Articles | Volume 6, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-329-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-329-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
25 Mar 2025
Research article |
| 25 Mar 2025
| 25 Mar 2025
Quantifying the spread in sudden stratospheric warming wave forcing in CMIP6
Verónica Martínez-Andradas
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Departamento de Física de la Tierra y Astrofísica, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Instituto de Geociencias (IGEO) UCM-CSIC, Madrid, Spain
Alvaro de la Cámara
Departamento de Física de la Tierra y Astrofísica, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Pablo Zurita-Gotor
Departamento de Física de la Tierra y Astrofísica, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Instituto de Geociencias (IGEO) UCM-CSIC, Madrid, Spain
François Lott
Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique/IPSL, PSL Research Institute, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France
Federico Serva
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Institute of Marine Sciences (CNR‐ISMAR), Rome, Italy
Related authors
No articles found.
Aleena M. Jaison, Lesley J. Gray, Scott M. Osprey, James A. Anstey, Martin B. Andrews, Neal Butchart, Zhaoyang Chai, Dong-Chan Hong, Kai Huang, Yoshio Kawatani, Jeff R. Knight, Pu Lin, Francois Lott, Yixiong Lu, Hiroaki Naoe, Jadwiga H. Richter, Nan Rosenbloom, Federico Serva, Anne K. Smith, Seok-Woo Son, Qi Tang, Shingo Watanabe, Jinbo Xie, and Kohei Yoshida
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4135, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4135, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Weather and Climate Dynamics (WCD).
Short summary
Short summary
The tropical upper stratosphere has winds that switch between westerly and easterly every six months known as the semi-annual oscillation (SAO). Climate models commonly show an easterly bias in the SAO. We analysed data from many models to test if correcting the biases in winds lower in the stratosphere could improve SAO. We find correcting the lower-level wind biases reduces the SAO easterly bias, though further improvements, such as better representation of atmospheric waves, are still needed.
Kai Huang, Chang-Hyun Park, Seung-Yoon Back, Jorge L. García-Franco, Hera Kim, Pu Lin, Scott Osprey, Jadwiga Richter, Chih-Chieh Chen, Seok-Woo Son, Shigeo Yoden, Yuna Lim, Neal Butchart, James Anstey, Yoshio Kawatani, Martin B. Andrews, Francois Lott, Yixiong Lu, Zhaoyang Chai, Nan Rosenbloom, Qi Tang, Jinbo Xie, Federico Serva, Dong-Chan Hong, Shingo Watanabe, Aleena M. Jaison, Hiroaki Naoe, and Kohei Yoshida
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3744, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3744, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Weather and Climate Dynamics (WCD).
Short summary
Short summary
The tropical atmosphere has large-scale wind and rainfall patterns shaping weather worldwide. Winds high above the tropics are thought to influence a major tropical rainfall system, but climate models fail to reproduce this link. We tested 12 climate models after constraining their high-altitude winds to match observations. Although the winds then matched, the models failed to capture the tropical response, as they did not realistically simulate it. Improving this is key to better prediction.
Hyun-Kyu Lee, James A. Anstey, Hye-Yeong Chun, Shingo Watanabe, Francois Lott, Zhaoyang Chai, Yixiong Lu, Qi Tang, Jinbo Xie, Dong-Chan Hong, Seok-Woo Son, Federico Serva, Pu Lin, Martin B. Andrews, Neal Butchart, Aleena M. Jaison, Jeff R. Knight, Scott Osprey, Hiroaki Naoe, Kohei Yoshida, Yoshio Kawatani, and Jadwiga H. Richter
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2856, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2856, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Weather and Climate Dynamics (WCD).
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates the systematic biases in equatorial wave forcing of the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) by comparing internally generated and bias-corrected experiments using a multi-model ensemble. Although nudging effectively mitigates QBO biases, systematic biases in wave forcing are not fully resolved. The equatorial wave forcing in the lower stratosphere remains weaker than that in reanalyses, while an eastward wave forcing bias is observed in the mid-to-upper stratosphere.
James A. Anstey, Neal Butchart, Scott Osprey, Yoshio Kawatani, Kevin Hamilton, Jadwiga H. Richter, Tim Stockdale, Martin B. Andrews, Zhaoyang Chai, Paolo Davini, Dong-Chan Hong, Kai Huang, Aleena M. Jaison, Tobias Kerzenmacher, Jeff R. Knight, Pu Lin, Francois Lott, Yixiong Lu, Hiroaki Naoe, Federico Serva, Isla Simpson, Seok-Woo Son, Qi Tang, Shingo Watanabe, Jinbo Xie, and Kohei Yoshida
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1165, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1165, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We describe experiments where modelled tropical stratosphere winds are adjusted by "nudging" them toward realistic time-evolving eastward and westward Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) winds. The effects of this bias correction on other atmospheric processes, such as the stratospheric polar vortex or tropical waves that force the QBO, can then be assessed. We describe details of the experiments, the multi-model ensemble that has performed them, and basic validation of the nudging response.
Marta Abalos, Thomas Birner, Andreas Chrysanthou, Sean Davis, Alvaro de la Cámara, Sandip Dhomse, Hella Garny, Michaela I. Hegglin, Daan Hubert, Oksana Ivaniha, James Keeble, Marianna Linz, Daniele Minganti, Jessica Neu, David Plummer, Laura Saunders, Kasturi Shah, Gabriele Stiller, Kleareti Tourpali, Darryn Waugh, Nathan Luke Abraham, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Patrick Jöckel, Béatrice Josse, Marion Marchand, Patrick Martineau, Olaf Morgenstern, Timofei Sukhodolov, Shingo Watanabe, and Yousuke Yamashita
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 5249–5291, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-5249-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-5249-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate representation of stratospheric transport in Chemistry-Climate Models is essential for reliable climate projections. This study evaluates three generations of models using observational data and reanalyses, identifying persistent biases and their potential causes. Some biases persist or even worsen in newer models. These findings highlight key limitations and inform efforts to improve models and advance understanding through process-based studies and enhanced observations.
Blanca Ayarzagüena, Amy H. Butler, Peter Hitchcock, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Zac D. Lawrence, Wuhan Ning, Philip Rupp, Zheng Wu, Hilla Afargan-Gerstman, Natalia Calvo, Alvaro de la Cámara, Martin Jucker, Gerbrand Koren, Daniel De Maeseneire, Gloria L. Manney, Marisol Osman, Masakazu Taguchi, Cory Barton, Dong-Chan 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
Weather Clim. Dynam., 7, 411–437, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-7-411-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-7-411-2026, 2026
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.
Martin B. Andrews, Neal Butchart, James A. Anstey, Ewa Bednarz, Dillon Elsbury, Jorge L. García-Franco, Vinay Kumar, Froila M. Palmeiro, Natasha E. Trencham, Kohei Yoshida, Zhaoyang Chai, Dong-Chan Hong, Kai Huang, Aleena M. Jaison, Yoshio Kawatani, Jeff R. Knight, Pu Lin, François Lott, Yixiong Lu, Hiroaki Naoe, Scott M. Osprey, Jadwiga H. Richter, Federico Serva, Seok-Woo Son, Qi Tang, Shingo Watanabe, and Jinbo Xie
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-737, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-737, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The observed winds in the upper atmosphere over the equator have alternating easterly and westerly regions that descend towards the lower atmosphere before dissipating, with a period of approximately 28 months. This is known as the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO). The QBO is known to influence remote regions of the atmosphere. This paper details the results of multi-model experiments where the QBO is nudged towards the observed QBO allowing the assessment of these remote connections.
Dillon Elsbury, Federico Serva, Julie M. Caron, Seung-Yoon Back, Clara Orbe, Jadwiga H. Richter, James A. Anstey, Neal Butchart, Chih-Chieh Chen, Javier García-Serrano, Anne Glanville, Yoshio Kawatani, Tobias Kerzenmacher, Francois Lott, Hiroaki Naoe, Scott Osprey, Froila M. Palmeiro, Seok-Woo Son, Masakazu Taguchi, Stefan Versick, Shingo Watanabe, and Kohei Yoshida
Weather Clim. Dynam., 7, 317–339, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-7-317-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-7-317-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We used climate models to test how constant El Niño and La Niña ocean conditions shape the Madden-Julian Oscillation during northern winter. El Niño made this weather pattern move faster, while La Niña slowed it down. The Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, a repeating wind pattern high in the atmosphere, had little effect. This shows that long-lasting ocean conditions mainly drive the changes we found.
Hiroaki Naoe, Jorge L. García-Franco, Chang-Hyun Park, Mario Rodrigo, Froila M. Palmeiro, Federico Serva, Masakazu Taguchi, Kohei Yoshida, James A. Anstey, Javier García-Serrano, Seok-Woo Son, Yoshio Kawatani, Neal Butchart, Kevin Hamilton, Chih-Chieh Chen, Anne Glanville, Tobias Kerzenmacher, François Lott, Clara Orbe, Scott Osprey, Mijeong Park, Jadwiga H. Richter, Stefan Versick, and Shingo Watanabe
Weather Clim. Dynam., 6, 1419–1442, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-1419-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-1419-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Links between the stratospheric Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) and atmospheric circulations in the tropics, subtropics, and polar regions, as well as their modulation by the El Nino–Southern Oscillation, are examined through model experiments. The QBO–polar vortex connection is reproduced by a multi-model ensemble at about half the observed amplitude. Weak performance of QBO signals in these regions is likely due to unrealistically weak QBO amplitudes in the lower stratosphere.
Yoshio Kawatani, Kevin Hamilton, Shingo Watanabe, Masakazu Taguchi, Federico Serva, James A. Anstey, Jadwiga H. Richter, Neal Butchart, Clara Orbe, Scott M. Osprey, Hiroaki Naoe, Dillon Elsbury, Chih-Chieh Chen, Javier García-Serrano, Anne Glanville, Tobias Kerzenmacher, François Lott, Froila M. Palmeiro, Mijeong Park, Stefan Versick, and Kohei Yoshida
Weather Clim. Dynam., 6, 1045–1073, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-1045-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-1045-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) of the tropical stratospheric mean winds has been relatively steady over the 7 decades it has been observed, but there are always cycle-to-cycle variations. This study used several global atmospheric models to investigate systematic modulation of the QBO by the El Niño/La Niña cycle. All models simulated shorter periods during El Niño, in agreement with observations. By contrast, the models disagreed even on the sign of the El Niño effect on QBO amplitude.
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.
Shima Bahramvash Shams, Von P. Walden, James W. Hannigan, William J. Randel, Irina V. Petropavlovskikh, Amy H. Butler, and Alvaro de la Cámara
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 5435–5458, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5435-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5435-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Large-scale atmospheric circulation has a strong influence on ozone in the Arctic, and certain anomalous dynamical events, such as sudden stratospheric warmings, cause dramatic alterations of the large-scale circulation. A reanalysis model is evaluated and then used to investigate the impact of sudden stratospheric warmings on mid-atmospheric ozone. Results show that the position of the cold jet stream over the Arctic before these events influences the variability of ozone.
Ralf Döscher, Mario Acosta, Andrea Alessandri, Peter Anthoni, Thomas Arsouze, Tommi Bergman, Raffaele Bernardello, Souhail Boussetta, Louis-Philippe Caron, Glenn Carver, Miguel Castrillo, Franco Catalano, Ivana Cvijanovic, Paolo Davini, Evelien Dekker, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, David Docquier, Pablo Echevarria, Uwe Fladrich, Ramon Fuentes-Franco, Matthias Gröger, Jost v. Hardenberg, Jenny Hieronymus, M. Pasha Karami, Jukka-Pekka Keskinen, Torben Koenigk, Risto Makkonen, François Massonnet, Martin Ménégoz, Paul A. Miller, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Lars Nieradzik, Twan van Noije, Paul Nolan, Declan O'Donnell, Pirkka Ollinaho, Gijs van den Oord, Pablo Ortega, Oriol Tintó Prims, Arthur Ramos, Thomas Reerink, Clement Rousset, Yohan Ruprich-Robert, Philippe Le Sager, Torben Schmith, Roland Schrödner, Federico Serva, Valentina Sicardi, Marianne Sloth Madsen, Benjamin Smith, Tian Tian, Etienne Tourigny, Petteri Uotila, Martin Vancoppenolle, Shiyu Wang, David Wårlind, Ulrika Willén, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Xavier Yepes-Arbós, and Qiong Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2973–3020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth system model EC-Earth3 is documented here. Key performance metrics show physical behavior and biases well within the frame known from recent models. With improved physical and dynamic features, new ESM components, community tools, and largely improved physical performance compared to the CMIP5 version, EC-Earth3 represents a clear step forward for the only European community ESM. We demonstrate here that EC-Earth3 is suited for a range of tasks in CMIP6 and beyond.
Jacopo Riboldi, Efi Rousi, Fabio D'Andrea, Gwendal Rivière, and François Lott
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 449–469, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-449-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-449-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A revisited space and time spectral decomposition allows us to determine which harmonics dominate the upper-tropospheric flow evolution over a given time period as well as their propagation. This approach is used to identify Rossby wave patterns with a circumglobal extent, affecting weather evolution over different Northern Hemisphere regions. The results cast light on the processes originating and supporting these wave patterns, advocating at the same time for the usefulness of the technique.
Cited articles
Alexander, M. and Dunkerton, T.: A spectral parameterization of mean-flow forcing due to breaking gravity waves, J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 4167–4182, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056<4167:ASPOMF>2.0.CO;2, 1999. a
Andrews, D. G., Leovy, C. B., and Holton, J. R.: Middle atmosphere dynamics, Academic press, Vol. 40, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756800014333, 1987. a, b
Ayarzagüena, B., Polvani, L. M., Langematz, U., Akiyoshi, H., Bekki, S., Butchart, N., Dameris, M., Deushi, M., Hardiman, S. C., Jöckel, P., Klekociuk, A., Marchand, M., Michou, M., Morgenstern, O., O'Connor, F. M., Oman, L. D., Plummer, D. A., Revell, L., Rozanov, E., Saint-Martin, D., Scinocca, J., Stenke, A., Stone, K., Yamashita, Y., Yoshida, K., and Zeng, G.: No robust evidence of future changes in major stratospheric sudden warmings: a multi-model assessment from CCMI, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 11277–11287, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11277-2018, 2018. a
Ayarzagüena, B., Charlton-Perez, A. J., Butler, A. H., Hitchcock, P., Simpson, I. R., Polvani, L. M., Butchart, N., Gerber, E. P., Gray, L., Hassler, B., Lin, P., Lott, F., Manzini, E., Mizuta, R., Orbe, C., Osprey, S., Saint-Martin, D., Sigmond, S., Taguchi, M., Volodin, E. M., and Watanabe, S.: Uncertainty in the response of sudden stratospheric warmings and stratosphere-troposphere coupling to quadrupled CO2 concentrations in CMIP6 models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD032345, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032345, 2020. a, b, c, d
Beres, J. H., Garcia, R. R., Boville, B. A., and Sassi, F.: Implementation of a gravity wave source spectrum parameterization dependent on the properties of convection in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, D10108, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005504, 2005. a
Birner, T. and Albers, J. R.: Sudden stratospheric warmings and anomalous upward wave activity flux, Sola, 13, 8–12, https://doi.org/10.2151/sola.13A-002, 2017. a
Charlton, A. J. and Polvani, L. M.: A new look at stratospheric sudden warmings. Part I: Climatology and modeling benchmarks, J. Climate, 20, 449–469, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3996.1, 2007. a, b
Cullens, C. Y. and Thurairajah, B.: Gravity wave variations and contributions to stratospheric sudden warming using long-term ERA5 model output, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phy., 219, 105632, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2021.105632, 2021. a
de la Cámara, A. and Lott, F.: A parameterization of gravity waves emitted by fronts and jets, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 2071–2078, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063298, 2015. a, b, c
de la Cámara, A., Abalos, M., and Hitchcock, P.: Changes in Stratospheric Transport and Mixing During Sudden Stratospheric Warmings, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 3356–3373, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD028007, 2018. a
Ern, M., Diallo, M., Preusse, P., Mlynczak, M. G., Schwartz, M. J., Wu, Q., and Riese, M.: The semiannual oscillation (SAO) in the tropical middle atmosphere and its gravity wave driving in reanalyses and satellite observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 13763–13795, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-13763-2021, 2021. a
Garner, S. T.: A topographic drag closure built on an analytical base flux, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 2302–2315, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3496.1, 2005. a
Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suárez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs, L., Randles, C. A., Darmenov, A., Bosilovich, M. G., Reichle, R., Wargan, K., Coy, L., Cullather, R., Draper, C., Akella, S., Buchard, V., Conaty, A., da Silva, A. M., Gu, W., Kim, G.-K., Koster, R., Lucchesi, R., Merkova, D., Nielsen, J. E., Partyka, G., Pawson, S., Putman, W., Rienecker, M., Schubert, S. D., Sienkiewicz, M., and Zhao, B.: The modern-era retrospective analysis for research and applications, version 2 (MERRA-2), J. Climate, 30, 5419–5454, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1, 2017. a
Gerber, E. P. and Manzini, E.: The Dynamics and Variability Model Intercomparison Project (DynVarMIP) for CMIP6: assessing the stratosphere–troposphere system, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3413–3425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3413-2016, 2016. a, b
Gu, K., Ng, H. K. T., Tang, M. L., and Schucany, W. R.: Testing the ratio of two poisson rates, Biometrical J., 50, 283–298, 2008. a
Gupta, A., Birner, T., Dörnbrack, A., and Polichtchouk, I.: Importance of gravity wave forcing for springtime southern polar vortex breakdown as revealed by ERA5, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL092762, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092762, 2021. a
Hall, R. J., Mitchell, D. M., Seviour, W. J., and Wright, C. J.: Persistent model biases in the CMIP6 representation of stratospheric polar vortex variability, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2021JD034759, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD034759, 2021. a, b, c
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J. Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, Jean-N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a
Hines, C. O.: Doppler-spread parameterization of gravity-wave momentum deposition in the middle atmosphere. Part 1: Basic formulation, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phy., 59, 371–386, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(96)00079-X, 1997. a, b
Hitchcock, P., Shepherd, T. G., and Manney, G. L.: Statistical Characterization of Arctic Polar-Night Jet Oscillation Events, J. Climate, 26, 2096–2116, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00202.1, 2013a. a
Hitchcock, P., Shepherd, T. G., Taguchi, M., Yoden, S., and Noguchi, S.: Lower-Stratospheric Radiative Damping and Polar-Night Jet Oscillation Events, J. Atmos. Sci., 70, 1391–1408, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0193.1, 2013b. a
Iwasaki, T., Yamada, S., and Tada, K.: A parameterization scheme of orographic gravity wave drag with two different vertical partitionings part I: Impacts on Medium-range forecasts, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., Ser. II, 67, 11–27, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj1965.67.1_11, 1989. a
Karpechko, A. Y., Afargan-Gerstman, H., Butler, A. H., Domeisen, D. I., Kretschmer, M., Lawrence, Z., Manzini, E., Sigmond, M., Simpson, I. R., and Wu, Z.: Northern Hemisphere Stratosphere-Troposphere Circulation Change in CMIP6 Models: 1. Inter-Model Spread and Scenario Sensitivity, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2022JD036992, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036992, 2022. a, b
Karpechko, A. Y., Wu, Z., Simpson, I. R., Kretschmer, M., Afargan-Gerstman, H., Butler, A. H., Domeisen, D. I., Garny, H., Lawrence, Z., Manzini, E., and Sigmond, M.: Northern Hemisphere stratosphere-troposphere circulation change in CMIP6 models: 2. Mechanisms and sources of the spread, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 129, e2024JD040823, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD040823, 2024. a
Kim, J., Son, S.-W., Gerber, E. P., and Park, H.-S.: Defining sudden stratospheric warming in climate models: Accounting for biases in model climatologies, J. Climate, 30, 5529–5546, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0465.1, 2017. a
Lee, J.-Y., Marotzke, J., Bala, G., Cao, L., Corti, S., Dunne, J., Engelbrecht, F., Fischer, E., Fyfe, J., Jones, C., Maycock, A., Mutemi, J., Ndiaye, O., Panickal, S., and Zhou, T.: Chapter 4: Future Global Climate: Scenario-Based Projections and Near-Term Information, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 553–672, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.006, 2021. 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., Richter, J. H., Orsolini, Y. J., Stordal, F., and Kvissel, O.-K.: The roles of planetary and gravity waves during a major stratospheric sudden warming as characterized in WACCM, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phy., 78–79, 84–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.03.004, 2012. a
Liu, H.-L. and Roble, R.: A study of a self-generated stratospheric sudden warming and its mesospheric–lower thermospheric impacts using the coupled TIME-GCM/CCM3, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 107, ACL 15-1–ACL 15-18, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD001533, 2002. a
Lott, F.: Alleviation of stationary biases in a GCM through a mountain drag parameterization scheme and a simple representation of mountain lift forces, Mon. Weather Rev., 127, 788–801, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1999)127<0788:AOSBIA>2.0.CO;2, 1999. a
Lott, F. and Guez, L.: A stochastic parameterization of the gravity waves due to convection and its impact on the equatorial stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 8897–8909, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50705, 2013. a, b
Manzini, E., Karpechko, A. Y., Anstey, J., Baldwin, M., Black, R., Cagnazzo, C., Calvo, N., Charlton-Perez, A., Christiansen, B., Davini, P., Gerber, E., Giorgetta, M., Gray, L., Hardiman, S. C., Lee, Y.-Y., Marsh, D. R., McDaniel, B. A., Purich, A., Scaife, A. A., Shindell, D., Son, S.-W., Watanabe, S., and Zappa, G.: Northern winter climate change: Assessment of uncertainty in CMIP5 projections related to stratosphere-troposphere coupling, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 7979–7998, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021403, 2014. a
Maycock, A. C., Randel, W. J., Steiner, A. K., Karpechko, A. Y., Christy, J., Saunders, R., Thompson, D. W. J., Zou, C.-Z., Chrysanthou, A., Luke Abraham, N., Akiyoshi, H., Archibald, A. T., Butchart, N., Chipperfield, M., Dameris, M., Deushi, M., Dhomse, S., Di Genova, G., Jöckel, P., Kinnison, D. E., Kirner, O., Ladstädter, F., Michou, M., Morgenstern, O., O'Connor, F., Oman, L., Pitari, G., Plummer, D. A., Revell, L. E., Rozanov, E., Stenke, A., Visioni, D., Yamashita, Y., and Zeng, G.: Revisiting the Mystery of Recent Stratospheric Temperature Trends, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 9919–9933, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078035, 2018. a
McFarlane, N.: The effect of orographically excited gravity wave drag on the general circulation of the lower stratosphere and troposphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 44, 1775–1800, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044<1775:TEOOEG>2.0.CO;2, 1987. a
Nakamura, N.: Large-Scale Eddy-Mean Flow Interaction in the Earth's Extratropical Atmosphere, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 56, 349–377, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-121021-035602, 2024. a, b, c
Nakamura, N. and Solomon, A.: Finite-amplitude wave activity and mean flow adjustments in the atmospheric general circulation. Part I: Quasigeostrophic theory and analysis, J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 3967–3983, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JAS3503.1, 2010. a
Nakamura, N., Falk, J., and Lubis, S. W.: Why are stratospheric sudden warmings sudden (and intermittent)?, J. Atmos. Sci., 77, 943–964, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-19-0249.1, 2020. a
Newman, P. A. and Rosenfield, J. E.: Stratospheric thermal damping times, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 433–436, https://doi.org/10.1029/96GL03720, 1997. a
Pfeffer, R. L.: Comparison of conventional and transformed in the troposphere, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 113, 237–254, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49711347514, 1987. a, b
Randel, W. J., Smith, A. K., Wu, F., Zou, C.-Z., and Qian, H.: Stratospheric Temperature Trends over 1979–2015 Derived from Combined SSU, MLS, and SABER Satellite Observations, J. Climate, 29, 4843–4859, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0629.1, 2016. a
Richter, J. H., Sassi, F., and Garcia, R. R.: Toward a physically based gravity wave source parameterization in a general circulation model, J. Atmos. Sciences, 67, 136–156, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS3112.1, 2010. a, b
Scinocca, J. and McFarlane, N.: The parametrization of drag induced by stratified flow over anisotropic orography, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 126, 2353–2393, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712656802, 2000. a
Serva, F.: Transformed Eulerian mean data from the ERA5 reanalysis (daily means), Version 0.1.1, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7081436, 2022a. a
Serva, F.: Transformed Eulerian mean data from the MERRA-2 reanalysis (daily means), Version 0.1.1, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6959944, 2022b. a
Serva, F., Christiansen, B., Davini, P., von Hardenberg, J., van den Oord, G., Reerink, T., Wyser, K., and Yang, S.: Changes in stratospheric dynamics simulated by the EC-Earth model from CMIP5 to CMIP6, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 16, e2023MS003756, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023MS003756, 2024. a, b
Von Zahn, U., Fiedler, J., Naujokat, B., Langematz, U., and Krüger, K.: A note on record-high temperatures at the northern polar stratopause in winter 1997/98, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 4169–4172, https://doi.org/10.1029/1998GL900091, 1998. a
Vosper, S.: Mountain waves and wakes generated by South Georgia: Implications for drag parametrization, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 141, 2813–2827, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2566, 2015. a, b
Warner, C. and McIntyre, M.: An ultrasimple spectral parameterization for nonorographic gravity waves, J. Atmos. Sci., 58, 1837–1857, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058<1837:AUSPFN>2.0.CO;2, 2001. a, b
Wu, Z. and Reichler, T.: Variations in the frequency of stratospheric sudden warmings in CMIP5 and CMIP6 and possible causes, J. Climate, 33, 10305–10320, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0104.1, 2020. a, b, c
Zhao, S., Zhang, J., Zhang, C., Xu, M., Keeble, J., Wang, Z., and Xia, X.: Evaluating long-term variability of the Arctic stratospheric polar vortex simulated by CMIP6 models, Remote Sensing, 14, 4701, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14194701, 2022. a
Short summary
Global circulation model biases are present when simulating sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs). These are important extreme phenomena that occur in the wintertime stratosphere, driven by the breaking of atmospheric waves. The present work shows that there is a large spread of the wave forcing during the development of SSWs in different models. In the mesosphere, gravity waves are found to force advection of the residual circulation, while planetary waves tend to decelerate the wind.
Global circulation model biases are present when simulating sudden stratospheric warmings...
