 2020), 2015.
Polvani, L. M. and Camargo, S. J.: Scant evidence for a volcanically forced winter warming over Eurasia following the Krakatau eruption of August 1883, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 13687–13700, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13687-2020, 2020.
Polvani, L. M. and Kushner, P. J.: Tropospheric response to stratospheric
perturbations in a relatively simple general circulation model, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 29, 1114, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL014284, 2002.
Polvani, L. M., Banerjee, A., and Schmidt, A.: Northern Hemisphere continental winter warming following the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption: reconciling models and observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 6351–6366, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-6351-2019, 2019.
Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S., Mills, M. J., Tribbia, J. J., Kravitz, B.,
MacMartin, D. G., Vitt, F., and Lamarque, J.: Stratospheric Dynamical
Response and Ozone Feedbacks in the Presence of SO2 Injections, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 12557–12573, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026912,
2017.
Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S., Glanville, A., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G.,
Mills, M. J., Simpson, I. R., Vitt, F., Tribbia, J. J., and Lamarque, J.-F.:
Stratospheric Response in the First Geoengineering Simulation Meeting
Multiple Surface Climate Objectives, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123,
5762–5782, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028285, 2018.
Robock, A.: The Climatic Aftermath, Science, 295, 1242–1244,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069903, 2002.
Robock, A. and Mao, J.: Winter warming from large volcanic eruptions,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 19, 2405–2408, https://doi.org/10.1029/92GL02627, 1992.
Robock, A. and Mao, J.: The Volcanic Signal in Surface Temperature
Observations, J. Climate, 8, 1086–1103, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1995)008<1086:TVSIST>2.0.CO;2, 1994.
Robock, A., MacMartin, D. G., Duren, R., and Christensen, M. W.: Studying
geoengineering with natural and anthropogenic analogs, Climatic Change,
121, 445–458, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0777-5, 2013.
Robock, A., Oman, L., and Stenchikov, G. L.: Regional climate responses to
geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections, J. Geophys.
Res., 113, D16101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010050, 2008.
Rogelj, J., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler,
H., Schaeffer, R., Sha, F., Riahi, K., and Meinshausen, M.: Paris Agreement
climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 ∘C,
Nature, 534, 631–639, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307, 2016.
Shepherd, T. G. and McLandress, C.: A Robust Mechanism for Strengthening of
the Brewer–Dobson Circulation in Response to Climate Change: Critical-Layer
Control of Subtropical Wave Breaking, J. Atmos. Sci.,
68, 784–797, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JAS3608.1, 2011.
Shindell, D. T., Schmidt, G. A., Mann, M. E., and Faluvegi, G.: Dynamic winter
climate response to large tropical volcanic eruptions since 1600, J.
Geophys. Res., 109, D05104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004151, 2004.
Simpson, I. R., Blackburn, M., and Haigh, J. D.: The Role of Eddies in
Driving the Tropospheric Response to Stratospheric Heating Perturbations, J.
Atmos. Sci., 66, 1347–1365, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JAS2758.1, 2009.
Simpson, I. R., Hitchcock, P., Seager, R., Wu, Y., and Callaghan, P.: The
Downward Influence of Uncertainty in the Northern Hemisphere Stratospheric
Polar Vortex Response to Climate Change, J. Climate, 31, 6371–6391,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0041.1, 2018.
Simpson, I. R., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G.,
Mills, M. J., Fasullo, J. T., and Pendergrass, A. G.: The Regional
Hydroclimate Response to Stratospheric Sulfate Geoengineering and the Role
of Stratospheric Heating, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 12587–12616,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031093, 2019.
Soden, B., Wetherald, R. T., Stenchikov, G. L., and Robock, A.: Global
cooling following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo: A test of climate feedback
by water vapor, Science, 296, 727–730, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.296.5568.727, 2002.
Song, Y. and Robinson, W. A.: Dynamical Mechanisms for Stratospheric
Influences on the Troposphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1711–1725,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061<1711:DMFSIO>2.0.CO;2,
2004.
Thompson, D. W. J., Wallace, J. M., and Hegerl, G. C.: Annular Modes in the
Extratropical Circulation. Part II: Trends, J. Climate, 13, 1018–1036,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<1018:AMITEC>2.0.CO;2, 2000.
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Mills, M. J.,
Simpson, I. R., Glanville, A. S., Fasullo, J. T., Phillips, A. S., Lamarque,
J.-F., Tribbia, J., Edwards, J., Mickelson, S., and Ghosh, S.: CESM1(WACCM)
Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Large Ensemble Project, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 99, 2361–2371, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0267.1, 2018a.
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G.,
Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E., Lamarque, J.-F., Tribbia, J., and Vitt, F.:
Effects of Different Stratospheric SO2 Injection Altitudes on
Stratospheric Chemistry and Dynamics, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123,
4654–4673, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD028146, 2018b.
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M., Kravitz, B., and MacMartin, D. G.: Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Large Ensemble Project – GLENS, NCAR, https://doi.org/10.5065/D6JH3JXX, 2020.
Wittman, M. A. H., Charlton, A. J., and Polvani, L. M.: The Effect of Lower
Stratospheric Shear on Baroclinic Instability, J. Atmos. Sci., 64,
479–496, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3828.1, 2007.
Zambri, B. and Robock, A.: Winter warming and summer monsoon reduction
after volcanic eruptions in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5)
simulations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 10920–10928,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070460, 2016.
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.
We find that simulated stratospheric sulfate geoengineering could lead to warmer Eurasian...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint