Comparing and contrasting extreme stratospheric events, including their coupling to the tropospheric circulation

Recent work has emphasized the importance of stratosphere-troposphere coupling associated with extreme values of the polar vortex strength and stratospheric planetary wave heat flux during Northern Hemisphere winter. Here using ERA-Interim reanalysis data the evolution of the two types of events are compared. The life cycle of total (anomaly plus climatology) positive/negative heat flux events are associated with vertically deep high-latitude planetary wave structures and exhibit largely equal but opposite-signed impacts, including a net deceleration/acceleration of the polar vortex due to EP flux convergence/divergence and an equatorward/poleward tropospheric jet shift in the North Atlantic. The tropospheric wave pattern is westward propagating. High-latitude stratospheric vertical zonal wind shear plays a key role during both events. A comparison of the stratospheric events reveals that planetary wave events contribute to the development of vortex events. In particular, total negative heat flux events precede strong vortex events showing that strong vortex events represent true dynamical events involving significant wave-mean flow interaction. Coupling with the North Atlantic jet occurs preceding vortex events when wave-1 dominates the total eddy heat flux in the lower stratosphere since interference with wave-2 makes the impacts less clear. The tropospheric impacts in the North Atlantic associated with planetary wave events are found to be comparable if not larger than those following vortex events

Limited Influence of Localized Tropical Sea-Surface Temperatures on Moisture Transport into the Arctic

Arctic moisture transport is dominated by planetary-scale waves in reanalysis. Planetary waves are influenced by localized Sea-Surface Temperature (SST) features such as the tropical warm pool. Here, an aquaplanet model is used to clarify the link between tropical SST anomalies and Arctic moisture transport. In a zonally uniform setup with no climatological east-west gradients, Arctic moisture transport is dominated by transient planetary waves, as in reanalysis. Warming tropical SSTs by heating the ocean strengthens Arctic moisture transport, mediated mostly by changes in water vapor rather than eddies. This strengthening occurs whether the tropical warming is zonally uniform or localized. Cooling tropical SSTs weakens Arctic moisture transport; however, unlike warming, the pattern matters, with localized cooling producing stronger transport changes owing to nonlinear feedbacks in the surface energy budget. Thus, the simulations show that localized tropical SST anomalies influence Arctic moisture transport differently than uniform anomalies, but only in cooling scenarios.publishedVersio

Nonlinear response of atmospheric blocking to early Winter Barents-Kara seas warming: An idealized model study

Wintertime Ural blocking (UB) has been shown to play an important role in cold extremes over Eurasia, and thus it is useful to investigate the impact of warming over the Barents–Kara Seas (BKS) on the behavior of Ural blocking. Here the response of UB to stepwise tropospheric warming over the BKS is examined using a dry dynamic core model. Nonlinear responses are found in the frequency and local persistence of UB. The frequency and local persistence of the UB increase with the strength of BKS warming in a less strong range and decrease with the further increase of BKS warming, which is linked to the UB propagation influenced by upstream background atmospheric circulation. For a weak BKS warming, the UB becomes more persistent due to its less westward movement associated with intensified upstream zonal wind and meridional potential vorticity gradient (PVy) in the North Atlantic mid-high latitudes, which corresponds to a negative height response over the North Atlantic high latitudes. When BKS warming is strong, a positive height response appears in the early winter stratosphere, and its subsequent downward propagation leads to a negative NAO response or increased Greenland blocking events, which reduces zonal wind and PVy in the high latitudes from North Atlantic to Europe, thus enhancing the westward propagation of UB and reducing its local persistence. The transition to the negative NAO phase and the retrogression of UB are not found when numerically suppressing the downward influence of weakened stratospheric polar vortex, suggesting a crucial role of the stratospheric pathway in nonlinear responses of UB to the early winter BKS warming.publishedVersio

Quantifying stratospheric biases and identifying their potential sources in subseasonal forecast systems

The stratosphere can be a source of predictability for surface weather on timescales of several weeks to months. However, the potential predictive skill gained from stratospheric variability can be limited by biases in the representation of stratospheric processes and the coupling of the stratosphere with surface climate in forecast systems. This study provides a first systematic identification of model biases in the stratosphere across a wide range of subseasonal forecast systems. It is found that many of the forecast systems considered exhibit warm global-mean temperature biases from the lower to middle stratosphere, too strong/cold wintertime polar vortices, and too cold extratropical upper-troposphere/lower-stratosphere regions. Furthermore, tropical stratospheric anomalies associated with the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation tend to decay toward each system's climatology with lead time. In the Northern Hemisphere (NH), most systems do not capture the seasonal cycle of extreme-vortex-event probabilities, with an underestimation of sudden stratospheric warming events and an overestimation of strong vortex events in January. In the Southern Hemisphere (SH), springtime interannual variability in the polar vortex is generally underestimated, but the timing of the final breakdown of the polar vortex often happens too early in many of the prediction systems. These stratospheric biases tend to be considerably worse in systems with lower model lid heights. In both hemispheres, most systems with low-top atmospheric models also consistently underestimate the upward wave driving that affects the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex. We expect that the biases identified here will help guide model development for subseasonal-to-seasonal forecast systems and further our understanding of the role of the stratosphere in predictive skill in the troposphere.publishedVersio

Reconciling conflicting evidence for the cause of the observed early 21st century Eurasian cooling

It is now well established that the Arctic is warming at a faster rate than the global average. This warming, which has been accompanied by a dramatic decline in sea ice, has been linked to cooling over the Eurasian subcontinent over recent decades, most dramatically during the period 1998–2012. This is a counter-intuitive impact under global warming given that land regions should warm more than ocean (and the global average). Some studies have proposed a causal teleconnection from Arctic sea-ice retreat to Eurasian wintertime cooling; other studies argue that Eurasian cooling is mainly driven by internal variability. Overall, there is an impression of strong disagreement between those holding the “ice-driven” versus “internal variability” viewpoints. Here, we offer an alternative framing showing that the sea ice and internal variability views can be compatible. Key to this is viewing Eurasian cooling through the lens of dynamics (linked primarily to internal variability with some potential contribution from sea ice; cools Eurasia) and thermodynamics (linked to sea-ice retreat; warms Eurasia). This approach, combined with recognition that there is uncertainty in the hypothesized mechanisms themselves, allows both viewpoints (and others) to co-exist and contribute to our understanding of Eurasian cooling. A simple autoregressive model shows that Eurasian cooling of this magnitude is consistent with internal variability, with some periods exhibiting stronger cooling than others, either by chance or by forced changes. Rather than posit a “yes-or-no” causal relationship between sea ice and Eurasian cooling, a more constructive way forward is to consider whether the cooling trend was more likely given the observed sea-ice loss, as well as other sources of low-frequency variability. Taken in this way both sea ice and internal variability are factors that affect the likelihood of strong regional cooling in the presence of ongoing global warming.</p

Reconciling conflicting evidence for the cause of the observed early 21st century Eurasian cooling

It is now well established that the Arctic is warming at a faster rate than the global average. This warming, which has been accompanied by a dramatic decline in sea ice, has been linked to cooling over the Eurasian subcontinent over recent decades, most dramatically during the period 1998–2012. This is a counter-intuitive impact under global warming given that land regions should warm more than ocean (and the global average). Some studies have proposed a causal teleconnection from Arctic sea-ice retreat to Eurasian wintertime cooling; other studies argue that Eurasian cooling is mainly driven by internal variability. Overall, there is an impression of strong disagreement between those holding the “ice-driven” versus “internal variability” viewpoints. Here, we offer an alternative framing showing that the sea ice and internal variability views can be compatible. Key to this is viewing Eurasian cooling through the lens of dynamics (linked primarily to internal variability with some potential contribution from sea ice; cools Eurasia) and thermodynamics (linked to sea-ice retreat; warms Eurasia). This approach, combined with recognition that there is uncertainty in the hypothesized mechanisms themselves, allows both viewpoints (and others) to co-exist and contribute to our understanding of Eurasian cooling. A simple autoregressive model shows that Eurasian cooling of this magnitude is consistent with internal variability, with some periods exhibiting stronger cooling than others, either by chance or by forced changes. Rather than posit a “yes-or-no” causal relationship between sea ice and Eurasian cooling, a more constructive way forward is to consider whether the cooling trend was more likely given the observed sea-ice loss, as well as other sources of low-frequency variability. Taken in this way both sea ice and internal variability are factors that affect the likelihood of strong regional cooling in the presence of ongoing global warming.publishedVersio

Quantifying stratospheric biases and identifying their potential sources in subseasonal forecast systems

The stratosphere can be a source of predictability for surface weather on timescales of several weeks to months. However, the potential predictive skill gained from stratospheric variability can be limited by biases in the representation of stratospheric processes and the coupling of the stratosphere with surface climate in forecast systems. This study provides a first systematic identification of model biases in the stratosphere across a wide range of subseasonal forecast systems. It is found that many of the forecast systems considered exhibit warm global-mean temperature biases from the lower to middle stratosphere, too strong/cold wintertime polar vortices, and too cold extratropical upper-troposphere/lower-stratosphere regions. Furthermore, tropical stratospheric anomalies associated with the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation tend to decay toward each system\u27s climatology with lead time. In the Northern Hemisphere (NH), most systems do not capture the seasonal cycle of extreme-vortex-event probabilities, with an underestimation of sudden stratospheric warming events and an overestimation of strong vortex events in January. In the Southern Hemisphere (SH), springtime interannual variability in the polar vortex is generally underestimated, but the timing of the final breakdown of the polar vortex often happens too early in many of the prediction systems. These stratospheric biases tend to be considerably worse in systems with lower model lid heights. In both hemispheres, most systems with low-top atmospheric models also consistently underestimate the upward wave driving that affects the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex. We expect that the biases identified here will help guide model development for subseasonal-to-seasonal forecast systems and further our understanding of the role of the stratosphere in predictive skill in the troposphere

The role of the stratosphere in subseasonal to seasonal prediction part I: predictability of the stratosphere

The stratosphere has been identified as an important source of predictability for a range of processes on subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) timescales. Knowledge about S2S predictability within the stratosphere is however still limited. This study evaluates to what extent predictability in the extratropical stratosphere exists in hindcasts of operational prediction systems in the S2S database. The stratosphere is found to exhibit extended predictability as compared to the troposphere. Prediction systems with higher stratospheric skill tend to also exhibit higher skill in the troposphere. The analysis also includes an assessment of the predictability for stratospheric events, including early and mid‐winter sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) events, strong vortex events, and extreme heat flux events for the Northern Hemisphere, and final warming events for both hemispheres. Strong vortex events and final warming events exhibit higher levels of predictability as compared to SSW events. In general, skill is limited to the deterministic range of one to two weeks. High‐top prediction systems overall exhibit higher stratospheric prediction skill as compared to their low‐top counterparts, pointing to the important role of stratospheric representation in S2S prediction models

The role of the stratosphere in subseasonal to seasonal prediction part II: predictability arising from stratosphere ‐ troposphere coupling

The stratosphere can have a signi_cant impact on winter surface weather on subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) timescales. This study evaluates the ability of current operational S2S prediction systems to capture two important links between the stratosphere and tropo sphere: (1) changes in probabilistic prediction skill in the extratropical stratosphere by precursors in the tropics and the extratropical troposphere and (2) changes in surface predictability in the extratropics after stratospheric weak and strong vortex events. Prob abilistic skill exists for stratospheric events when including extratropical tropospheric precursors over the North Paci_c and Eurasia, though only a limited set of models captures the Eurasian precursors. Tropical teleconnections such as the Madden‐Julian Oscillation, the Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation, and El Nin~o Southern Oscillation increase the probabilistic skill of the polar vortex strength, though these are only captured by a limited set of models. At the surface, predictability is increased over the USA, Russia, and the Middle East for weak vortex events, but not for Europe, and the change in predictability is smaller for strong vortex events for all prediction systems. Prediction systems with poorly resolved stratospheric processes represent this skill to a lesser degree. Altogether, the analyses indicate that correctly simulating stratospheric variability and stratosphere‐troposphere dynamical coupling are critical elements for skillful S2S wintertime predictions