Articles | Volume 6, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-841-2025
© 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-6-841-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
29 Aug 2025
Research article |
| 29 Aug 2025
| 29 Aug 2025
Assessing stratospheric contributions to subseasonal predictions of precipitation after the 2018 sudden stratospheric warming from the Stratospheric Nudging And Predictable Surface Impacts (SNAPSI) project
Ying Dai
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Peter Hitchcock
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Amy H. Butler
NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA
Chaim I. Garfinkel
Fredy and Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
William J. M. Seviour
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
Related authors
No articles found.
David Avisar and Chaim I. Garfinkel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4287, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4287, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Weather and Climate Dynamics (WCD).
Short summary
Short summary
We use the Large Ensemble Single Forcing simulations to assess the role of individual forcings to the Mediterranean drying and to clarify the dynamical origin of the model’s prediction variability. A more pronounced North Atlantic warming hole, a stronger stratospheric polar vortex, and a larger poleward shift of the subtropical jet correlate with a stronger drying trend. Aerosols had a detectable influence on Mediterranean climate. Hence, their removal may have an impact in future decades.
Wuhan Ning, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Judah Cohen, Ian P. White, and Jian Rao
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4334, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4334, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Weather and Climate Dynamics (WCD).
Short summary
Short summary
Whether the zonal structure of a polar vortex anomaly matters for surface climate is an open question, with much observational work showing a role but with limited modeling work and limited demonstration of a causal influence. Here, we isolate this influence using a moist general circulation model. We find that the surface responses differ qualitatively depending on whether the daughter vortex is pushed to the Eastern or Western Hemispheres, and provide a mechanistic explanation why.
Yunqian Zhu, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Valentina Aquila, Elizabeth Asher, Ewa M. Bednarz, Slimane Bekki, Christoph Brühl, Amy H. Butler, Parker Case, Simon Chabrillat, Gabriel Chiodo, Margot Clyne, Peter R. Colarco, Sandip Dhomse, Lola Falletti, Eric Fleming, Ben Johnson, 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
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5487–5512, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5487-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5487-2025, 2025
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 goals of this activity: (1) to evaluate the climate model performance and (2) to understand the Earth system responses to this eruption.
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.
Alexey Yu. Karpechko, Amy H. Butler, and Frederic Vitart
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2556, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2556, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We study how the knowledge of future tropical and stratospheric conditions could improve forecasts in winter remotely, via teleconnections, 3–6 weeks ahead. We find that the tropics improve forecasts of sea level pressure in subtropics, Europe, and North America. The stratosphere improves forecasts in high latitudes and Europe. Improvements are small for temperature and precipitation. Larger forecast ensembles than usually available for research are needed to predict teleconnection signals.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, Xinyue Wang, Zhihong Zhuo, Wandi Yu, Georgiy Stenchikov, Matthew Toohey, and Yunqian Zhu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1970, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1970, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Injection of sulfur and water vapour by the Hunga volcanic eruption significantly altered chemical composition and radiative budget of the stratosphere. Yet, whether the eruption could also affect surface climate, especially via indirect pathways, remains poorly understood. Here we investigate these effects using large ensembles of simulations with the CESM2(WACCM6) Earth system model.
Qian Lu, Jian Rao, Chunhua Shi, and Chaim I. Garfinkel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1123, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1123, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric water vapor has been proven to have significant climate effects as a greenhouse gas. Tropical stratospheric water vapor exhibits a clear imprint of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO). This study compares the water vapor variations associated with the QBO between boreal winter and summer, and the seasonal difference in the water vapor QBO signals is revealed.
Cristiana Stan, Saisri Kollapaneni, Andrea Jenney, Jiabao Wang, Zheng Wu, Cheng Zheng, Hyemi Kim, Chaim Garfinkel, and Ayush Singh
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1142, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1142, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The MJO-Teleconnections diagnostics package is an open-source Python software package to be used for evaluation of MJO-Teleconnections predicted by subseasonal-to-seasonal (S2S) forecast systems.
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 J. Ballinger, Kent Moore, Qinghua Ding, Amy H. Butler, James E. Overland, Richard L. Thoman, Ian Baxter, Zhe Li, and Edward Hanna
Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 1473–1488, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1473-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1473-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study chronicles the meteorological conditions that led to the anomalous, tandem March 2023 ice melt event in the Labrador and Bering seas. A sudden stratospheric warming event initiated the development of an anticyclonic circulation pattern over the Greenland–Labrador region, while the La Niña background state supported ridging conditions over Alaska, both of which aided northward transport of warm, moist air and drove the concurrent sea ice melt extremes.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, Daniele Visioni, Yan Zhang, Ben Kravitz, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13665–13684, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We use a state-of-the-art Earth system model and a set of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies to achieve the same level of global mean surface cooling through different combinations of location and/or timing of the injection. We demonstrate that the choice of SAI strategy can lead to contrasting impacts on stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures, circulation, and chemistry (including stratospheric ozone), thereby leading to different impacts on regional surface climate.
Dillon Elsbury, Amy H. Butler, John R. Albers, Melissa L. Breeden, and Andrew O'Neil Langford
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5101–5117, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5101-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5101-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
One of the global hotspots where stratosphere-to-troposphere transport (STT) of ozone takes place is over Pacific North America (PNA). However, we do not know how or if STT over PNA will change in response to climate change. Using climate model experiments forced with
worst-casescenario Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 climate change, we find that changes in net chemical production and transport of ozone in the lower stratosphere increase STT of ozone over PNA in the future.
John R. Albers, Amy H. Butler, Andrew O. Langford, Dillon Elsbury, and Melissa L. Breeden
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 13035–13048, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13035-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13035-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Ozone transported from the stratosphere contributes to background ozone concentrations in the free troposphere and to surface ozone exceedance events that affect human health. The physical processes whereby the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) modulates North American stratosphere-to-troposphere ozone transport during spring are documented, and the usefulness of ENSO for predicting ozone events that may cause exceedances in surface air quality standards are assessed.
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.
Cameron Bertossa, Peter Hitchcock, Arthur DeGaetano, and Riwal Plougonven
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-601, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-601, 2022
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
This work has identified characteristic spatial and temporal scales for non-Gaussian outbreaks in forecasts, specifically, bimodality. Methodology is introduced which allows one to connect meteorological phenomena to bimodal outbreaks. Large-scale circulation interacting with local processes is uncovered as a frequent ingredient to such outbreaks. These insights not only provide a deeper understanding of the dynamical processes involved, but also have drastic implications for forecast skill.
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.
Shlomi Ziskin Ziv, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Sean Davis, and Antara Banerjee
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 7523–7538, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7523-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7523-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric water vapor is important for Earth's overall greenhouse effect and for ozone chemistry; however the factors governing its variability on interannual timescales are not fully known, and previous modeling studies have indicated that models struggle to capture this interannual variability. We demonstrate that nonlinear interactions are important for determining overall water vapor concentrations and also that models have improved in their ability to capture these connections.
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.
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.
William J. Randel, Fei Wu, Alison Ming, and Peter Hitchcock
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 18531–18542, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-18531-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-18531-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Balloon and satellite observations show strong coupling between large-scale ozone and temperature fields in the tropical lower stratosphere, spanning timescales of days to years. We present a simple interpretation of this behavior based on an idealized model of transport by the tropical stratospheric circulation, and good quantitative agreement with observations demonstrates that this is a useful simplification. The results provide simple understanding of observed atmospheric behavior.
Corwin J. Wright, Richard J. Hall, Timothy P. Banyard, Neil P. Hindley, Isabell Krisch, Daniel M. Mitchell, and William J. M. Seviour
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 1283–1301, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-1283-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-1283-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Major sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) are some of the most dramatic events in the atmosphere and are believed to help cause extreme winter weather events such as the 2018 Beast from the East in Europe and North America. Here, we use unique data from the European Space Agency's new Aeolus satellite to make the first-ever measurements at a global scale of wind changes due to an SSW in the lower part of the atmosphere to help us understand how SSWs affect the atmosphere and surface weather.
Cameron Bertossa, Peter Hitchcock, Arthur DeGaetano, and Riwal Plougonven
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 1209–1224, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-1209-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-1209-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
While the assumption of Gaussianity leads to many simplifications, ensemble forecasts often exhibit non-Gaussian distributions. This work has systematically identified the presence of a specific case of
non-Gaussianity, bimodality. It has been found that bimodality occurs in a large portion of global 2 m temperature forecasts. This has drastic implications on forecast skill as the minimum probability in a bimodal distribution often lies at the maximum probability of a Gaussian distribution.
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.
John R. Albers, Amy H. Butler, Melissa L. Breeden, Andrew O. Langford, and George N. Kiladis
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 433–452, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-433-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-433-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Weather variability controls the transport of ozone from the stratosphere to the Earth’s surface and water vapor from oceanic source regions to continental land masses. Forecasting these types of transport has high societal value because of the negative impacts of ozone on human health and the role of water vapor in governing precipitation variability. We use upper-level wind forecasts to assess the potential for predicting ozone and water vapor transport 3–6 weeks ahead of time.
Antara Banerjee, Amy H. Butler, Lorenzo M. Polvani, Alan Robock, Isla R. Simpson, and Lantao Sun
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6985–6997, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We find that simulated stratospheric sulfate geoengineering could lead to warmer Eurasian winters alongside a drier Mediterranean and wetting to the north. These effects occur due to the strengthening of the Northern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex, which shifts the North Atlantic Oscillation to a more positive phase. We find the effects in our simulations to be much more significant than the wintertime effects of large tropical volcanic eruptions which inject much less sulfate aerosol.
Chaim I. Garfinkel, Ohad Harari, Shlomi Ziskin Ziv, Jian Rao, Olaf Morgenstern, Guang Zeng, Simone Tilmes, Douglas Kinnison, Fiona M. O'Connor, Neal Butchart, Makoto Deushi, Patrick Jöckel, Andrea Pozzer, and Sean Davis
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 3725–3740, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3725-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3725-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and El Niño is the dominant mode of variability in the ocean–atmosphere system. The connection between El Niño and water vapor above ~ 17 km is unclear, with single-model studies reaching a range of conclusions. This study examines this connection in 12 different models. While there are substantial differences among the models, all models appear to capture the fundamental physical processes correctly.
Melissa L. Breeden, Amy H. Butler, John R. Albers, Michael Sprenger, and Andrew O'Neil Langford
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 2781–2794, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2781-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2781-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Prior research has found a maximum in deep stratosphere-to-troposphere mass/ozone transport over the western United States in boreal spring, which can enhance surface ozone concentrations, reducing air quality. We find that the winter-to-summer evolution of the north Pacific jet increases the frequency of stratospheric intrusions that drive transport, helping explain the observed maximum. The El Niño–Southern Oscillation affects the timing of the spring jet transition and therefore transport.
Cited articles
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
Baldwin, M. P. and Dunkerton, T. J.: Stratospheric harbingers of anomalous weather regimes, Science, 294, 581–584, 2001. a
Butler, A. H., Lawrence, Z. D., Lee, S. H., Lillo, S. P., and Long, C. S.: Differences between the 2018 and 2019 stratospheric polar vortex split events, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 3503–3521, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3858, 2020. a, b
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
Charlton, A. J., Polvani, L. M., Perlwitz, J., Sassi, F., Manzini, E., Shibata, K., Pawson, S., Nielsen, J. E., and Rind, D.: A New Look at Stratospheric Sudden Warmings. Part II: Evaluation of Numerical Model Simulations, J. Climate, 20, 470–488, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3994.1, 2007. a
Compo, G. P. and Sardeshmukh, P. D.: Storm track predictability on seasonal and decadal scales, J. Climate, 17, 3701–3720, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<3701:STPOSA>2.0.CO;2, 2004. a
Dai, Y. and Hitchcock, P.: Understanding the basin asymmetry in surface response to sudden stratospheric warmings from an ocean-atmosphere coupled perspective, J. Climate, 34, 8683–8698, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0314.1, 2021. a, b
Dai, Y., Hitchcock, P., and Simpson, I. R.: Dynamics and Impacts of the North Pacific Eddy-Driven Jet Response to Sudden Stratospheric Warmings, J. Climate, 36, 865–884, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-22-0300.1, 2023. a
de la Cámara, A., Albers, J., Birner, T., Garcia, R. R., Hitchcock, P., Kinnison, D. E., and Smith, A. K.: Sensitivity of sudden stratospheric warmings to previous stratospheric conditions, J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 2857–2877, 2017. a
Domeisen, D. I. V. and Butler, A. H.: Stratospheric drivers of extreme events at the Earth's surface, Commun. Earth Environ., 1, 59, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00060-z, 2020. a, b, c
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, 2020. a
Garfinkel, C. I., Lawrence, Z. D., Butler, A. H., Dunn-Sigouin, E., Erner, I., Karpechko, A. Y., Koren, G., Abalos, M., Ayarzagüena, B., Barriopedro, D., Calvo, N., de la Cámara, A., Charlton-Perez, A., Cohen, J., Domeisen, D. I. V., García-Serrano, J., Hindley, N. P., Jucker, M., Kim, H., Lee, R. W., Lee, S. H., Osman, M., Palmeiro, F. M., Polichtchouk, I., Rao, J., Richter, J. H., Schwartz, C., Son, S.-W., Taguchi, M., Tyrrell, N. L., Wright, C. J., and Wu, R. W.-Y.: A process-based evaluation of biases in extratropical stratosphere–troposphere coupling in subseasonal forecast systems, Weather Clim. Dynam., 6, 171–195, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-171-2025, 2025. a, b
González-Alemán, J. J., Grams, C. M., Ayarzagüena, B., Zurita-Gotor, P., Domeisen, D. I. V., 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
Greening, K. and Hodgson, A.: Atmospheric analysis of the cold late February and early March 2018 over the UK, Weather, 74, 79–85, https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.3467, 2019. a
Guan, B. and Waliser, D. E.: Detection of atmospheric rivers: Evaluation and application of an algorithm for global studies, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 12514–12535, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024257, 2015. a
Hall, R. J., Mitchell, D. M., Seviour, W. J. M., and Wright, C. J.: Tracking the Stratosphere-to-Surface Impact of Sudden Stratospheric Warmings, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD033881, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033881, 2021. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Biavati, G., Horányi, A., Muñoz Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Rozum, I., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Dee, D., and Thépaut, J.-N.: ERA5 hourly data on pressure levels from 1940 to present, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.bd0915c6, 2023. a
Hitchcock, P. and Simpson, I. R.: The downward influence of stratospheric sudden warmings, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 3856–3876, 2014. 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 (data available at: https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/0a5a1ce22fb047749e040879efa8e9b5, last access: 28 January 2024). a, b, c
Huang, J. and Tian, W.: Eurasian cold air outbreaks under different arctic stratospheric polar vortex strength, J. Atmos. Sci., 76, 1245–1264, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-18-0285.1, 2019. a
Huang, J., Hitchcock, P., Maycock, A. C., McKenna, C. M., and Tian, W.: Northern hemisphere cold air outbreaks are more likely to be severe during weak polar vortex conditions, Commun. Earth Environ., 2, 147, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00215-6, 2021. a
Huang, J., Hitchcock, P., Tian, W., and Sillin, J.: Stratospheric Influence on the Development of the 2018 Late Winter European Cold Air Outbreak, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2021JD035877, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035877, 2022. a, b
Huffman, G. J. Bolvin, D. T., Braithwaite, D., Hsu, K.-L., Joyce, R. J., Kidd, C., Nelkin, E. J., Sorooshian, S., Stocker, E. F., Tan, J., Wolff, D. B., Xie, P., Levizzani, V., Kidd, C., Kirschbaum, D. B., Kummerow, C. D., Nakamura, K., and Turk, F. J.: Integrated Multi-satellite Retrievals for the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Mission (IMERG), in: Satellite Precipitation Measurement. Advances in Global Change Research, Vol. 67, edited by: Levizzani, V., Kidd, C., Kirschbaum, D. B., Kummerow, C. D., Nakamura, K., and Turk, F. J., Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24568-9_19, 2020 (data available at: https://gpm.nasa.gov/data/imerg, last access: 24 August 2023). a
Karpechko, A. Y., Hitchcock, P., Peters, D. H. W., and Schneidereit, A.: Predictability of downward propagation of major sudden stratospheric warmings, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 104, 30937, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3017, 2017. a
Karpechko, A. Y., Perez, A. C., Balmaseda, M., Tyrrell, N., and Vitart, F.: Predicting sudden stratospheric warming 2018 and its climate impacts with a multi-model ensemble, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 2018GL081091, https://doi.org//10.1029/2018GL081091, 2018. a, b, c, d
Kodera, K., Mukougawa, H., Maury, P., Ueda, M., and Claud, C.: Absorbing and reflecting sudden stratospheric warming events and their relationship with tropospheric circulation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 80–94, 2016. a
Kretschmer, M., Cohen, J., Matthias, V., Runge, J., and Coumou, D.: The different stratospheric influence on cold-extremes in Eurasia and North America, npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 1, 44, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0054-4, 2018. a
Lavers, D. A., Simmons, A., Vamborg, F., and Rodwell, M. J.: An evaluation of ERA5 precipitation for climate monitoring, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 148, 3152–3165, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4351, 2022. a
Lawrence, B. N., Bennett, V. L., Churchill, J., Juckes, M., Kershaw, P., Pascoe, S., Pepler, S., Pritchard, M., and Stephens, A.: Storing and manipulating environmental big data with JASMIN, in: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, Silicon Valley, CA, USA, 6–9 October 2013, 68–75, https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2013.6691556, 2013. a
Maycock, A. C. and Hitchcock, P.: Do split and displacement sudden stratospheric warmings have different annular mode signatures?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 10943–10951, 2015. a
Menne, M. J., Durre, I., Vose, R. S., Gleason, B. E., and Houston, T. G.: An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network-Daily Database, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 29, 897–910, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00103.1, 2012 (data available at: https://gcos.wmo.int/en/networks/atmospheric/gsn, last access: 15 August 2023). a
Nebel, D. M., Garfinkel, C. I., Cohen, J., Domeisen, D. I. V., Rao, J., and Schwartz, C.: The Predictability of the Downward Versus Non-Downward Propagation of Sudden Stratospheric Warmings in S2S Hindcasts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 51, e2024GL110529, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL110529, 2024. a
Ogrosky, H. R. and Stechmann, S. N.: Assessing the equatorial long-wave approximation: Asymptotics and observational data analysis, J. Atmos. Sci., 72, 4821–4843, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-15-0065.1, 2015. a
Rao, J., Garfinkel, C. I., and White, I. P.: Predicting the Downward and Surface Influence of the February 2018 and January 2019 Sudden Stratospheric Warming Events in Subseasonal to Seasonal (S2S) Models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD031919, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031919, 2020. a, b, c
Runde, T., Dameris, M., Garny, H., and Kinnison, D. E.: Classification of stratospheric extreme events according to their downward propagation to the troposphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 6665–6672, 2016. a
Rutz, J. J., Steenburgh, W. J., and Ralph, F. M.: Climatological Characteristics of Atmospheric Rivers and Their Inland Penetration over the Western United States, Mon. Weather Rev., 142, 905–921, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00168.1, 2014. a
Sigmond, M., Scinocca, J. F., Kharin, V. V., and Shepherd, T. G.: Enhanced seasonal forecast skill following stratospheric sudden warmings, Nat. Geosci., 6, 1–5, 2013. a
Simpson, I. R., Hitchcock, P., Shepherd, T. G., and Scinocca, J. F.: Southern annular mode dynamics in observations and models. Part I: The influence of climatological zonal wind biases in a comprehensive GCM, J. Climate, 26, 3953–3967, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00348.1, 2013. a
Thompson, D. W. J., Baldwin, M. P., and Wallace, J. M.: Stratospheric Connection to Northern Hemisphere Wintertime Weather: Implications for Prediction, J. Climate, 15, 1421–1428, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<1421:SCTNHW>2.0.CO;2, 2002. a
White, I., Garfinkel, C. I., Gerber, E. P., Jucker, M., Aquila, V., and Oman, L. D.: The downward influence of sudden stratospheric warmings: Association with tropospheric precursors, J.ournal of Climate, 32, 85–108, 2019. a
White, I. P., Garfinkel, C. I., Gerber, E. P., Jucker, M., Hitchcock, P., and Rao, J.: The Generic Nature of the Tropospheric Response to Sudden Stratospheric Warmings, J. Climate, 33, 5589–5610, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0697.1, 2020. a, b
White, I. P., Garfinkel, C. I., and Hitchcock, P.: On the Tropospheric Response to Transient Stratospheric Momentum Torques, J. Atmos. Sci., 79, 2041–2058, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-21-0237.1, 2022. a, b
Xu, Q., Chen, W., and Song, L.: Two Leading Modes in the Evolution of Major Sudden Stratospheric Warmings and Their Distinctive Surface Influence, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2021GL095431, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095431, 2022. a
Short summary
Using a new database of subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) forecasts, we find that with a successful forecast of the sudden stratospheric warming (SSW), S2S models can capture the European precipitation signals after the 2018 SSW several weeks in advance. The findings indicate that the stratosphere represents an important source of S2S predictability for precipitation over Europe and call for consideration of stratospheric variability in hydrological prediction at S2S timescales.
Using a new database of subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) forecasts, we find that with a successful...
