• Energy Research

Abstract Weather and climate variations on subseasonal to decadal time scales can have enormous social, economic, and environmental impacts, making skillful predictions on these time scales a valuable tool for decision-makers. As such, there is a growing interest in the scientific, operational, and applications communities in developing forecasts to improve our foreknowledge of extreme events. On subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) time scales, these include high-impact meteorological events such as tropical cyclones, extratropical storms, floods, droughts, and heat and cold waves. On seasonal to decadal (S2D) time scales, while the focus broadly remains similar (e.g., on precipitation, surface and upper-ocean temperatures, and their effects on the probabilities of high-impact meteorological events), understanding the roles of internal variability and externally forced variability such as anthropogenic warming in forecasts also becomes important. The S2S and S2D communities share common scientific and technical challenges. These include forecast initialization and ensemble generation; initialization shock and drift; understanding the onset of model systematic errors; bias correction, calibration, and forecast quality assessment; model resolution; atmosphere–ocean coupling; sources and expectations for predictability; and linking research, operational forecasting, and end-user needs. In September 2018 a coordinated pair of international conferences, framed by the above challenges, was organized jointly by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and the World Weather Research Programme (WWRP). These conferences surveyed the state of S2S and S2D prediction, ongoing research, and future needs, providing an ideal basis for synthesizing current and emerging developments in these areas that promise to enhance future operational services. This article provides such a synthesis.

Abstract Weather and climate variations on subseasonal to decadal time scales can have enormous social, economic, and environmental impacts, making skillful predictions on these time scales a valuable tool for decision-makers. As such, there is a growing interest in the scientific, operational, and applications communities in developing forecasts to improve our foreknowledge of extreme events. On subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) time scales, these include high-impact meteorological events such as tropical cyclones, extratropical storms, floods, droughts, and heat and cold waves. On seasonal to decadal (S2D) time scales, while the focus broadly remains similar (e.g., on precipitation, surface and upper-ocean temperatures, and their effects on the probabilities of high-impact meteorological events), understanding the roles of internal variability and externally forced variability such as anthropogenic warming in forecasts also becomes important. The S2S and S2D communities share common scientific and technical challenges. These include forecast initialization and ensemble generation; initialization shock and drift; understanding the onset of model systematic errors; bias correction, calibration, and forecast quality assessment; model resolution; atmosphere–ocean coupling; sources and expectations for predictability; and linking research, operational forecasting, and end-user needs. In September 2018 a coordinated pair of international conferences, framed by the above challenges, was organized jointly by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and the World Weather Research Programme (WWRP). These conferences surveyed the state of S2S and S2D prediction, ongoing research, and future needs, providing an ideal basis for synthesizing current and emerging developments in these areas that promise to enhance future operational services. This article provides such a synthesis.

AbstractWe analyze the sources for spread in the response of the Northern Hemisphere wintertime stratospheric polar vortex (SPV) to global warming in Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and Phase 6 (CMIP6) model projections. About half of the intermodel spread in SPV projections by CMIP6 models, but less than a third in CMIP5 models, can be attributed to the intermodel spread in stationary planetary wave driving. In CMIP6, SPV weakening is mostly driven by increased upward wave flux from the troposphere, while SPV strengthening is associated with increased equatorward wave propagation away from the polar stratosphere. We test hypothesized factors contributing to changes in the upward and equatorward planetary wave fluxes and show that an across‐model regression using projected global warming rates, strengthening of the subtropical jet and basic state lower stratospheric wind biases as predictors can explain nearly the same fraction in the CMIP6 SPV spread as the planetary wave driving (r = 0.67). The dependence of the SPV spread on the model biases in the basic state winds offers a possible emergent constraint; however, a large uncertainty prevents a substantial reduction of the projected SPV spread. The lack of this dependence in CMIP5 further calls for better understanding of underlying causes. Our results improve understanding of projected SPV uncertainty; however, further narrowing of the uncertainty remains challenging.

AbstractWe analyze the sources for spread in the response of the Northern Hemisphere wintertime stratospheric polar vortex (SPV) to global warming in Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and Phase 6 (CMIP6) model projections. About half of the intermodel spread in SPV projections by CMIP6 models, but less than a third in CMIP5 models, can be attributed to the intermodel spread in stationary planetary wave driving. In CMIP6, SPV weakening is mostly driven by increased upward wave flux from the troposphere, while SPV strengthening is associated with increased equatorward wave propagation away from the polar stratosphere. We test hypothesized factors contributing to changes in the upward and equatorward planetary wave fluxes and show that an across‐model regression using projected global warming rates, strengthening of the subtropical jet and basic state lower stratospheric wind biases as predictors can explain nearly the same fraction in the CMIP6 SPV spread as the planetary wave driving (r = 0.67). The dependence of the SPV spread on the model biases in the basic state winds offers a possible emergent constraint; however, a large uncertainty prevents a substantial reduction of the projected SPV spread. The lack of this dependence in CMIP5 further calls for better understanding of underlying causes. Our results improve understanding of projected SPV uncertainty; however, further narrowing of the uncertainty remains challenging.

AbstractMajor sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs), vortex formation, and final breakdown dates are key highlight points of the stratospheric polar vortex. These phenomena are relevant for stratosphere‐troposphere coupling, which explains the interest in understanding their future changes. However, up to now, there is not a clear consensus on which projected changes to the polar vortex are robust, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, possibly due to short data record or relatively moderate CO2 forcing. The new simulations performed under the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 6, together with the long daily data requirements of the DynVarMIP project in preindustrial and quadrupled CO2 (4xCO2) forcing simulations provide a new opportunity to revisit this topic by overcoming the limitations mentioned above. In this study, we analyze this new model output to document the change, if any, in the frequency of SSWs under 4xCO2 forcing. Our analysis reveals a large disagreement across the models as to the sign of this change, even though most models show a statistically significant change. As for the near‐surface response to SSWs, the models, however, are in good agreement as to this signal over the North Atlantic: There is no indication of a change under 4xCO2 forcing. Over the Pacific, however, the change is more uncertain, with some indication that there will be a larger mean response. Finally, the models show robust changes to the seasonal cycle in the stratosphere. Specifically, we find a longer duration of the stratospheric polar vortex and thus a longer season of stratosphere‐troposphere coupling.