The eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano on 15 January 2022 was one of the most explosive eruptions of the last decades. The unprecedented amount of water vapor injected into the stratosphere increased the stratospheric water vapor burden by about 10%. Using model runs from the ATLAS chemistry and transport model and Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) satellite observations, we show that while 20-40% more water vapor than usual was entrained into the Antarctic polar vortex as it formed (e.g., typical values of 4.6 ppm at 21.5 km increased to 6.7 ppm), the direct effect of the increased water vapor on Antarctic ozone depletion was minor. This is caused by the very low temperatures in the vortex, which limit water vapor to the saturation pressure and tend to reset any anomalies in water vapor by dehydration before they can have an effect on ozone loss.

The January 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai (HT-HH) caused the largest enhancement in stratospheric aerosol loading in decades and produced an unprecedented enhancement in stratospheric water vapor, which led to strong stratospheric cooling that in turn induced changes in the large-scale circulation. Here we use satellite measurements of gas-phase constituents together with aerosol extinction to investigate the extent to which the thick aerosol, excess moisture, and strong cooling enabled heterogeneous chemical processing. In the southern tropics, unambiguous signatures of substantial chlorine and nitrogen repartitioning appear over a broad vertical domain almost immediately after the eruption, with depletion of N2O5, NOx, and HCl accompanied by enhancement of HNO3, ClO, and ClONO2. After initially rising steeply, HNO3 and ClO plateau, maintaining fairly constant abundances for several months. These patterns are consistent with the saturation of N2O5 hydrolysis, suggesting that this reaction is the primary mechanism for the observed composition changes. The southern midlatitudes and subtropics show similar but weaker enhancements in ClO and ClONO2. In those regions, however, effects of anomalous transport dominate the evolution of HNO3 and HCl, obscuring the signs of heterogeneous processing. Perturbations in chlorine species are considerably weaker than those measured in the southern midlatitude stratosphere following the Australian New Year’s fires in 2020. The moderate HT-HH-induced enhancements in reactive chlorine seen throughout the southern middle and low-latitude stratosphere, far smaller than those in typical winter polar vortices, do not lead to appreciable chemical ozone loss; rather, extrapolar lower-stratospheric ozone remains primarily controlled by dynamical processes.

We use Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) trace gas measurements to investigate whether water vapor (H2O) injected into the stratosphere by the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai (HTHH) eruption affected the 2022 Antarctic stratospheric vortex. Other MLS-measured long-lived species are used to distinguish high HTHH H2O from that descending in the vortex from the upper-stratospheric H2O peak. HTHH H2O reached high southern latitudes in June–July but was effectively excluded from the vortex by the strong transport barrier at its edge. MLS H2O, nitric acid, chlorine species, and ozone within the 2022 Antarctic polar vortex were near average; the vortex was large, strong, and long-lived, but not exceptionally so. There is thus no clear evidence of HTHH influence on the 2022 Antarctic vortex or its composition. Substantial impacts on the stratospheric polar vortices are expected in succeeding years since the H2O injected by HTHH has spread globally.

In the austral spring seasons of 2020-2022, the Antarctic stratosphere experienced three consecutive strong vortex events. In particular, the Antarctic vortex of October-December 2020 was the strongest on record in the satellite era for that season at 60°S in the mid- to lower stratosphere. However, it was poorly predicted by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s operational seasonal climate forecast system of that time, ACCESS-S1, even at a short lead time of a month. Using the current operational forecast system, ACCESS-S2, we have, therefore, tried to find a primary cause of the limited predictability of this event and conducted forecast sensitivity experiments to climatological versus observation-based ozone to understand the potential role of the ozone forcing in the strong vortex event and associated anomalies of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and south-eastern Australian rainfall. Here, we show that the 2020 strong vortex event did not follow the canonical dynamical evolution seen in previous strong vortex events in spring, whereas the ACCESS-S2 control forecasts with the climatological ozone did, which likely accounts for the inaccurate forecasts of ACCESS-S1/S2 at 1-month lead time. Forcing ACCESS-S2 with observed ozone significantly improved the skill in predicting the strong vortex in October-December 2020 and the subsequent positive SAM and related rainfall increase over south-eastern Australia in the summer of December 2020 to February 2021. These results highlight an important role of ozone variations in seasonal climate forecasting as a source of long-lead predictability, and therefore, a need for improved ozone forcing in future ACCESS-S development.

The 2022 Hunga eruption led to extraordinary water vapor enhancement throughout the stratospheric vortex at the beginning of the 2023 Antarctic winter. Although the dynamical characteristics of the vortex itself were generally unexceptional, the excess moisture initially raised the threshold temperatures for the formation of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) above typical values over a broad vertical domain. Low temperatures, especially during an early-July cold spell, prompted ice PSC formation and unusually severe irreversible dehydration at higher levels (500–700 K), while atypical rehydration occurred at lower levels (380–460 K). Heterogeneous chemical processing was more extensive, both vertically (up to 750–800 K) and temporally (earlier in the season), than in prior Antarctic winters. The resultant HCl depletion and ClO enhancement both redefined their previously observed ranges at and above 600 K. Albeit unmatched in the satellite record, the early-winter upper-level chlorine activation was insufficient to induce substantial ozone loss. Chlorine activation, denitrification, and dehydration processes saturated in midwinter, with trace gas evolution essentially following the climatological mean thereafter. Chlorine deactivation started slightly later than in most years. While cumulative ozone losses at 410–550 K were relatively large, probably because of the delayed chlorine deactivation, they were not unprecedented. Thus, ozone depletion was unremarkable throughout the lower stratosphere. Although Hunga hastened the onset of and increased the vertical extent of PSC formation and chlorine activation in early winter, saturation of lower stratospheric chemical processing (as is typical in the Antarctic) prevented an exceptionally severe ozone hole in 2023.

Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) measurements show that chemical processing was critical to the observed record-low Arctic stratospheric ozone in spring 2020. The 16-year MLS record indicates more denitrification and dehydration in 2019/2020 than in any Arctic winter except 2015/2016. Chlorine activation and ozone depletion began earlier than in any previously observed winter, with evidence of chemical ozone loss starting in November. Active chlorine then persisted as late into spring as it did in 2011. Empirical estimates suggest maximum chemical ozone losses near 2.8 ppmv by late March in both 2011 and 2020. However, peak chlorine activation, and thus peak ozone loss, occurred at lower altitudes in 2020 than in 2011, leading to the lowest Arctic ozone values ever observed at potential temperature levels from ~400–480 K, with similar ozone values to those in 2011 at higher levels.

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.

In the winter and spring of 2019/2020, the unusually cold, strong, and stable polar vortex created favorable conditions for ozone depletion in the Arctic. Chemical ozone loss started earlier than in any previous year in the satellite era, and continued until the end of March, resulting in the unprecedented reduction of the ozone column. The vortex was located above the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory in Eureka, Canada (80 °N, 86 °W) from late February to the end of April, presenting an excellent opportunity to examine ozone loss from a single ground station. Measurements from a suite of instruments show that total column ozone in 2020 was at an all-time low in the 20-year dataset, 22 to 102 DU below previous records set in 2011. Ozone minima (<200 DU), enhanced OClO and BrO slant columns, and unusually low HCl, ClONO2 , and HNO3 columns were observed in March. Polar stratospheric clouds were present as late as 20 March, and ozonesondes show unprecedented depletion in the March and April ozone profiles (to <0.2 ppmv). While both chemical and dynamical factors lead to reduced ozone when the vortex is cold, the contribution of chemical depletion was exceptional in spring 2020 when compared to typical Arctic winters. The mean chemical ozone loss over Eureka was estimated to be 111-127 DU (27-31%) using April measurements and passive ozone from the SLIMCAT chemical transport model. While absolute ozone loss was generally smaller in 2020 than in 2011, percentage ozone loss was greater in 2020.

MERRA-2 Stratospheric Composition Reanalysis of Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (M2-SCREAM) is a new reanalysis of stratospheric ozone, water vapor, hydrogen chloride (HCl), nitric acid (HNO3) and nitrous oxide (N2O) between 2004 and the present (with a latency of several months). The assimilated fields are provided at a 50-km horizontal resolution and at a three-hourly frequency. M2-SCREAM assimilates version 4.2 Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) profiles of the five constituents alongside total ozone column from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument. Dynamics and tropospheric water vapor are constrained by the MERRA-2 reanalysis. The assimilated species are in excellent agreement with the MLS observations, except for HNO3 in polar night, where data are not assimilated. Comparisons against independent observations show that the reanalysis realistically captures the spatial and temporal variability of all the assimilated constituents. In particular, the standard deviations of the differences between M2-SCREAM and constituent mixing ratio data from The Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer are much smaller than the standard deviations of the measured constituents. Evaluation of the reanalysis against aircraft data and balloon-borne frost point hygrometers indicates a faithful representation of small-scale structures in the assimilated water vapor, HNO3 and ozone fields near the tropopause. Comparisons with independent observations and a process-based analysis of the consistency of the assimilated constituent fields with the MERRA-2 dynamics and with large-scale stratospheric processes demonstrate the utility of M2-SCREAM for scientific studies of chemical and transport variability on time scales ranging from hours to decades. Analysis uncertainties and guidelines for data usage are provided.

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.

A rare disturbance of the stratospheric Antarctic polar vortex in September 2019 led to a significantly higher than usual polar total ozone column. We use assimilation of ozone, HCl, and NO data from the Microwave Limb Sounder with the Global Earth Observing System Constituent Data Assimilation System driven by reanalysis meteorology to study the evolution of the 2019 Antarctic polar ozone. We find that the maximum 2019 ozone hole area was near 10 million km, and as little as 20% of that in 2018 in mid-September. However, the magnitude of vortex-averaged chemical ozone depletion was not significantly different between the two years despite earlier chlorine deactivation in 2019. The assimilation results show that most of the differences between 2018 and 2019 Antarctic ozone resulted from two factors: (1) the geometry of the 2019 vortex, with ozone-rich middle-stratospheric air masses overlying the lower portion of the vortex and leading to a significant reduction of the total column; (2) significantly reduced vortex volume. The anomalously small ozone hole of 2019 was comparable in size to the record breaking 2002 case and the mechanisms responsible were similar in the two cases. While the 2019 sudden stratospheric warming is classified as minor, its impact on ozone was very significant.