The impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) on the atmosphere and surface climate depend on when and where the sulfate aerosol precursors are injected, as well as on how much surface cooling is to be achieved. We use a set of CESM2(WACCM6) SAI simulations achieving three different levels of global mean surface cooling and demonstrate that unlike some direct surface climate impacts driven by the reflection of solar radiation by sulfate aerosols, the SAI-induced changes in the high latitude circulation and ozone are more complex and could be non-linear. This manifests in our simulations by disproportionally larger Antarctic springtime ozone loss, significantly larger intra-ensemble spread of the Arctic stratospheric jet and ozone responses, and non-linear impacts on the extratropical modes of surface climate variability under the strongest-cooling SAI scenario compared to the weakest one. These potential non-linearities may add to uncertainties in projections of regional surface impacts under SAI.

The circulation response to climate change shapes regional climate and extremes. We have moved into a new era where circulation signals have been detected across many regions and seasons. The detected circulation signals represent an exciting opportunity for improving our understanding of dynamical mechanisms, testing our theories and reducing uncertainties. They have also presented some puzzles that represent an opportunity for better understanding the circulation response, its contribution to climate extremes, interactions with cloud feedbacks, and connection to thermodynamic discrepancies. The next decade or so is likely to be a golden age for dynamics with many advances possible.

The mainstream media and popular science platforms are rife with misunderstandings about what a “polar vortex” is. The term most aptly describes the stratospheric polar vortex, a single feature dominating the cool-season circulation at ∼15–50 km altitude. Regional upper tropospheric jet stream variations dominate the tropospheric circulation, which is not well-described by the idea of a polar vortex; indeed, there is no single consistent definition of a tropospheric polar vortex in the literature. Stratospheric polar vortex disturbances profoundly influence extreme weather events such as cold air outbreaks (CAO). How the stratospheric polar vortex affects the tropospheric jets, local excursions of which drive CAOs, is not yet fully understood. The most public-facing parts of publications describing research on this topic are sometimes unclear about how the “polar vortex” is defined; greater clarity could help improve communications both within the community and with non-specialist audiences.

The winter of 2019-20 was dominated by an extremely strong stratospheric polar vortex and positive tropospheric Arctic Oscillation (AO). Here, we analyze forecasts from 6 different prediction systems contributing to the C3S seasonal forecast database. Most performed very strongly, with consistently high skill for January-March 2020 from forecasts launched through October–December 2019. Although the magnitude of the anomalies was underestimated, the performance of most prediction systems was extremely high for a positive AO winter relative to the common hindcast climate. Ensemble members which better predicted the extremely strong stratospheric vortex better predicted the extreme tropospheric state. We find a significant relationship between forecasts of the anomalous mid-latitude tropospheric wave pattern in early winter, which destructively interfered with the climatological stationary waves, and the strength of the stratospheric vortex later in the winter. Our results demonstrate a strong interdependence between the accuracy of stratospheric vortex and AO forecasts.

This paper introduces the special collection in Geophysical Research Letters and Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres on the exceptional stratospheric polar vortex in 2019/2020. Papers in this collection show that the 2019/2020 stratospheric polar vortex was the strongest, most persistent, and coldest on record in the Arctic. The unprecedented Arctic chemical processing and ozone loss in spring 2020 has been studied using numerous satellite and ground-based datasets and chemistry-transport models. Quantitative estimates of chemical loss are broadly consistent among the studies and show profile loss of about the same magnitude as in the Arctic in 2011, but with most loss at lower altitudes; column loss was comparable to or larger than that in 2011. Several papers show evidence of dynamical coupling from the mesosphere down to the surface. Studies of tropospheric influence and impacts link the exceptionally strong vortex to reflection of upward propagating waves, and show coupling to tropospheric anomalies including extreme heat, precipitation, windstorms, and marine cold air outbreaks. Predictability of the exceptional stratospheric polar vortex in 2019/2020 and related predictability of surface conditions are explored. The exceptionally strong stratospheric polar vortex in 2019/2020 highlights the extreme interannual variability in the Arctic winter/spring stratosphere and the far-reaching consequences of such extremes.

The Northern Hemisphere (NH) polar winter stratosphere of 2019/2020 featured an exceptionally strong and cold stratospheric polar vortex. Wave activity from the troposphere during December-February was unusually low, which allowed the polar vortex to remain relatively undisturbed. Several transient wave pulses nonetheless served to help create a reflective configuration of the stratospheric circulation by disturbing the vortex in the upper stratosphere. Subsequently, multiple downward wave coupling events took place, which aided in dynamically cooling and strengthening the polar vortex. The persistent strength of the stratospheric polar vortex was accompanied by an unprecedentedly positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation in the troposphere during January-March, which was consistent with large portions of observed surface temperature and precipitation anomalies during the season. Similarly, conditions within the strong polar vortex were ripe for allowing substantial ozone loss: The undisturbed vortex was a strong transport barrier, and temperatures were low enough to form polar stratospheric clouds for over four months into late March. Total column ozone amounts in the NH polar cap decreased, and were the lowest ever observed in the February-April period. The unique confluence of conditions and multiple broken records makes the 2019/2020 winter and early spring a particularly extreme example of two-way coupling between the troposphere and stratosphere.

Sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) are impressive fluid dynamical events in which large and rapid temperature increases in the winter polar stratosphere (~0–50km) are associated with a complete reversal of the climatological wintertime westerly winds. SSWs are fundamentally caused by the breaking of planetary-scale waves that propagate upwards from the troposphere. During an SSW, the polar vortex breaks down, accompanied by rapid warming of the polar air column. This rapid warming and descent of the polar air column affects tropospheric weather, shifting jet streams, storm tracks, and the Northern Annular Mode (NAM), including increased frequency of cold air outbreaks over North America and Eurasia. SSWs affect the whole atmosphere above the stratosphere producing widespread effects on atmospheric chemistry, temperatures, winds, neutral (non-ionized) particle and electron densities, and electric fields. These effects span the surface to the thermosphere and across both hemispheres. Given their crucial role in the whole atmosphere, SSWs are also seen as a key process to analyze in climate change studies and subseasonal to seasonal predictions. This work reviews the current knowledge on the most important aspects related to SSWs from the historical background to involved dynamical processes, modelling, chemistry and impact on other atmospheric layers.

The Arctic stratospheric polar vortex is an important driver of winter weather and climate variability and predictability in North America and Eurasia, with a downward influence that on average projects onto the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). While tropospheric circulation anomalies accompanying anomalous vortex states display substantial case-by-case variability, understanding the full diversity of the surface signatures requires larger sample sizes than those available from reanalyses. Here, we first show that a large ensemble of seasonal hindcasts realistically reproduces the observed average surface signatures for weak and strong vortex winters and produces sufficient spread for single ensemble members to be considered as alternative realizations. We then use the ensemble to analyze the diversity of surface signatures during the 25% weakest and strongest vortex winters. Over Eurasia, only one of three weak vortex clusters yields continent-wide cold conditions, suggesting that the observed Eurasian cold signature could be artificially strong due to insufficient sampling. For both weak and strong vortex cases, the canonical temperature pattern in Eurasia only clearly arises when North Atlantic sea surface temperatures exhibit the tripolar structure in-phase with the NAO. Over North America, while the main driver of interannual winter temperature variability is the El Nino;Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the stratosphere can modulate ENSO teleconnections, affecting temperature and circulation anomalies over North America and downstream. These findings confirm that anomalous vortex states are associated with a broad spectrum of surface climate anomalies on the seasonal scale, which may be obscured by the small observational sample size.

The impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection strategies on the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) are analysed with the Community Earth System Model (CESM). Using a set of simulations with fixed single-point SO2 injections we demonstrate the first-order dependence of the SAM response on the latitude of injection, with the northern hemispheric and equatorial injections driving a response corresponding to a positive phase of SAM and the southern hemispheric injections driving a negative phase of SAM. We further demonstrate that the results can to first order explain the differences in the SAM responses diagnosed from the two recent large ensembles of geoengineering simulations utilising more complex injection strategies - GLENS and ARISE-SAI - as driven by the differences in the simulated sulfate aerosol distributions. Our results point to the meridional extent of aerosol-induced lower stratospheric heating as an important driver of the sensitivity of the SAM response to the injection location.