Articles | Volume 24, issue 21
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12259-2024
© Author(s) 2024. 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-24-12259-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| Highlight paper
| 
06 Nov 2024
Research article | Highlight paper |
| 06 Nov 2024
| 06 Nov 2024
Tropospheric links to uncertainty in stratospheric subseasonal predictions
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Gabriel Chiodo
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Instituto de Geociencias, IGEO-CSIC-UCM, Madrid, Spain
Inna Polichtchouk
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK
Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Faculty of Geosciences and Environment, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Related authors
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.
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.
Rachel Wai-Ying Wu, Zheng Wu, and Daniela I.V. Domeisen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 755–776, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-755-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-755-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate predictions of the stratospheric polar vortex can enhance surface weather predictability. Stratospheric events themselves are less predictable, with strong inter-event differences. We assess the predictability of stratospheric acceleration and deceleration events in a sub-seasonal prediction system, finding that the predictability of events is largely dependent on event magnitude, while extreme drivers of deceleration events are not fully represented in the model.
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.
Lou Brett, Christopher J. White, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Bart van den Hurk, Philip Ward, and Jakob Zscheischler
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2591–2611, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2591-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2591-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Compound events, where multiple weather or climate hazards occur together, pose significant risks to both society and the environment. These events, like simultaneous wind and rain, can have more severe impacts than single hazards. Our review of compound event research from 2012–2022 reveals a rise in studies, especially on events that occur concurrently, hot and dry events, and compounding flooding. The review also highlights opportunities for research in the coming years.
Bastien François, Khalil Teber, Lou Brett, Richard Leeding, Luis Gimeno-Sotelo, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Laura Suarez-Gutierrez, and Emanuele Bevacqua
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1029–1051, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1029-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1029-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Spatially compounding wind and precipitation (CWP) extremes can lead to severe impacts on society. We find that concurrent climate variability modes favor the occurrence of such wintertime spatially compounding events in the Northern Hemisphere and can even amplify the number of regions and population exposed. Our analysis highlights the importance of considering the interplay between variability modes to improve risk management of such spatially compounding events.
Clara Orbe, Alison Ming, Gabriel Chiodo, Michael Prather, Mohamadou Diallo, Qi Tang, Andreas Chrysanthou, Hiroaki Naoe, Xin Zhou, Irina Thaler, Dillon Elsbury, Ewa Bednarz, Jonathon S. Wright, Aaron Match, Shingo Watanabe, James Anstey, Tobias Kerzenmacher, Stefan Versick, Marion Marchand, Feng Li, and James Keeble
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2761, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2761, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) is the main source of wind fluctuations in the tropical stratosphere, which can couple to surface climate. However, models do a poor job of simulating the QBO in the lower stratosphere, for reasons that remain unclear. One possibility is that models do not completely represent how ozone influences the QBO-associated wind variations. Here we propose a multi-model framework for assessing how ozone influences the QBO in recent past and future climates.
Simone Tilmes, Ewa M. Bednarz, Andrin Jörimann, Daniele Visioni, Douglas E. Kinnison, Gabriel Chiodo, and David Plummer
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 6001–6023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-6001-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-6001-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we describe the details of a new multi-model intercomparison experiment to assess the effects of Stratospheric Aerosol Intervention (SAI) on stratospheric chemistry and dynamics and, therefore, ozone. Second, we discuss the advantages and differences of the more constrained experiment compared to fully interactive model experiments. This way, we advance the process-level understanding of the drivers of SAI-induced atmospheric responses.
Monika Feldmann, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, and Olivia Martius
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2296, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2296, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Severe thunderstorm outbreaks are a source of major damage across Europe. Using historical data, we analysed the large-scale weather patterns that lead to these outbreaks in eight different regions. Three types of regions emerge: those limited by temperature, limited by moisture and overall favourable for thunderstorms; consistent with their associated weather patterns and the general climate. These findings help explain regional differences and provide a basis for future forecast improvements.
Wolfgang Wicker, Emmanuele Russo, and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1197, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1197, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Heatwaves are becoming more frequent, but the contribution by atmospheric circulation changes is unclear. Experiments with an idealized model that simulates atmospheric dynamics, but excludes clouds, radiation, and moisture, show how a poleward storm track shift increases the eastward phase speed of Rossby waves and reduces mid-latitude heatwave frequency. New evidence suggests that this mechanism is already active in the Southern Hemisphere and may soon emerge in the Northern Hemisphere.
Ales Kuchar, Timofei Sukhodolov, Gabriel Chiodo, Andrin Jörimann, Jessica Kult-Herdin, Eugene Rozanov, and Harald H. Rieder
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 3623–3634, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3623-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3623-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In January 2022, the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai (HTHH) volcano erupted, sending massive amounts of water vapour into the atmosphere. This event had a significant impact on stratospheric and lower-mesospheric chemical composition. Two years later, stratospheric conditions were disturbed during so-called sudden stratospheric warmings. Here we simulate a novel pathway by which this water-rich eruption may have contributed to conditions during these events and consequently impacted the surface climate.
Andrin Jörimann, Timofei Sukhodolov, Beiping Luo, Gabriel Chiodo, Graham Mann, and Thomas Peter
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-145, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-145, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosol particles in the stratosphere affect our climate. Climate models therefore need an accurate description of their properties and evolution. Satellites measure how strongly aerosol particles extinguish light passing through the stratosphere. We describe a method to use such aerosol extinction data to retrieve the number and sizes of the aerosol particles and calculate their optical effects. The resulting data sets for models are validated against ground-based and balloon observations.
Jingyu Wang, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, Blanca Ayarzagüena, William T. Ball, Mohamadou Diallo, Birgit Hassler, James Keeble, Peer Nowack, Clara Orbe, and Sandro Vattioni
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-340, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-340, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed the ozone response under elevated CO2 using the data from CMIP6 DECK experiments. We then looked at the relations between ozone response and temperature and circulation changes to identify drivers of the ozone change. The climate feedback of ozone is investigated by doing offline calculations and comparing models with and without interactive chemistry. We find that ozone-climate interactions are important for Earth System Models, thus should be considered in future model development.
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.
Thomas Rackow, Xabier Pedruzo-Bagazgoitia, Tobias Becker, Sebastian Milinski, Irina Sandu, Razvan Aguridan, Peter Bechtold, Sebastian Beyer, Jean Bidlot, Souhail Boussetta, Willem Deconinck, Michail Diamantakis, Peter Dueben, Emanuel Dutra, Richard Forbes, Rohit Ghosh, Helge F. Goessling, Ioan Hadade, Jan Hegewald, Thomas Jung, Sarah Keeley, Lukas Kluft, Nikolay Koldunov, Aleksei Koldunov, Tobias Kölling, Josh Kousal, Christian Kühnlein, Pedro Maciel, Kristian Mogensen, Tiago Quintino, Inna Polichtchouk, Balthasar Reuter, Domokos Sármány, Patrick Scholz, Dmitry Sidorenko, Jan Streffing, Birgit Sützl, Daisuke Takasuka, Steffen Tietsche, Mirco Valentini, Benoît Vannière, Nils Wedi, Lorenzo Zampieri, and Florian Ziemen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 33–69, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-33-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-33-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Detailed global climate model simulations have been created based on a numerical weather prediction model, offering more accurate spatial detail down to the scale of individual cities ("kilometre-scale") and a better understanding of climate phenomena such as atmospheric storms, whirls in the ocean, and cracks in sea ice. The new model aims to provide globally consistent information on local climate change with greater precision, benefiting environmental planning and local impact modelling.
Pauline Rivoire, Sonia Dupuis, Antoine Guisan, Pascal Vittoz, and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3482, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our study investigates the conditions in temperature, precipitation, humidity, and soil moisture leading to the browning of the European forests in summer. Using a Random Forest model and satellite measurement of vegetation greenness, we identify key conditions that predict forest damage. We conclude that hot and dry conditions in spring and summer are adverse conditions, in particular for broad-leaved trees. The hydro-meteorological conditions during the preceding year can also have an impact.
Yunqian Zhu, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Valentina Aquila, Elisabeth Asher, Ewa M. Bednarz, Slimane Bekki, Christoph Brühl, Amy H. Butler, Parker Case, Simon Chabrillat, Gabriel Chiodo, Margot Clyne, Lola Falletti, Peter R. Colarco, Eric Fleming, Andrin Jörimann, Mahesh Kovilakam, Gerbrand Koren, Ales Kuchar, Nicolas Lebas, Qing Liang, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Graham Mann, Michael Manyin, Marion Marchand, Olaf Morgenstern, Paul Newman, Luke D. Oman, Freja F. Østerstrøm, Yifeng Peng, David Plummer, Ilaria Quaglia, William Randel, Samuel Rémy, Takashi Sekiya, Stephen Steenrod, Timofei Sukhodolov, Simone Tilmes, Kostas Tsigaridis, Rei Ueyama, Daniele Visioni, Xinyue Wang, Shingo Watanabe, Yousuke Yamashita, Pengfei Yu, Wandi Yu, Jun Zhang, and Zhihong Zhuo
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3412, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3412, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To understand the climate impact of the 2022 Hunga volcanic eruption, we developed a climate model-observation comparison project. The paper describes the protocols and models that participate in the experiments. We designed several experiments to achieve our goal of this activity: 1. evaluate the climate model performance; 2. understand the Earth system responses to this eruption.
Sandro Vattioni, Rahel Weber, Aryeh Feinberg, Andrea Stenke, John A. Dykema, Beiping Luo, Georgios A. Kelesidis, Christian A. Bruun, Timofei Sukhodolov, Frank N. Keutsch, Thomas Peter, and Gabriel Chiodo
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7767–7793, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7767-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7767-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We quantified impacts and efficiency of stratospheric solar climate intervention via solid particle injection. Microphysical interactions of solid particles with the sulfur cycle were interactively coupled to the heterogeneous chemistry scheme and the radiative transfer code of an aerosol–chemistry–climate model. Compared to injection of SO2 we only find a stronger cooling efficiency for solid particles when normalizing to the aerosol load but not when normalizing to the injection rate.
Sebastian Rhode, Peter Preusse, Jörn Ungermann, Inna Polichtchouk, Kaoru Sato, Shingo Watanabe, Manfred Ern, Karlheinz Nogai, Björn-Martin Sinnhuber, and Martin Riese
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 5785–5819, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5785-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5785-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the capabilities of a proposed satellite mission, CAIRT, for observing gravity waves throughout the middle atmosphere and present the necessary methodology for in-depth wave analysis. Our findings suggest that such a satellite mission is highly capable of resolving individual wave parameters and could give new insights into the role of gravity waves in general atmospheric circulation and atmospheric processes.
Sandro Vattioni, Andrea Stenke, Beiping Luo, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, Elia Wunderlin, and Thomas Peter
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4181–4197, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4181-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4181-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the sensitivity of aerosol size distributions in the presence of strong SO2 injections for climate interventions or after volcanic eruptions to the call sequence and frequency of the routines for nucleation and condensation in sectional aerosol models with operator splitting. Using the aerosol–chemistry–climate model SOCOL-AERv2, we show that the radiative and chemical outputs are sensitive to these settings at high H2SO4 supersaturations and how to obtain reliable results.
Christina V. Brodowsky, Timofei Sukhodolov, Gabriel Chiodo, Valentina Aquila, Slimane Bekki, Sandip S. Dhomse, Michael Höpfner, Anton Laakso, Graham W. Mann, Ulrike Niemeier, Giovanni Pitari, Ilaria Quaglia, Eugene Rozanov, Anja Schmidt, Takashi Sekiya, Simone Tilmes, Claudia Timmreck, Sandro Vattioni, Daniele Visioni, Pengfei Yu, Yunqian Zhu, and Thomas Peter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 5513–5548, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The aerosol layer is an essential part of the climate system. We characterize the sulfur budget in a volcanically quiescent (background) setting, with a special focus on the sulfate aerosol layer using, for the first time, a multi-model approach. The aim is to identify weak points in the representation of the atmospheric sulfur budget in an intercomparison of nine state-of-the-art coupled global circulation models.
Michael Schutte, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, and Jacopo Riboldi
Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 733–752, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-733-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-733-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The winter circulation in the stratosphere, a layer of the Earth’s atmosphere between 10 and 50 km height, is tightly linked to the circulation in the lower atmosphere determining our daily weather. This interconnection happens in the form of waves propagating in and between these two layers. Here, we use space–time spectral analysis to show that disruptions and enhancements of the stratospheric circulation modify the shape and propagation of waves in both layers.
Luca G. Severino, Chahan M. Kropf, Hilla Afargan-Gerstman, Christopher Fairless, Andries Jan de Vries, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, and David N. Bresch
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1555–1578, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1555-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1555-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We combine climate projections from 30 climate models with a climate risk model to project winter windstorm damages in Europe under climate change. We study the uncertainty and sensitivity factors related to the modelling of hazard, exposure and vulnerability. We emphasize high uncertainties in the damage projections, with climate models primarily driving the uncertainty. We find climate change reshapes future European windstorm risk by altering damage locations and intensity.
Romain Pilon and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2247–2264, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2247-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2247-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper introduces a new method for detecting atmospheric cloud bands to identify long convective cloud bands that extend from the tropics to the midlatitudes. The algorithm allows for easy use and enables researchers to study the life cycle and climatology of cloud bands and associated rainfall. This method provides insights into the large-scale processes involved in cloud band formation and their connections between different regions, as well as differences across ocean basins.
Hilla Afargan-Gerstman, Dominik Büeler, C. Ole Wulff, Michael Sprenger, and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 231–249, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-231-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-231-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The stratosphere is a layer of Earth's atmosphere found above the weather systems. Changes in the stratosphere can affect the winds and the storm tracks in the North Atlantic region for a relatively long time, lasting for several weeks and even months. We show that the stratosphere can be important for weather forecasts beyond 1 week, but more work is needed to improve the accuracy of these forecasts for 3–4 weeks.
Maria Pyrina, Wolfgang Wicker, Andries Jan de Vries, Georgios Fragkoulidis, and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3088, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3088, 2024
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the atmospheric dynamics behind heatwaves, specifically of those occurring simultaneously across regions, known as concurrent heatwaves. We find that heatwaves are strongly modulated by Rossby wave packets, being Rossby waves whose amplitude has a local maximum and decays at larger distances. High amplitude Rossby wave packets increase the occurrence probabilities of concurrent and non-concurrent heatwaves by a factor of 15 and 18, respectively, over several regions globally.
David Martin Straus, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Sarah-Jane Lock, Franco Molteni, and Priyanka Yadav
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 1001–1018, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-1001-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-1001-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The global response to the Madden–Julian oscillation (MJO) is potentially predictable. Yet the diabatic heating is uncertain even within a particular episode of the MJO. Experiments with a global model probe the limitations imposed by this uncertainty. The large-scale tropical heating is predictable for 25 to 45 d, yet the associated Rossby wave source that links the heating to the midlatitude circulation is predictable for 15 to 20 d. This limitation has not been recognized in prior work.
Franziska Zilker, Timofei Sukhodolov, Gabriel Chiodo, Marina Friedel, Tatiana Egorova, Eugene Rozanov, Jan Sedlacek, Svenja Seeber, and Thomas Peter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13387–13411, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13387-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13387-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Montreal Protocol (MP) has successfully reduced the Antarctic ozone hole by banning chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that destroy the ozone layer. Moreover, CFCs are strong greenhouse gases (GHGs) that would have strengthened global warming. In this study, we investigate the surface weather and climate in a world without the MP at the end of the 21st century, disentangling ozone-mediated and GHG impacts of CFCs. Overall, we avoided 1.7 K global surface warming and a poleward shift in storm tracks.
Gabriel Chiodo, Marina Friedel, Svenja Seeber, Daniela Domeisen, Andrea Stenke, Timofei Sukhodolov, and Franziska Zilker
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10451–10472, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10451-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10451-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric ozone protects the biosphere from harmful UV radiation. Anthropogenic activity has led to a reduction in the ozone layer in the recent past, but thanks to the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, the ozone layer is projected to recover. In this study, we show that projected future changes in Arctic ozone abundances during springtime will influence stratospheric climate and thereby actively modulate large-scale circulation changes in the Northern Hemisphere.
Marina Friedel, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, James Keeble, Thomas Peter, Svenja Seeber, Andrea Stenke, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Eugene Rozanov, David Plummer, Patrick Jöckel, Guang Zeng, Olaf Morgenstern, and Béatrice Josse
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10235–10254, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10235-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10235-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Previously, it has been suggested that springtime Arctic ozone depletion might worsen in the coming decades due to climate change, which might counteract the effect of reduced ozone-depleting substances. Here, we show with different chemistry–climate models that springtime Arctic ozone depletion will likely decrease in the future. Further, we explain why models show a large spread in the projected development of Arctic ozone depletion and use the model spread to constrain future projections.
Jake W. Casselman, Joke F. Lübbecke, Tobias Bayr, Wenjuan Huo, Sebastian Wahl, and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 471–487, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-471-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-471-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) has remote effects on the tropical North Atlantic (TNA), but the connections' nonlinearity (strength of response to an increasing ENSO signal) is not always well represented in models. Using the Community Earth System Model version 1 – Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Mode (CESM-WACCM) and the Flexible Ocean and Climate Infrastructure version 1, we find that the TNA responds linearly to extreme El Niño but nonlinearly to extreme La Niña for CESM-WACCM.
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.
Raphaël de Fondeville, Zheng Wu, Enikő Székely, Guillaume Obozinski, and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 287–307, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-287-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-287-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a fully data-driven, interpretable, and computationally scalable framework to characterize sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs), extract statistically significant precursors, and produce machine learning (ML) forecasts. By successfully leveraging the long-lasting impact of SSWs, the ML predictions outperform sub-seasonal numerical forecasts for lead times beyond 25 d. Post-processing numerical predictions using their ML counterparts yields a performance increase of up to 20 %.
Wolfgang Wicker, Inna Polichtchouk, and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 81–93, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-81-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-81-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Sudden stratospheric warmings are extreme weather events where the winter polar stratosphere warms by about 25 K. An improved representation of small-scale gravity waves in sub-seasonal prediction models can reduce forecast errors since their impact on the large-scale circulation is predictable multiple weeks ahead. After a sudden stratospheric warming, vertically propagating gravity waves break at a lower altitude than usual, which strengthens the long-lasting positive temperature anomalies.
Marina Friedel, Gabriel Chiodo, Andrea Stenke, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, and Thomas Peter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 13997–14017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13997-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13997-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In spring, winds the Arctic stratosphere change direction – an event called final stratospheric warming (FSW). Here, we examine whether the interannual variability in Arctic stratospheric ozone impacts the timing of the FSW. We find that Arctic ozone shifts the FSW to earlier and later dates in years with high and low ozone via the absorption of UV light. The modulation of the FSW by ozone has consequences for surface climate in ozone-rich years, which may result in better seasonal predictions.
Nora Bergner, Marina Friedel, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Darryn Waugh, and Gabriel Chiodo
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 13915–13934, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13915-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13915-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Polar vortex extremes, particularly situations with an unusually weak cyclonic circulation in the stratosphere, can influence the surface climate in the spring–summer time in the Southern Hemisphere. Using chemistry-climate models and observations, we evaluate the robustness of the surface impacts. While models capture the general surface response, they do not show the observed climate patterns in midlatitude regions, which we trace back to biases in the models' circulations.
Jake W. Casselman, Bernat Jiménez-Esteve, and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 1077–1096, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-1077-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-1077-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Using an atmospheric general circulation model, we analyze how the tropical North Atlantic influences the El Niño–Southern Oscillation connection towards the North Atlantic European region. We also focus on the lesser-known boreal spring and summer response following an El Niño–Southern Oscillation event. Our results show that altered tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures may cause different responses over the Caribbean region, consequently influencing the North Atlantic European region.
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.
Rachel Wai-Ying Wu, Zheng Wu, and Daniela I.V. Domeisen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 755–776, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-755-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-755-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate predictions of the stratospheric polar vortex can enhance surface weather predictability. Stratospheric events themselves are less predictable, with strong inter-event differences. We assess the predictability of stratospheric acceleration and deceleration events in a sub-seasonal prediction system, finding that the predictability of events is largely dependent on event magnitude, while extreme drivers of deceleration events are not fully represented in the model.
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.
Beatriz M. Monge-Sanz, Alessio Bozzo, Nicholas Byrne, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Michail Diamantakis, Johannes Flemming, Lesley J. Gray, Robin J. Hogan, Luke Jones, Linus Magnusson, Inna Polichtchouk, Theodore G. Shepherd, Nils Wedi, and Antje Weisheimer
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4277–4302, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4277-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4277-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The stratosphere is emerging as one of the keys to improve tropospheric weather and climate predictions. This study provides evidence of the role the stratospheric ozone layer plays in improving weather predictions at different timescales. Using a new ozone modelling approach suitable for high-resolution global models that provide operational forecasts from days to seasons, we find significant improvements in stratospheric meteorological fields and stratosphere–troposphere coupling.
Debra K. Weisenstein, Daniele Visioni, Henning Franke, Ulrike Niemeier, Sandro Vattioni, Gabriel Chiodo, Thomas Peter, and David W. Keith
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2955–2973, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper explores a potential method of geoengineering that could be used to slow the rate of change of climate over decadal scales. We use three climate models to explore how injections of accumulation-mode sulfuric acid aerosol change the large-scale stratospheric particle size distribution and radiative forcing response for the chosen scenarios. Radiative forcing per unit sulfur injected and relative to the change in aerosol burden is larger with particulate than with SO2 injections.
Adam A. Scaife, Mark P. Baldwin, Amy H. Butler, Andrew J. Charlton-Perez, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Steven C. Hardiman, Peter Haynes, Alexey Yu Karpechko, Eun-Pa Lim, Shunsuke Noguchi, Judith Perlwitz, Lorenzo Polvani, Jadwiga H. Richter, John Scinocca, Michael Sigmond, Theodore G. Shepherd, Seok-Woo Son, and David W. J. Thompson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2601–2623, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Great progress has been made in computer modelling and simulation of the whole climate system, including the stratosphere. Since the late 20th century we also gained a much clearer understanding of how the stratosphere interacts with the lower atmosphere. The latest generation of numerical prediction systems now explicitly represents the stratosphere and its interaction with surface climate, and here we review its role in long-range predictions and projections from weeks to decades ahead.
Timofei Sukhodolov, Tatiana Egorova, Andrea Stenke, William T. Ball, Christina Brodowsky, Gabriel Chiodo, Aryeh Feinberg, Marina Friedel, Arseniy Karagodin-Doyennel, Thomas Peter, Jan Sedlacek, Sandro Vattioni, and Eugene Rozanov
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5525–5560, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5525-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5525-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper features the new atmosphere–ocean–aerosol–chemistry–climate model SOCOLv4.0 and its validation. The model performance is evaluated against reanalysis products and observations of atmospheric circulation and trace gas distribution, with a focus on stratospheric processes. Although we identified some problems to be addressed in further model upgrades, we demonstrated that SOCOLv4.0 is already well suited for studies related to chemistry–climate–aerosol interactions.
Zheng Wu, Bernat Jiménez-Esteve, Raphaël de Fondeville, Enikő Székely, Guillaume Obozinski, William T. Ball, and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 841–865, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-841-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-841-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We use an advanced statistical approach to investigate the dynamics of the development of sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) events in the winter Northern Hemisphere. We identify distinct signals that are representative of these events and their event type at lead times beyond currently predictable lead times. The results can be viewed as a promising step towards improving the predictability of SSWs in the future by using more advanced statistical methods in operational forecasting systems.
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.
Graeme Marlton, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Giles Harrison, Inna Polichtchouk, Alain Hauchecorne, Philippe Keckhut, Robin Wing, Thierry Leblanc, and Wolfgang Steinbrecht
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6079–6092, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6079-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6079-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A network of Rayleigh lidars have been used to infer the upper-stratosphere temperature bias in ECMWF ERA-5 and ERA-Interim reanalyses during 1990–2017. Results show that ERA-Interim exhibits a cold bias of −3 to −4 K between 10 and 1 hPa. Comparisons with ERA-5 found a smaller bias of 1 K which varies between cold and warm between 10 and 3 hPa, indicating a good thermal representation of the atmosphere to 3 hPa. These biases must be accounted for in stratospheric studies using these reanalyses.
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.
Wolfgang Woiwode, Andreas Dörnbrack, Inna Polichtchouk, Sören Johansson, Ben Harvey, Michael Höpfner, Jörn Ungermann, and Felix Friedl-Vallon
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 15379–15387, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15379-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15379-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The lowermost-stratosphere moist bias in ECMWF analyses and 12 h forecasts is diagnosed for the Arctic winter-spring 2016 period by using two-dimensional GLORIA water vapor observations. The bias is already present in the initial conditions (i.e., the analyses), and sensitivity forecasts on time scales of < 12 h show hardly any sensitivity to modified spatial resolution and output frequency.
Hilla Afargan-Gerstman, Iuliia Polkova, Lukas Papritz, Paolo Ruggieri, Martin P. King, Panos J. Athanasiadis, Johanna Baehr, and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 1, 541–553, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-541-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-541-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the stratospheric influence on marine cold air outbreaks (MCAOs) in the North Atlantic using ERA-Interim reanalysis data. MCAOs are associated with severe Arctic weather, such as polar lows and strong surface winds. Sudden stratospheric events are found to be associated with more frequent MCAOs in the Barents and the Norwegian seas, affected by the anomalous circulation over Greenland and Scandinavia. Identification of MCAO precursors is crucial for improved long-range prediction.
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
Afargan-Gerstman, H. and Domeisen, D. I. V.: Pacific Modulation of the North Atlantic Storm Track Response to Sudden Stratospheric Warming Events, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL085007, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085007, 2020. a
Afargan-Gerstman, H., Büeler, D., Wulff, C. O., Sprenger, M., and Domeisen, D. I. V.: Stratospheric influence on the winter North Atlantic storm track in subseasonal reforecasts, Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 231–249, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-231-2024, 2024. a
Albers, J. R. and Birner, T.: Vortex preconditioning due to planetary and gravity waves prior to sudden stratospheric warmings, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 4028–4054, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0026.1, 2014. a, b
Ayarzagüena, B., Barriopedro, D., Garrido-Perez, J. M., Abalos, M., de la Cámara, A., García-Herrera, R., Calvo, N., and Ordóñez, C.: Stratospheric Connection to the Abrupt End of the 2016/2017 Iberian Drought, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 12639–12646, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079802, 2018. a
Baldwin, M. P. and Dunkerton, T. J.: Stratospheric Harbingers of Anomalous Weather Regimes, Science, 294, 581–584, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1063315, 2001. a
Baldwin, M. P., Ayarzagüena, B., Birner, T., Butchart, N., Butler, A. H., Charlton-Perez, A. J., Domeisen, D. I. V., Garfinkel, C. I., Garny, H., Gerber, E. P., Hegglin, M. I., Langematz, U., and Pedatella, N. M.: Sudden Stratospheric Warmings, Rev. Geophys., 59, e2020RG000708, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020RG000708, 2021. a
Barrett, B. S.: Connections between the Madden–Julian Oscillation and surface temperatures in winter 2018 over eastern North America, Atmos. Sci. Lett., 20, e869, https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.869, 2019. a
Barriopedro, D. and Calvo, N.: On the Relationship between ENSO, Stratospheric Sudden Warmings, and Blocking, J. Climate, 27, 4704–4720, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00770.1, 2014. a
Birner, T. and Albers, J. R.: Sudden Stratospheric Warmings and Anomalous Upward Wave Activity Flux, SOLA, 13A, 8–12, https://doi.org/10.2151/sola.13A-002, 2017. a, b
Butler, A. H., Charlton-Perez, A., Domeisen, D. I. V., Garfinkel, C., Gerber, E. P., Hitchcock, P., Karpechko, A. Y., Maycock, A., Sigmond, M., Simpson, I., and Son, S.-W.: Sub-seasonal Predictability and the Stratosphere, in: Sub-seasonal to Seasonal Prediction, edited by: Robertson, A. W. and Vitart, F., Chap. 11, p. 585, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, https://doi.org/10.1016/C2016-0-01594-2, 2018. a
Büeler, D., Beerli, R., Wernli, H., and Grams, C. M.: Stratospheric influence on ECMWF sub-seasonal forecast skill for energy-industry-relevant surface weather in European countries, Q. J. Roy. Meteorolog. Soc., 146, 3675–3694, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3866, 2020. a, b
Charlton, A. J., O'Neill, A., Lahoz, W. A., and Massacand, A. C.: Sensitivity of tropospheric forecasts to stratospheric initial conditions, Q. J. Roy. Meteorolog. Soc., 130, 1771–1792, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.03.167, 2004. a
Charlton-Perez, A. J., Ferranti, L., and Lee, R. W.: The influence of the stratospheric state on North Atlantic weather regimes, Q. J. Roy. Meteorolog. Soc., 144, 1140–1151, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3280, 2018. a
Charney, J. G. and Drazin, P. G.: Propagation of planetary-scale disturbances from the lower into the upper atmosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 66, 83–109, https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ066i001p00083, 1961. a
Cho, H.-O., Kang, M.-J., and Son, S.-W.: The Predictability of the 2021 SSW Event Controlled by the Zonal-Mean State in the Upper Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 128, e2023JD039559, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JD039559, 2023. a, b
Chwat, D., Garfinkel, C. I., Chen, W., and Rao, J.: Which Sudden Stratospheric Warming Events Are Most Predictable?, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2022JD037521, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037521, 2022. a
Clark, J. H. E.: Atmospheric Response to the Quasi-Resonant Growth of Forced Planetary Waves, J. Meteorol. Soc. JPN II, 52, 143–163, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj1965.52.2_143, 1974. a
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park, B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteorolog. Soc., 137, 553–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828, 2011 (data available at: https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/#!/home, last access: 30 October 2024), 2011. a, b
de la Cámara, A., Birner, T., and Albers, J. R.: Are Sudden Stratospheric Warmings Preceded by Anomalous Tropospheric Wave Activity?, J. Climate, 32, 7173–7189, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0269.1, 2019. a
Domeisen, D. I., Butler, A. H., Charlton-Perez, A. J., Ayarzagüena, B., Baldwin, M. P., Dunn-Sigouin, E., Furtado, J. C., Garfinkel, C. I., Hitchcock, P., Karpechko, A. Y., Kim, H., Knight, J., Lang, A. L., Lim, E.-P., Marshall, A., Roff, G., Schwartz, C., Simpson, I. R., Son, S.-W., and Taguchi, M.: The Role of the Stratosphere in Subseasonal to Seasonal Prediction: 1. Predictability of the Stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD030920, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030920, 2020. a, b
Domeisen, D. I. V. and Butler, A. H.: Stratospheric drivers of extreme events at the Earth's surface, Commun. Earth Environ., 1, e2019JD030923, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00060-z, 2020. a
Domeisen, D. I. V., Martius, O., and Esteve, B. J.: Rossby Wave Propagation into the Northern Hemisphere Stratosphere: The Role of Zonal Phase Speed, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 2064–2071, 2018. a
Domeisen, D. I. V., Garfinkel, C. I., and Butler, A. H.: The Teleconnection of El Niño Southern Oscillation to the Stratosphere, Rev. Geophys., 57, 5–47, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018RG000596, 2019. a
Domeisen, D. I. V., Butler, A. H., Charlton-Perez, A. J., Ayarzagüena, B., Baldwin, M. P., Dunn-Sigouin, E., Furtado, J. C., Garfinkel, C. I., Hitchcock, P., Karpechko, A. Y., Kim, H., Knight, J., Lang, A. L., Lim, E.-P., Marshall, A., Roff, G., Schwartz, C., Simpson, I. R., Son, S.-W., and Taguchi, M.: The Role of the Stratosphere in Subseasonal to Seasonal Prediction: 2. Predictability Arising From Stratosphere-Troposphere Coupling, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD030923, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030923, 2020a. a, b, c
Domeisen, D. I. V., Grams, C. M., and Papritz, L.: The role of North Atlantic–European weather regimes in the surface impact of sudden stratospheric warming events, Weather Clim. Dyn., 1, 373–388, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-373-2020, 2020b. a, b
ECMWF: 2018 SSW S2S hindcast dataset, ECMWF Research Department, ECMWF [data set], https://doi.org/10.21957/hcmn-0572, 2024. a
Erner, I. and Karpechko, A.: Factors influencing subseasonal predictability of northern Eurasian cold spells, Q. J. R. Meteorolog. Soc., 150, 2955–2975, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4744, 2024. a, b
Erner, I., Karpechko, A. Y., and Järvinen, H. J.: Mechanisms and predictability of sudden stratospheric warming in winter 2018, Weather Clim. Dynam., 1, 657–674, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-657-2020, 2020. a, b, c, d
Esler, J. G. and Scott, R. K.: Excitation of Transient Rossby Waves on the Stratospheric Polar Vortex and the Barotropic Sudden Warming, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 3661–3682, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3557.1, 2005. a
Esler, J. G., Polvani, L. M., and Scott, R. K.: The Antarctic stratospheric sudden warming of 2002: A self-tuned resonance?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L12804, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026034, 2006. a
Ferranti, L., Magnusson, L., Vitart, F., and Richardson, D. S.: How far in advance can we predict changes in large-scale flow leading to severe cold conditions over Europe?, Q. J. Roy. Meteorolog. Soc., 144, 1788–1802, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3341, 2018. a
Garfinkel, C. I. and Schwartz, C.: MJO-Related Tropical Convection Anomalies Lead to More Accurate Stratospheric Vortex Variability in Subseasonal Forecast Models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 10054–10062, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074470, 2017. a, b
Garfinkel, C. I., Hartmann, D. L., and Sassi, F.: Tropospheric Precursors of Anomalous Northern Hemisphere Stratospheric Polar Vortices, J. Climate, 23, 3282–3299, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3010.1, 2010. a, b, c, d
Garfinkel, C. I., Feldstein, S. B., Waugh, D. W., Yoo, C., and Lee, S.: Observed connection between stratospheric sudden warmings and the Madden-Julian Oscillation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L18807, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053144, 2012. a, b, c
González-Alemán, J. J., Grams, C. M., Ayarzagüena, B., Zurita-Gotor, P., Domeisen, D. I., Gómara, I., Rodríguez-Fonseca, B., and Vitart, F.: Tropospheric role in the predictability of the surface impact of the 2018 sudden stratospheric warming event, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2021GL095464, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095464, 2022. a, b
Henderson, G. R., Barrett, B. S., Lois, A., and Elsaawy, H.: Time-Lagged Response of the Antarctic and High-Latitude Atmosphere to Tropical MJO Convection, Mon. Weather Rev., 146, 1219–1231, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0224.1, 2018. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Mueñoz-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. R. Meteorolog. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a, b
Hitchcock, P. and Shepherd, T. G.: Zonal-Mean Dynamics of Extended Recoveries from Stratospheric Sudden Warmings, J. Atmos. Sci., 70, 688–707, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0111.1, 2013 (data available at: https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/#!/home, last access: 30 October, 2024). a
Hitchcock, P., Butler, A., Charlton-Perez, A., Garfinkel, C. I., Stockdale, T., Anstey, J., Mitchell, D., Domeisen, D. I. V., Wu, T., Lu, Y., Mastrangelo, D., Malguzzi, P., Lin, H., Muncaster, R., Merryfield, B., Sigmond, M., Xiang, B., Jia, L., Hyun, Y.-K., Oh, J., Specq, D., Simpson, I. R., Richter, J. H., Barton, C., Knight, J., Lim, E.-P., and Hendon, H.: Stratospheric Nudging And Predictable Surface Impacts (SNAPSI): a protocol for investigating the role of stratospheric polar vortex disturbances in subseasonal to seasonal forecasts, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5073–5092, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, 2022. a
Holton, J. R. and Mass, C.: Stratospheric Vacillation Cycles, J. Atmos. Sci., 33, 2218–2225, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1976)033<2218:SVC>2.0.CO;2, 1976. a
Kang, W. and Tziperman, E.: The MJO-SSW Teleconnection: Interaction Between MJO-Forced Waves and the Midlatitude Jet, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 4400–4409, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077937, 2018. a, b
Karpechko, A. Y., Charlton-Perez, A., Balmaseda, M., Tyrrell, N., and Vitart, F.: Predicting Sudden Stratospheric Warming 2018 and Its Climate Impacts With a Multimodel Ensemble, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 513–538, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL081091, 2018. a, b, c, d
Kautz, L.-A., Polichtchouk, I., Birner, T., Garny, H., and Pinto, J. G.: Enhanced extended-range predictability of the 2018 late-winter Eurasian cold spell due to the stratosphere, Q. J. R. Meteorolog. Soc., 146, 1040–1055, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3724, 2020. a, b
Kent, C., Scaife, A. A., Seviour, W. J. M., Dunstone, N., Smith, D., and Smout-Day, K.: Identifying Perturbations That Tipped the Stratosphere Into a Sudden Warming During January 2013, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL106288, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL106288, 2023. a, b, c
Kiladis, G. N., Dias, J., Straub, K. H., Wheeler, M. C., Tulich, S. N., Kikuchi, K., Weickmann, K. M., and Ventrice, M. J.: A Comparison of OLR and Circulation-Based Indices for Tracking the MJO, Mon. Weather Rev., 142, 1697–1715, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00301.1, 2014. a
Kim, H., Son, S.-W., Kim, H., Seo, K.-H., and Kang, M.-J.: MJO Influence on Subseasonal-to-Seasonal Prediction in the Northern Hemisphere Extratropics, J. Climate, 36, 7943–7956, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-23-0139.1, 2023. a
Lawrence, Z. D., Abalos, M., Ayarzagüena, B., Barriopedro, D., Butler, A. H., Calvo, N., de la Cámara, A., Charlton-Perez, A., Domeisen, D. I. V., Dunn-Sigouin, E., García-Serrano, J., Garfinkel, C. I., Hindley, N. P., Jia, L., Jucker, M., Karpechko, A. Y., Kim, H., Lang, A. L., Lee, S. H., Lin, P., Osman, M., Palmeiro, F. M., Perlwitz, J., Polichtchouk, I., Richter, J. H., Schwartz, C., Son, S.-W., Erner, I., Taguchi, M., Tyrrell, N. L., Wright, C. J., and Wu, R. W.-Y.: Quantifying stratospheric biases and identifying their potential sources in subseasonal forecast systems, Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 977–1001, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-977-2022, 2022. a
Lee, S. H., Charlton-Perez, A. J., Furtado, J. C., and Woolnough, S. J.: Representation of the Scandinavia–Greenland pattern and its relationship with the polar vortex in S2S forecast models, Q. J. Roy. Meteorolog. Soc., 146, 4083–4098, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3892, 2020. a
Limpasuvan, V., Thompson, D. W. J., and Hartmann, D. L.: The Life Cycle of the Northern Hemisphere Sudden Stratospheric Warmings, J. Climate, 17, 2584–2596, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<2584:TLCOTN>2.0.CO;2, 2004. a
Limpasuvan, V., Hartmann, D. L., Thompson, D. W. J., Jeev, K., and Yung, Y. L.: Stratosphere-troposphere evolution during polar vortex intensification, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, D24101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006302, 2005. a
Lin, P., Paynter, D., Polvani, L., Correa, G. J. P., Ming, Y., and Ramaswamy, V.: Dependence of model-simulated response to ozone depletion on stratospheric polar vortex climatology, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 6391–6398, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073862, 2017. a, b
Liu, C., Tian, B., Li, K.-F., Manney, G. L., Livesey, N. J., Yung, Y. L., and Waliser, D. E.: Northern Hemisphere mid-winter vortex-displacement and vortex-split stratospheric sudden warmings: Influence of the Madden-Julian Oscillation and Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 12599–12620, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021876, 2014. a, b
Martius, O., Polvani, L. M., and Davies, H. C.: Blocking precursors to stratospheric sudden warming events, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L14806, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038776, 2009. a, b, c
Matsuno, T.: Vertical Propagation of Stationary Planetary Waves in the Winter Northern Hemisphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 27, 871–883, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1970)027<0871:VPOSPW>2.0.CO;2, 1970. a, b
Matthewman, N. J. and Esler, J. G.: Stratospheric sudden warmings as self-tuning resonances. Part I: Vortex splitting events, J. Atmos. Sci., 68, 2481–2504, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-11-07.1, 2011. a
Maycock, A. C., Masukwedza, G. I. T., Hitchcock, P., and Simpson, I. R.: A Regime Perspective on the North Atlantic Eddy-Driven Jet Response to Sudden Stratospheric Warmings, J. Climate, 33, 3901–3917, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0702.1, 2020. a
Peings, Y.: Ural Blocking as a driver of early winter stratospheric warmings, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 5406–5468, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082097, 2019. a
Plumb, R. A.: Instability of the distorted polar night vortex: A theory of stratospheric warmings, J. Atmos. Sci., 38, 2514–2531, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1981)038<2514:IOTDPN>2.0.CO;2, 1981. a
Portal, A., Ruggieri, P., Palmeiro, F. M., García-Serrano, J., Domeisen, D. I. V., and Gualdi, S.: Seasonal prediction of the boreal winter stratosphere, Clim. Dynam., 58, 2109–2130, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05787-9, 2022. a
Rao, J., Ren, R., Chen, H., Yu, Y., and Zhou, Y.: The Stratospheric Sudden Warming Event in February 2018 and its Prediction by a Climate System Model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 13,332–13,345, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028908, 2018. a, b
Roberts, C. D., Balmaseda, M. A., Ferranti, L., and Vitart, F.: Euro-Atlantic Weather Regimes and Their Modulation by Tropospheric and Stratospheric Teleconnection Pathways in ECMWF Reforecasts, Mon. Weather Rev., 151, 2779–2799, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-22-0346.1, 2023. a, b
Rondanelli, R., Hatchett, B., Rutllant, J., Bozkurt, D., and Garreaud, R.: Strongest MJO on record triggers extreme Atacama rainfall and warmth in Antarctica, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 3482–3491, 2019. a
Rupp, P., Spaeth, J., Garny, H., and Birner, T.: Enhanced Polar Vortex Predictability Following Sudden Stratospheric Warming Events, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL104057, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL104057, 2023. a
Scaife, A. A., Karpechko, A. Yu., Baldwin, M. P., Brookshaw, A., Butler, A. H., Eade, R., Gordon, M., MacLachlan, C., Martin, N., Dunstone, N., and Smith, D.: Seasonal winter forecasts and the stratosphere, Atmos. Sci. Lett., 17, 51–56, https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.598, 2016. a
Schwartz, C. and Garfinkel, C. I.: Troposphere-Stratosphere Coupling in Subseasonal-to-Seasonal Models and Its Importance for a Realistic Extratropical Response to the Madden-Julian Oscillation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD032043, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032043, 2020. a
Sigmond, M., Scinocca, J. F., Kharin, V. V., and Shepherd, T. G.: Enhanced seasonal forecast skill following stratospheric sudden warmings, Nat. Geosci., 6, 98–102, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1698, 2013. a, b
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. a
Smith, K. L. and Kushner, P. J.: Linear interference and the initiation of extratropical stratosphere-troposphere interactions, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017587, 2012. a
Son, S.-W., Kim, H., Song, K., Kim, S.-W., Martineau, P., Hyun, Y.-K., and Kim, Y.: Extratropical Prediction Skill of the Subseasonal-to-Seasonal (S2S) Prediction Models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD031273, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031273, 2020. a
Spaeth, J., Rupp, P., Garny, H., and Birner, T.: Stratospheric impact on subseasonal forecast uncertainty in the northern extratropics, Commun. Earth Environ., 5, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01292-z, 2024. a, b
Stan, C. and Straus, D. M.: Stratospheric predictability and sudden stratospheric warming events, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114, D12103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011277, 2009. a
Stan, C., Zheng, C., Chang, E. K.-M., Domeisen, D. I. V., Garfinkel, C. I., Jenney, A. M., Kim, H., Lim, Y.-K., Lin, H., Robertson, A., Schwartz, C., Vitart, F., Wang, J., and Yadav, P.: Advances in the Prediction of MJO Teleconnections in the S2S Forecast Systems, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 103, E1426–E1447, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0130.1, 2022. a, b, c
Straus, D. M., Domeisen, D. I. V., Lock, S.-J., Molteni, F., and Yadav, P.: Intrinsic predictability limits arising from Indian Ocean Madden–Julian oscillation (MJO) heating: effects on tropical and extratropical teleconnections, Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 1001–1018, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-1001-2023, 2023. a, b
Taguchi, M.: Comparison of Subseasonal-to-Seasonal Model Forecasts for Major Stratospheric Sudden Warmings, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 10231–10,247, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028755, 2018. a
Taschetto, A. S., Ummenhofer, C. C., Stuecker, M. F., Dommenget, D., Ashok, K., Rodrigues, R. R., and Yeh, S.-W.: ENSO Atmospheric Teleconnections, in: El Niño Southern Oscillation in a Changing Climate, pp. 309–335, American Geophysical Union (AGU), ISBN 978-1-11954816-4, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119548164.ch14, 2020. a, b
Tripathi, O. P., Baldwin, M., Charlton-Perez, A., Charron, M., Eckermann, S. D., Gerber, E., Harrison, R. G., Jackson, D. R., Kim, B.-M., Kuroda, Y., Lang, A., Mahmood, S., Mizuta, R., Roff, G., Sigmond, M., and Son, S.-W.: The predictability of the extratropical stratosphere on monthly time-scales and its impact on the skill of tropospheric forecasts, Q. J. R. Meteorolog. Soc., 141, 987–1003, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2432, 2015a. a
Tripathi, O. P., Charlton-Perez, A., Sigmond, M., and Vitart, F.: Enhanced long-range forecast skill in boreal winter following stratospheric strong vortex conditions, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 104007, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/104007, 2015b. a, b
Vitart, F., Ardilouze, C., Bonet, A., Brookshaw, A., Chen, M., Codorean, C., Déqué, M., Ferranti, L., Fucile, E., Fuentes, M., Hendon, H., Hodgson, J., Kang, H. S., Kumar, A., Lin, H., Liu, G., Liu, X., Malguzzi, P., Mallas, I., Manoussakis, M., Mastrangelo, D., MacLachlan, C., McLean, P., Minami, A., Mladek, R., Nakazawa, T., Najm, S., Nie, Y., Rixen, M., Robertson, A. W., Ruti, P., Sun, C., Takaya, Y., Tolstykh, M., Venuti, F., Waliser, D., Woolnough, S., Wu, T., Won, D. J., Xiao, H., Zaripov, R., and Zhang, L.: The subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) prediction project database, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 163–173, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0017.1, 2017 (data available at: https://apps.ecmwf.int/datasets/data/s2s-reforecasts-instantaneous-accum-ecmf/levtype=sfc/type=cf/, last access: 30 October 2024). a, b
Wu, R. W.-Y., Wu, Z., and Domeisen, D. I. V.: Differences in the sub-seasonal predictability of extreme stratospheric events, Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 755–776, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-755-2022, 2022. a, b
Yadav, P., Garfinkel, C. I., and Domeisen, D. I. V.: The Role of the Stratosphere in Teleconnections Arising From Fast and Slow MJO Episodes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 51, e2023GL104826, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL104826, 2024. a
Executive editor
There has been much emphasis on the increased predictability of the extratropical tropospheric circulation after stratospheric sudden warmings and the potential value of this to weather forecasting. But it remains the case that the sudden warmings themselves, which are significantly (but not exclusively) driven by variabiliity in the troposphere, have limited predictability. This paper uses ensemble forecasts to identify tropospheric circulation features that, if poorly predicted in the period prior to a sudden warming, lead to a poor prediction of the warming itself and hence provides a potentially useful focus for future improvements to forecast models.
There has been much emphasis on the increased predictability of the extratropical tropospheric...
Short summary
Strong variations in the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex can profoundly affect surface weather extremes; therefore, accurately predicting the stratosphere can improve surface weather forecasts. The research reveals how uncertainty in the stratosphere is linked to the troposphere. The findings suggest that refining models to better represent the identified sources and impact regions in the troposphere is likely to improve the prediction of the stratosphere and its surface impacts.
Strong variations in the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex can profoundly affect...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint