Articles | Volume 22, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7523-2022
© Author(s) 2022. 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-22-7523-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
10 Jun 2022
Research article |
| 10 Jun 2022
| 10 Jun 2022
The roles of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation and El Niño for entry stratospheric water vapor in observations and coupled chemistry–ocean CCMI and CMIP6 models
Department of Physics, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel
Eastern R&D Center, Ariel, Israel
Chaim I. Garfinkel
The Fredy and Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Sean Davis
NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA
Antara Banerjee
NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
Related authors
Chaim I. Garfinkel, Ohad Harari, Shlomi Ziskin Ziv, Jian Rao, Olaf Morgenstern, Guang Zeng, Simone Tilmes, Douglas Kinnison, Fiona M. O'Connor, Neal Butchart, Makoto Deushi, Patrick Jöckel, Andrea Pozzer, and Sean Davis
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 3725–3740, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3725-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3725-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and El Niño is the dominant mode of variability in the ocean–atmosphere system. The connection between El Niño and water vapor above ~ 17 km is unclear, with single-model studies reaching a range of conclusions. This study examines this connection in 12 different models. While there are substantial differences among the models, all models appear to capture the fundamental physical processes correctly.
Shenglong Zhang, Jiao Chen, Jonathon S. Wright, Sean M. Davis, Jie Gao, Paul Konopka, Ninghui Li, Mengqian Lu, Susann Tegtmeier, Xiaolu Yan, Guang J. Zhang, and Nuanliang Zhu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 10109–10139, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-10109-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-10109-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Swirling above summer storms, the Asian monsoon anticyclone functions as both gateway and gatekeeper to moisture entering the stratosphere. Although well monitored from space since 2005, many details of the anticyclone and the air that flows through it remain mysterious. Reanalyses, which combine model output and observations, may help to address how and why but only if they reliably capture the what and where of water vapor variations. Current reanalyses are beginning to meet these criteria.
Jonathon S. Wright, Shenglong Zhang, Jiao Chen, Sean M. Davis, Paul Konopka, Mengqian Lu, Xiaolu Yan, and Guang J. Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 9617–9643, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-9617-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-9617-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric reanalysis products reconstruct past states of the atmosphere. These products are often used to study winds and temperatures in the upper-level monsoon circulation, but their ability to reproduce composition fields like water vapor and ozone has been questionable at best. Here we report clear signs of improvement in both consistency across reanalyses and agreement with satellite observations, outline limitations, and suggest steps to further enhance the usefulness of these fields.
Ying Dai, Peter Hitchcock, Amy H. Butler, Chaim I. Garfinkel, and William J. M. Seviour
Weather Clim. Dynam., 6, 841–862, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-841-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-841-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Using a new database of subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) forecasts, we find that with a successful forecast of the sudden stratospheric warming (SSW), 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.
Nigel A. D. Richards, Natalya A. Kramarova, Stacey M. Frith, Sean M. Davis, and Yue Jia
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4117, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4117, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).
Short summary
Short summary
The Montreal Protocol has led to a slow recovery in the Earth's ozone layer. To detect such changes, and to monitor the health of the ozone layer, long term global observations are needed. The OMPS Limb Profiler (LP) series of satellite sensors are designed to meet this need. We validate the latest version OMPS LP ozone profiles against other satellite and ground based measurements. We find that OMPS LP ozone is consistent with other data sources and is suitable for use in ozone trend studies.
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.
Qian Lu, Jian Rao, Chunhua Shi, and Chaim I. Garfinkel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1123, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1123, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric water vapor has been proven to have significant climate effects as a greenhouse gas. Tropical stratospheric water vapor exhibits a clear imprint of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO). This study compares the water vapor variations associated with the QBO between boreal winter and summer, and the seasonal difference in the water vapor QBO signals is revealed.
Cristiana Stan, Saisri Kollapaneni, Andrea Jenney, Jiabao Wang, Zheng Wu, Cheng Zheng, Hyemi Kim, Chaim Garfinkel, and Ayush Singh
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1142, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1142, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The MJO-Teleconnections diagnostics package is an open-source Python software package to be used for evaluation of MJO-Teleconnections predicted by subseasonal-to-seasonal (S2S) forecast systems.
Mona Zolghadrshojaee, Susann Tegtmeier, Sean M. Davis, Robin Pilch Kedzierski, and Leopold Haimberger
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-82, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-82, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The tropical tropopause layer (TTL) is a crucial region where the troposphere transitions into the stratosphere, influencing air mass transport. This study examines temperature trends in the TTL and lower stratosphere using data from weather balloons, satellites, and reanalysis datasets. We found cooling trends in the TTL from 1980–2001, followed by warming from 2002–2023. These shifts are linked to changes in atmospheric circulation and impact water vapor transport into the stratosphere.
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.
Kimberlee Dubé, Susann Tegtmeier, Adam Bourassa, Daniel Zawada, Douglas Degenstein, William Randel, Sean Davis, Michael Schwartz, Nathaniel Livesey, and Anne Smith
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 12925–12941, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12925-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12925-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Greenhouse gas emissions that warm the troposphere also result in stratospheric cooling. The cooling rate is difficult to quantify above 35 km due to a deficit of long-term observational data with high vertical resolution in this region. We use satellite observations from several instruments, including a new temperature product from OSIRIS, to show that the upper stratosphere, from 35–60 km, cooled by 0.5 to 1 K per decade over 2005–2021 and by 0.6 K per decade over 1979–2021.
Masatomo Fujiwara, Patrick Martineau, Jonathon S. Wright, Marta Abalos, Petr Šácha, Yoshio Kawatani, Sean M. Davis, Thomas Birner, and Beatriz M. Monge-Sanz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 7873–7898, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7873-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7873-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
A climatology of the major variables and terms of the transformed Eulerian-mean (TEM) momentum and thermodynamic equations from four global atmospheric reanalyses is evaluated. The spread among reanalysis TEM momentum balance terms is around 10 % in Northern Hemisphere winter and up to 50 % in Southern Hemisphere winter. The largest uncertainties in the thermodynamic equation (about 50 %) are in the vertical advection, which does not show a structure consistent with the differences in heating.
Mona Zolghadrshojaee, Susann Tegtmeier, Sean M. Davis, and Robin Pilch Kedzierski
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 7405–7419, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7405-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7405-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Satellite data challenge the idea of an overall cooling trend in the tropical tropopause layer. From 2002 to 2022, a warming trend was observed, diverging from earlier findings. Tropopause height changes indicate dynamic processes alongside radiative effects. Upper-tropospheric warming contrasts with lower-stratosphere temperatures. The study highlights the complex interplay of factors shaping temperature trends.
Sean M. Davis, Nicholas Davis, Robert W. Portmann, Eric Ray, and Karen Rosenlof
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3347–3361, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3347-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3347-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Ozone in the lower part of the stratosphere has not increased and has perhaps even continued to decline in recent decades. This study demonstrates that the amount of ozone in this region is highly sensitive to the amount of air upwelling into the stratosphere in the tropics and that simulations from a climate model nudged to historical meteorological fields often fail to accurately capture the variations in tropical upwelling that control short-term trends in lower-stratospheric ozone.
J. Douglas Goetz, Lars E. Kalnajs, Terry Deshler, Sean M. Davis, Martina Bramberger, and M. Joan Alexander
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 791–807, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-791-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-791-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
An instrument for in situ continuous 2 km vertical profiles of temperature below high-altitude balloons was developed for high-temporal-resolution measurements within the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere using fiber-optic distributed temperature sensing. The mechanical, electrical, and temperature calibration systems were validated from a short mid-latitude constant-altitude balloon flight within the lower stratosphere. The instrument observed small-scale and inertial gravity waves.
Sophie Godin-Beekmann, Niramson Azouz, Viktoria F. Sofieva, Daan Hubert, Irina Petropavlovskikh, Peter Effertz, Gérard Ancellet, Doug A. Degenstein, Daniel Zawada, Lucien Froidevaux, Stacey Frith, Jeannette Wild, Sean Davis, Wolfgang Steinbrecht, Thierry Leblanc, Richard Querel, Kleareti Tourpali, Robert Damadeo, Eliane Maillard Barras, René Stübi, Corinne Vigouroux, Carlo Arosio, Gerald Nedoluha, Ian Boyd, Roeland Van Malderen, Emmanuel Mahieu, Dan Smale, and Ralf Sussmann
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 11657–11673, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-11657-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-11657-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
An updated evaluation up to 2020 of stratospheric ozone profile long-term trends at extrapolar latitudes based on satellite and ground-based records is presented. Ozone increase in the upper stratosphere is confirmed, with significant trends at most latitudes. In this altitude region, a very good agreement is found with trends derived from chemistry–climate model simulations. Observed and modelled trends diverge in the lower stratosphere, but the differences are non-significant.
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.
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.
Chen Schwartz, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Priyanka Yadav, Wen Chen, and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 679–692, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-679-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-679-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Eleven operational forecast models that run on subseasonal timescales (up to 2 months) are examined to assess errors in their simulated large-scale stationary waves in the Northern Hemisphere winter. We found that models with a more finely resolved stratosphere generally do better in simulating the waves in both the stratosphere (10–50 km) and troposphere below. Moreover, a connection exists between errors in simulated time-mean convection in tropical regions and errors in the simulated waves.
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.
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.
Lars E. Kalnajs, Sean M. Davis, J. Douglas Goetz, Terry Deshler, Sergey Khaykin, Alex St. Clair, Albert Hertzog, Jerome Bordereau, and Alexey Lykov
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 2635–2648, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-2635-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-2635-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This work introduces a novel instrument system for high-resolution atmospheric profiling, which lowers and retracts a suspended instrument package beneath drifting long-duration balloons. During a 100 d circumtropical flight, the instrument collected over a hundred 2 km profiles of temperature, water vapor, clouds, and aerosol at 1 m resolution, yielding unprecedented geographic sampling and vertical resolution measurements of the tropical tropopause layer.
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.
Chaim I. Garfinkel, Ohad Harari, Shlomi Ziskin Ziv, Jian Rao, Olaf Morgenstern, Guang Zeng, Simone Tilmes, Douglas Kinnison, Fiona M. O'Connor, Neal Butchart, Makoto Deushi, Patrick Jöckel, Andrea Pozzer, and Sean Davis
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 3725–3740, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3725-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3725-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and El Niño is the dominant mode of variability in the ocean–atmosphere system. The connection between El Niño and water vapor above ~ 17 km is unclear, with single-model studies reaching a range of conclusions. This study examines this connection in 12 different models. While there are substantial differences among the models, all models appear to capture the fundamental physical processes correctly.
Cited articles
Avery, M. A., Davis, S. M., Rosenlof, K. H., Ye, H., and Dessler, A. E.: Large anomalies in lower stratospheric water vapour and ice during the 2015–2016 El Niño, Nat. Geosci., 10, 405–409, 2017. a
Boser, B. E., Guyon, I. M., and Vapnik, V. N.: A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers, in: Proceedings of the fifth annual workshop on Computational learning theory (COLT '92), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 144–152, https://doi.org/10.1145/130385.130401, 1992. a
Breiman, L.: Random forests, Machine Learning, 45, 5–32, 2001. a
Brinkop, S., Dameris, M., Jöckel, P., Garny, H., Lossow, S., and Stiller, G.: The millennium water vapour drop in chemistry–climate model simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 8125–8140, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8125-2016, 2016. a
Calvo, N., Garcia, R., Randel, W., and Marsh, D.: Dynamical mechanism for the
increase in tropical upwelling in the lowermost tropical stratosphere during
warm ENSO events, J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 2331–2340, 2010. a
Davis, S. M., Liang, C. K., and Rosenlof, K. H.: Interannual variability of
tropical tropopause layer clouds, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40,
2862–2866, 2013. a
Davis, S. M., Rosenlof, K. H., Hassler, B., Hurst, D. F., Read, W. G., Vömel, H., Selkirk, H., Fujiwara, M., and Damadeo, R.: The Stratospheric Water and Ozone Satellite Homogenized (SWOOSH) database: a long-term database for climate studies, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 461–490, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-461-2016, 2016. a, b
Diallo, M., Riese, M., Birner, T., Konopka, P., Müller, R., Hegglin, M. I., Santee, M. L., Baldwin, M., Legras, B., and Ploeger, F.: Response of stratospheric water vapor and ozone to the unusual timing of El Niño and the QBO disruption in 2015–2016, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 13055–13073, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13055-2018, 2018. a, b, c, d
Domeisen, D. I., Garfinkel, C. I., and Butler, A. H.: The teleconnection of El
Niño Southern Oscillation to the stratosphere, Rev. Geophys., 57,
5–47, 2019. a
Drdla, K. and Müller, R.: Temperature thresholds for chlorine activation and ozone loss in the polar stratosphere, Ann. Geophys., 30, 1055–1073, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-30-1055-2012, 2012. a
Dunne, J. P., Horowitz, L. W., Adcroft, A. J., Ginoux, P., Held, I. M., John, J. G., Krasting, J. P., Malyshev, S., Naik, V., Paulot, F., and Shevliakova, E.: The GFDL Earth System Model version 4.1 (GFDL‐ESM 4.1): Overall coupled model description and simulation characteristics, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS002015, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002015, 2020. a, b
Durre, I., Vose, R. S., and Wuertz, D. B.: Overview of the integrated global
radiosonde archive, J. Climate, 19, 53–68, 2006. a
Dvortsov, V. L. and Solomon, S.: Response of the stratospheric temperatures and
ozone to past and future increases in stratospheric humidity, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 106, 7505–7514, 2001. a
Eyring, V., Arblaster, J., Cionni, I., Sedláček, J., Perlwitz, J.,
Young, P., Bekki, S., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P., Collins, W. J.,
Faluvegi, G., Gottschaldt, K.-D., Horowitz, L. W., Kinnison, D. E., Lamarque, J.-F., Marsh, D. R., Saint-Martin, D., Shindell, D. T., Sudo, K., Szopa, S., and Watanabe, S.: Long-term ozone changes and associated climate impacts in CMIP5 simulations, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 5029–5060, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50316, 2013. a, b
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a
Forster, P. M. and Shine, K. P.: Stratospheric water vapor changes as a
possible contributor to observed stratospheric cooling, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
26, 3309–3312, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL010487, 1999. a, b
Free, M. and Seidel, D. J.: Observed El Niño-Southern Oscillation
temperature signal in the stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D23108,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012420, 2009. a
Fueglistaler, S. and Haynes, P.: Control of interannual and longer-term
variability of stratospheric water vapor, J. Geophys. Res.,
110, D24108, https://doi.org//10.1029/2005JD006019, 2005a. a, b
Fueglistaler, S., Dessler, A., Dunkerton, T., Folkins, I., Fu, Q., and Mote,
P. W.: Tropical tropopause layer, Rev. Geophys., 47, RG1004, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008RG000267, 2009. a
Fujiwara, M., Vömel, H., Hasebe, F., Shiotani, M., Ogino, S.-Y., Iwasaki,
S., Nishi, N., Shibata, T., Shimizu, K., Nishimoto, E., Valverde Canossa, J. M., Selkirk, H. B., and Oltmans, S. J.: Seasonal to
decadal variations of water vapor in the tropical lower stratosphere observed
with balloon-borne cryogenic frost point hygrometers, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 115, D18304, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014179, 2010. a
Garcia, R. R., Smith, A. K., Kinnison, D. E., Cámara, Á. D. L., and
Murphy, D. J.: Modification of the Gravity Wave Parameterization in the Whole
Atmosphere Community Climate Model: Motivation and Results, J.
Atmos. Sci., 74, 275–291, 2017. a
Garfinkel, C. I. and Hartmann, D. L.: The influence of the quasi-biennial
oscillation on the troposphere in winter in a hierarchy of models. Part II:
Perpetual winter WACCM runs, J. Atmos. Sci., 68,
2026–2041, 2011. a
Garfinkel, C. I., Shaw, T. A., Hartmann, D. L., and Waugh, D. W.: Does the
Holton–Tan mechanism explain how the quasi-biennial oscillation modulates
the Arctic polar vortex?, J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 1713–1733,
2012. a
Garfinkel, C. I., Harari, O., Ziskin Ziv, S., Rao, J., Morgenstern, O., Zeng, G., Tilmes, S., Kinnison, D., O'Connor, F. M., Butchart, N., Deushi, M., Jöckel, P., Pozzer, A., and Davis, S.: Influence of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on entry stratospheric water vapor in coupled chemistry–ocean CCMI and CMIP6 models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 3725–3740, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3725-2021, 2021. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Geller, M. A., Zhou, T., Shindell, D., Ruedy, R., Aleinov, I., Nazarenko, L.,
Tausnev, N., Kelley, M., Sun, S., Cheng, Y., Field, R. D., and Faluvegi, G.: Modeling the
QBO – Improvements resulting from higher-model vertical resolution, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 8, 1092–1105, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016MS000699, 2016. a
Gettelman, A., Randel, W., Massie, S., Wu, F., Read, W., and Russell III, J.:
El Nino as a natural experiment for studying the tropical tropopause region,
J. Climate, 14, 3375–3392, 2001. a
Gettelman, A., Mills, M. J., Kinnison, D. E., Garcia, R. R., Smith, A. K.,
Marsh, D. R., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Bardeen, C. G., McInerny, 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., Hodzic, 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, b
Hardiman, S. C., Butchart, N., O'Connor, F. M., and Rumbold, S. T.: The Met Office HadGEM3-ES chemistry–climate model: evaluation of stratospheric dynamics and its impact on ozone, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1209–1232, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1209-2017, 2017. a
Hatsushika, H. and Yamazaki, K.: Stratospheric drain over Indonesia and
dehydration within the tropical tropopause layer diagnosed by air parcel
trajectories, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 4610, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002986, 2003. a
Hegglin, M. I. and Lamarque, J.-F.: The IGAC/SPARC Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative Phase-1 (CCMI-1) model data output, NCAS British Atmospheric Data Centre [data set], https://data.ceda.ac.uk/badc/wcrp-ccmi/data/CCMI-1/output (last access: 25 May 2022), 2015. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Biavati, G., Horányi, A., Muñoz Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Rozum, I., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Dee, D., and Thépaut, J.-N.: ERA5 hourly data on pressure levels from 1979 to present, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.bd0915c6, 2018. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A.,
Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons,
A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati,
G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D.,
Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer,
A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M.,
Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P.,
Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 Global
Reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049,
https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a, b
Hinton, G. E.: Connectionist learning procedures, Machine Learning, Artif. Intell., 40, 185–234, https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(89)90049-0, 1989. a
Jöckel, P., Tost, H., Pozzer, A., Kunze, M., Kirner, O., Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Brinkop, S., Cai, D. S., Dyroff, C., Eckstein, J., Frank, F., Garny, H., Gottschaldt, K.-D., Graf, P., Grewe, V., Kerkweg, A., Kern, B., Matthes, S., Mertens, M., Meul, S., Neumaier, M., Nützel, M., Oberländer-Hayn, S., Ruhnke, R., Runde, T., Sander, R., Scharffe, D., and Zahn, A.: Earth System Chemistry integrated Modelling (ESCiMo) with the Modular Earth Submodel System (MESSy) version 2.51, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1153–1200, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1153-2016, 2016. a
Kawatani, Y., Lee, J. N., and Hamilton, K.: Interannual Variations of
Stratospheric Water Vapor in MLS Observations and Climate Model Simulations,
J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 4072–4085,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0164.1, 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., Burrows, S., Cameron-Smith, P., Cugnet, D., Danek, C., Deushi, M., Horowitz, L. W., Kubin, A., Li, L., Lohmann, G., Michou, M., Mills, M. J., Nabat, P., Olivié, D., Park, S., Seland, Ø., Stoll, J., Wieners, K.-H., and Wu, T.: Evaluating stratospheric ozone and water vapour changes in CMIP6 models from 1850 to 2100, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5015–5061, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, 2021. a
Konopka, P., Ploeger, F., Tao, M., and Riese, M.: Zonally resolved impact of
ENSO on the stratospheric circulation and water vapor entry values, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 11486–11501, https://doi.org//10.1002/2015JD024698, 2016. a, b
Liang, C., Eldering, A., Gettelman, A., Tian, B., Wong, S., Fetzer, E., and
Liou, K.: Record of tropical interannual variability of temperature and water
vapor from a combined AIRS-MLS data set, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 116, D06103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014841, 2011. a, b
Lundberg, S. M. and Lee, S.-I.: A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model
Predictions, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, edited
by: Guyon, I., Luxburg, U. V., Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Fergus, R.,
Vishwanathan, S., and Garnett, R., Curran Associates, Inc., pp. 4765–4774,
http://papers.nips.cc/paper/7062-a-unified-approach-to-interpreting-model-predictions.pdf (last access: 26 May 2022),
2017. a
Lundberg, S. M., Erion, G., Chen, H., DeGrave, A., Prutkin, J. M., Nair, B.,
Katz, R., Himmelfarb, J., Bansal, N., and Lee, S.-I.: From local explanations
to global understanding with explainable AI for trees, Nature Machine
Intelligence, 2, 2522–5839, 2020. a
Martin, Z., Orbe, C., Wang, S., and Sobel, A.: The MJO–QBO Relationship in a
GCM with Stratospheric Nudging, J. Climate, 34, 4603–4624, 2021. a
Meinshausen, M., Smith, S. J., Calvin, K., Daniel, J. S., Kainuma, M.,
Lamarque, J., Matsumoto, K., Montzka, S., Raper, S., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Velders, G. J. M., and van Vuuren, D. P. P.: The
RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300,
Climatic Change, 109, 213–241, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z, 2011. a, b
Molnar, C.: Interpretable Machine Learning,
https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/shap.html (last access: 26 May 2022),
2019. a
Morgenstern, O., Braesicke, P., O'Connor, F. M., Bushell, A. C., Johnson, C. E., Osprey, S. M., and Pyle, J. A.: Evaluation of the new UKCA climate-composition model – Part 1: The stratosphere, Geosci. Model Dev., 2, 43–57, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2-43-2009, 2009. a
Morgenstern, O., Hegglin, M. I., Rozanov, E., O'Connor, F. M., Abraham, N. L., Akiyoshi, H., Archibald, A. T., Bekki, S., Butchart, N., Chipperfield, M. P., Deushi, M., Dhomse, S. S., Garcia, R. R., Hardiman, S. C., Horowitz, L. W., Jöckel, P., Josse, B., Kinnison, D., Lin, M., Mancini, E., Manyin, M. E., Marchand, M., Marécal, V., Michou, M., Oman, L. D., Pitari, G., Plummer, D. A., Revell, L. E., Saint-Martin, D., Schofield, R., Stenke, A., Stone, K., Sudo, K., Tanaka, T. Y., Tilmes, S., Yamashita, Y., Yoshida, K., and Zeng, G.: Review of the global models used within phase 1 of the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative (CCMI), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 639–671, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-639-2017, 2017. a, b
Mote, P. W., Rosenlof, K. H., McIntyre, M. E., Carr, E. S., Gille, J. C.,
Holton, J. R., Kinnersley, J. S., Pumphrey, H. C., Russell III, J. M., and
Waters, J. W.: An atmospheric tape recorder: The imprint of tropical
tropopause temperatures on stratospheric water vapor, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 101, 3989–4006, 1996a. a
Mote, P. W., Rosenlof, K. H., McIntyre, M. E., Carr, E. S., Gille, J. C.,
Holton, J. R., Kinnersley, J. S., Pumphrey, H. C., Russell III, J. M., and
Waters, J. W.: An atmospheric tape recorder: The imprint of tropical
tropopause temperatures on stratospheric water vapor, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 101, 3989–4006, 1996b. a
National Centre for Atmospheric Research: CCMI Phase 1, NCAR [data set], https://www.earthsystemgrid.org/project/CCMI1.html, last access: 25 May 2021. a
Niwano, M., Yamazaki, K., and Shiotani, M.: Seasonal and QBO variations of
ascent rate in the tropical lower stratosphere as inferred from UARS HALOE
trace gas data, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 4794, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003871, 2003. a
Orbe, C., Waugh, D. W., Yang, H., Lamarque, J.-F., Tilmes, S., and Kinnison,
D. E.: Tropospheric transport differences between models using the same
large-scale meteorological fields, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44,
1068–1078, 2017. a
Orbe, C., Yang, H., Waugh, D. W., Zeng, G., Morgenstern , O., Kinnison, D. E., Lamarque, J.-F., Tilmes, S., Plummer, D. A., Scinocca, J. F., Josse, B., Marecal, V., Jöckel, P., Oman, L. D., Strahan, S. E., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T. Y., Yoshida, K., Akiyoshi, H., Yamashita, Y., Stenke, A., Revell, L., Sukhodolov, T., Rozanov, E., Pitari, G., Visioni, D., Stone, K. A., Schofield, R., and Banerjee, A.: Large-scale tropospheric transport in the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 7217–7235, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-7217-2018, 2018. a
Orr, G. B. and Müller, K.-R.: Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade, in: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2nd edn., edited by: Montavon, G., Orr, G. B., and Müller, K.-R.,
Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, ISBN 978-3-642-35288-1, ISBN 978-3-642-35289-8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35289-8, 2003. a
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel,
O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J.,
Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, E.:
Scikit-learn: machine learning, Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 12, 2825–2830, http://jmlr.org/papers/v12/pedregosa11a.html (last access 25 May 2022), 2011. a, b
Randel, W. J., Wu, F., and Gaffen, D. J.: Interannual variability of the
tropical tropopause derived from radiosonde data and NCEP reanalyses, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 15509–15523, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900155, 2000. a
Randel, W. J., Wu, F., Voemel, H., Nedoluha, G. E., and Forster, P.: Decreases
in stratospheric water vapor after 2001: Links to changes in the tropical
tropopause and the Brewer-Dobson circulation, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 111, D12312, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006744, 2006. a
Randel, W. J., Garcia, R. R., Calvo, N., and Marsh, D.: ENSO influence on zonal
mean temperature and ozone in the tropical lower stratosphere, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 36, L15822, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039343, 2009. a
Rao, J., Garfinkel, C. I., and White, I. P.: Impact of the Quasi-Biennial
Oscillation on the Northern Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex in CMIP5/6
Models, J. Climate, 33, 4787–4813, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0663.1,
2020a. a, b, c
Reid, G. C. and Gage, K. S.: Interannual variations in the height of the
tropical tropopause, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 90,
5629–5635, 1985. a
Richter, J. H., Anstey, J. A., Butchart, N., Kawatani, Y., Meehl, G. A.,
Osprey, S., and Simpson, I. R.: Progress in Simulating the Quasi-Biennial
Oscillation in CMIP Models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
125, e2019JD032362, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032362, 2020. a, b, c
Robrecht, S., Vogel, B., Tilmes, S., and Müller, R.: Potential of future stratospheric ozone loss in the midlatitudes under global warming and sulfate geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 2427–2455, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2427-2021, 2021. a
Scherllin-Pirscher, B., Deser, C., Ho, S.-P., Chou, C., Randel, W., and Kuo, Y.-H.: The vertical and spatial structure of ENSO in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere from GPS radio occultation measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L20801, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053071, 2012. a
Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Michou, M., Saint-Martin, D., Voldoire, A.,
Colin, J., Decharme, B., Delire, C., Berthet, S., Chevallier, M., Sénési, S., Franchisteguy, L., Vial, J., Mallet, M., Joetzjer, E., Geoffroy, O., Guérémy, J.-F., Moine, M.-P., Msadek, R., Ribes, A., Rocher, M., Roehrig, R., Salas-y-Mélia, D., Sanchez, E., Terray, L., Valcke, S., Waldman, R., Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Deshayes, J., Éthé, C., and Madec, G.:
Evaluation of CNRM Earth System Model, CNRM-ESM2-1: Role of Earth System
Processes in Present-Day and Future Climate, J. Adv. Model.
Earth Sy., 11, 4182–4227, 2019. a, b
Sellar, A. A., Jones, C. G., Mulcahy, J. P., Tang, Y., Yool, A., Wiltshire, A.,
O'Connor, F. M., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Palmieri, J., Woodward, S., de Mora,
L., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rumbold, S. T., Kelley, D. I., Ellis, R., Johnson, C. E.,
Walton, J., Abraham, N. L., Andrews, M. B., Andrews, T., Archibald, A. T.,
Berthou, S., Burke, E., Blockley, E., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M., Edwards, J.,
Folberth, G. A., Gedney, N., Griffiths, P. T., Harper, A. B., Hendry, M. A.,
Hewitt, A. J., Johnson, B., Jones, A., Jones, C. D., Keeble, J., Liddicoat,
S., Morgenstern, O., Parker, R. J., Predoi, V., Robertson, E., Siahaan, A.,
Smith, R. S., Swaminathan, R., Woodhouse, M. T., Zeng, G., and Zerroukat, M.:
UKESM1: Description and Evaluation of the U.K. Earth System Model, J.
Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4513–4558,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739, 2019. a, b
Simpson, I. R., Shepherd, T. G., and Sigmond, M.: Dynamics of the lower
stratospheric circulation response to ENSO, J. Atmos.
Sci., 68, 2537–2556, 2011. a
Smalley, K. M., Dessler, A. E., Bekki, S., Deushi, M., Marchand, M., Morgenstern, O., Plummer, D. A., Shibata, K., Yamashita, Y., and Zeng, G.: Contribution of different processes to changes in tropical lower-stratospheric water vapor in chemistry–climate models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 8031–8044, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-8031-2017, 2017. a, b, c, d, e
Solomon, S.: Stratospheric ozone depletion: A review of concepts and history,
Rev. Geophys., 37, 275–316, 1999. a
Solomon, S., Garcia, R. R., Rowland, F. S., and Wuebbles, D. J.: On
the depletion of Antarctic ozone, Nature, 321, 755–758,
https://doi.org/10.1038/321755a0, 1986. a
Solomon, S., Rosenlof, K. H., Portmann, R. W., Daniel, J. S., Davis,
S. M., Sanford, T. J., and Plattner, G.-K.: Contributions of
Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming,
Science, 327, 1219–1223, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488, 2010. a, b
Stenke, A. and Grewe, V.: Simulation of stratospheric water vapor trends: impact on stratospheric ozone chemistry, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1257–1272, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1257-2005, 2005. a
Tian, E. W., Su, H., Tian, B., and Jiang, J. H.: Interannual variations of water vapor in the tropical upper troposphere and the lower and middle stratosphere and their connections to ENSO and QBO, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 9913–9926, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9913-2019, 2019. a
Tian, W., Chipperfield, M. P., and Lü, D.: Impact of increasing
stratospheric water vapor on ozone depletion and temperature change, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 26, 423–437, 2009. a
Tilmes, S., Lamarque, J.-F., Emmons, L. K., Kinnison, D. E., Marsh, D., Garcia, R. R., Smith, A. K., Neely, R. R., Conley, A., Vitt, F., Val Martin, M., Tanimoto, H., Simpson, I., Blake, D. R., and Blake, N.: Representation of the Community Earth System Model (CESM1) CAM4-chem within the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI), Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1853–1890, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1853-2016, 2016. a
Vapnik, V., Guyon, I., and Hastie, T.: Support vector machines, Machine Learning,
20, 273–297, 1995. a
World Meteorological Organization: Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion:
2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project Rep. No. 52, https://library.wmo.int/index.php?id=5230&lvl=notice_display#.Yo88x6jP23A (last access: 31 May 2022), 2011. a
Ye, H., Dessler, A. E., and Yu, W.: Effects of convective ice evaporation on interannual variability of tropical tropopause layer water vapor, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 4425–4437, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-4425-2018, 2018. a
Yook, S., Thompson, D. W. J., Solomon, S., and Kim, S.: The Key Role of Coupled Chemistry – Climate Interactions in Tropical Stratospheric Temperature Variability, J. Climate, 33, 7619–7629, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0071.1, 2020. a
Yuan, W., Geller, M. A., and Love, P. T.: ENSO influence on QBO modulations of
the tropical tropopause, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 140, 1670–1676, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2247, 2014. a, b
Yukimoto, S., Adachi, Y., Hosaka, M., Sakami, T., Yoshimura, H., Hirabara, M.,
Tanaka, T. Y., Shindo, E., Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Mizuta, R., Yabu, S., Obata, A., Nakano, H., Koshiro, T., Ose, T., and Kitoh, A.: A New Global Climate Model of the Meteorological Research Institute: MRI-CGCM3 – Model Description and Basic Performance, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. Ser. II, 90, 23–64, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2012-A02, 2012. a
Yukimoto, S., Kawai, H., Koshiro, T., Oshima, N., Yoshida, K., Urakawa, S.,
Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T., Hosaka, M., Yabu, S., Yoshimura, H., Shindo, E., Mizuta, R., Obata, A., Adachi, Y., and Ishii, M.: The Meteorological
Research Institute Earth System Model version 2.0, MRI-ESM2. 0: Description
and basic evaluation of the physical component, J. Meteorol.
Soc. Jpn. Ser. II, 97, 931–965, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2019-051, 2019. a, b
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.
Stratospheric water vapor is important for Earth's overall greenhouse effect and for ozone...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint