Influence of Arctic stratospheric ozone on surface climate in CCMI models

Harari, Ohad; Garfinkel, Chaim I.; Ziv, Shlomi Ziskin; Morgenstern, Olaf; Zeng, Guang; Tilmes, Simone; Kinnison, Douglas E.; Deushi, Makoto; Jöckel, Patrick; Pozzer, Andrea; O’Connor, Fiona M.; Davis, Sean

doi:10.5194/acp-19-9253-2019

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The CCMI models used in this study are listed in Table 1. Harari et al (2019) showed that each of these models simulate surface temperature variability in the Nino3.4 region similar to that observed.…”

supporting

confidence: 75%

Influence of ENSO on entry stratospheric water vapor in coupled chemistry-ocean CCMI and CMIP6 models

Garfinkel

Harari

Ziskin

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The connection between the dominant mode of interannual variability in the tropical troposphere, El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and entry of stratospheric water vapor, is analyzed in a set of the model simulations archived for the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) project and for phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. While the models agree on the temperature response to ENSO in the tropical troposphere and lower stratosphere, and all models also agree on the zonal structure of the response in the tropical tropopause layer, the only aspect of the entry water vapor with consensus is that La Nina leads to moistening in winter relative to neutral ENSO. For El Nino and for other seasons there are significant differences among the models. For example, some models find that the enhanced water vapor for La Nina in the winter of the event reverses in spring and summer, other models find that this moistening persists, while some show a nonlinear response with both El Nino and La Nina leading to enhanced water vapor in both winter, spring, and summer. Focusing on Central Pacific ENSO versus East Pacific ENSO, or temperatures in the mid-troposphere as compared to temperatures near the surface, does not narrow the inter-model discrepancies. Despite this diversity in response, the temperature response near the cold point can explain the response of water vapor when each model is considered separately. While the observational record is too short to fully constrain the response to ENSO, it is clear that most models suffer from biases in the magnitude of interannual variability of entry water vapor. This bias could be due to missing forcing processes that contribute to observed variability in cold point temperatures.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 75%

Influence of ENSO on entry stratospheric water vapor in coupled chemistry-ocean CCMI and CMIP6 models

Garfinkel

Harari

Ziskin

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The above-mentioned studies mostly focused on the impact of stratospheric polar vortex changes on the weather and climate over continents with a large population or the Atlantic Ocean, where the NAO teleconnection pattern is active. Furthermore, an increasing number of studies have confirmed the potential connections between the stratospheric polar vortex and the climate over the North Pacific Ocean [28][29][30][31]. Recently, Xie et al [28] found that Arctic stratospheric ozone (ASO) variation could affect El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events after 20 months by modulating the atmosphere-ocean feedback over the North Pacific Ocean, i.e., ASO affects North Pacific Oscillation (NPO) and then induces a Victoria Mode (VM) anomaly, which is closely related to ENSO events.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Influence of Wintertime Polar Vortex Variation on the Climate over the North Pacific during Late Winter and Spring

Zhang

Wang

et al. 2019

Atmosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of wintertime stratospheric polar vortex variation on the climate over the North Pacific Ocean during late winter and spring are analyzed using the National Centers for Environmental Predictions, version 2 (NCEP2) reanalysis dataset. The analysis revealed that, during weak polar vortex (WPV) events, there are noticeably lower geopotential height anomalies over the Bering Sea and greater height anomalies over the central part of the North Pacific Ocean than during strong polar vortex (SPV) events. The formation of the dipolar structure of the geopotential height anomalies is due to a weakened polar jet and a strengthened mid-latitude jet in the troposphere via geostrophic equilibrium. The mechanisms responsible for the changes in the tropospheric jet over the North Pacific Ocean are summarized as follows: when the stratospheric polar westerly is decelerated, the high-latitude eastward waves slow down, and the enhanced equatorward propagation of the eddy momentum flux throughout the troposphere at 60° N. Consequently, the eddy-driven jet over the North Pacific Ocean also shows a southward displacement, leading to a weaker polar jet but a stronger mid-latitude westerly compared with those during the SPV events. Furthermore, anomalous anti-cyclonic flows associated with the higher pressure over the North Pacific Ocean during WPV events induce a warming sea surface temperature (SST) over the western and central parts of the North Pacific Ocean and a cooling SST over the Bering Sea and along the west coast of North America. This SST pattern can last until May, which favors the persistence of the anti-cyclonic flows over the North Pacific Ocean during WPV events. A well-resolved stratosphere and coupled atmosphere-ocean model (CMCC-CMS) can basically reproduce the impacts of stratospheric polar vortex variations on the North Pacific climate as seen in NCEP2 data, although the simulated dipole of geopotential height anomalies is shifted more southward.

show abstract

“…Even without Arctic ozone loss, stratospheric dynamical variability has also been shown to influence surface conditions in early studies (Ayarzagüena & Serrano, 2009;Black & McDaniel, 2007;Hardiman et al, 2011). A connection between Arctic ozone variability and extratropical surface is probably mediated by the dynamical variability that typically drives the anomalous ozone concentrations rather than the opposite (Harari et al, 2019). Manney et al (2020) recently reported on the chemical processes during the extreme ozone loss in March 2020; however, the predictability of the extreme ozone loss in March 2020 (andin March 1997 and and of the subsequent surface impact has still not been explored.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arctic Ozone Loss in March 2020 and its Seasonal Prediction in CFSv2: A Comparative Study With the 1997 and 2011 Cases

Rao

Garfinkel

2020

JGR Atmospheres

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using reanalysis data, observations, and seasonal forecasts, the March Arctic ozone loss events in 1997, 2011, and 2020 and their predictability are compared. All of the three ozone loss events were accompanied by an extremely strong and cold polar vortex, with the shape and centroid of the ozone loss controlled by the polar vortex. The high autocorrelation of the March Arctic ozone at a lead/lag time of 1-2 months from observations might suggest that a reasonable prediction can be obtained if one initializes 1-2 months in advance. Based on the chemical scheme assessment in CFSv2 and several empirical models using the forecasted metric(s) of the stratospheric polar vortex as predictor(s), the predictability of the 2011 ozone loss event is shown to be longer (1-2 months) than the other two (~1 month), possibly due to a moderate La Niña and quasi-biennial oscillation westerly winds favorable for the formation of a strong polar vortex. However, the overall predictive skills of ozone from empirical models (using a forecasted substitute index to forecast the Arctic ozone) during 1982-2020 are lower than the chemical module assessment in the forecast system, though empirical models have some skill. Contrary to the ozone predictions, the lower tropospheric temperature pattern in March 2011 is less reasonable than in 1997 and 2020. Similar conclusions are also true in other years (2005 versus 2016). Those findings might indicate a weak relationship between the Arctic ozone and the surface climate in the Northern Hemisphere. Plain Language Summary Extremely low ozone concentrations (or an "ozone hole") develop in the Antarctic every austral spring in present-day atmospheric burdens of ozone-depleting substances. However, similar ozone losses are not observed in the Arctic, though in 1997, 2011, and 2020, ozone loss locally approached that in the Antarctic. This study focuses on the meteorological conditions and predictability for those Arctic ozone loss events. All of the three historical ozone loss events were related to a stratospheric circulation system encircling North Pole (i.e., the stratospheric polar vortex). The shape and centroid of the ozone losses were also controlled by the polar vortex: the ozone loss in March 2020 was displaced toward the North American sector, the March 2011 ozone loss was centered over the North Pole, while the 1997 ozone loss was displaced toward the Eurasian sector. Using the chemical scheme in a seasonal forecasting model and/or empirical models, the lead times for forecasting the three ozone loss events are different due to the tropical forcing. The moderate cold state in the tropical Pacific (i.e., La Niña) and westerly winds in the equatorial stratosphere (i.e., westerly QBO) propel the predictability of the 2011 ozone loss event to around 1-2 months, while the 1997 and 2020 March ozone losses can only be forecasted~1 month in advance. Nevertheless, a good prediction of the stratospheric ozone shows little impact on the surface predictability in the Northern Hemisphere.

show abstract

Influence of Arctic stratospheric ozone on surface climate in CCMI models

Cited by 17 publications

References 51 publications

Influence of ENSO on entry stratospheric water vapor in coupled chemistry-ocean CCMI and CMIP6 models

Influence of ENSO on entry stratospheric water vapor in coupled chemistry-ocean CCMI and CMIP6 models

Influence of Wintertime Polar Vortex Variation on the Climate over the North Pacific during Late Winter and Spring

Arctic Ozone Loss in March 2020 and its Seasonal Prediction in CFSv2: A Comparative Study With the 1997 and 2011 Cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About