• Attard, H. E., and A. L. Lang, 2019: The impact of tropospheric and stratospheric tropical variability on the location, frequency, and duration of cool-season extratropical synoptic events. Mon. Wea. Rev., 147, 519542, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0039.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Baldwin, M. P., and T. J. Dunkerton, 2001: Stratospheric harbingers of anomalous weather regimes. Science, 294, 581584, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1063315.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Birner, T., and J. R. Albers, 2017: Sudden stratospheric warmings and anomalous upward wave activity flux. SOLA, 13A, 812, https://doi.org/10.2151/sola.13A-002.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Charlton, A. J., and L. M. Polvani, 2007: A new look at stratospheric sudden warnings. Part I: Climatology and modeling benchmarks. J. Climate, 20, 449469, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3996.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Colucci, S. J., and M. E. Kelleher, 2015: Diagnostic comparison of tropospheric blocking events with and without sudden stratospheric warming. J. Atmos. Sci., 72, 22272240, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0160.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coy, L., and S. Pawson, 2015: The major stratospheric sudden warming of January 2013: Analyses and forecasts in the GOES-5 data assimilation system. Mon. Wea. Rev., 143, 491510, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00023.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coy, L., S. Eckermann, and K. Hoppel, 2009: Planetary wave breaking and tropospheric forcing as seen in the stratospheric sudden warming of 2006. J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 495507, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JAS2784.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • de la Cámara, A., J. R. Albers, T. Birner, R. R. Garcia, P. Hitchcock, D. E. Kinnison, and A. K. Smith, 2017: Sensitivity of sudden stratospheric warmings to previous stratospheric conditions. J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 28572877, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-17-0136.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Díaz-Durán, A., E. Serrano, B. Ayarzagüena, M. Abalos, and A. de la Cámara, 2017: Intra-seasonal variability of extreme boreal stratospheric polar vortex events and their precursors. Climate Dyn., 49, 34733491, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3524-1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Edmon, H. J., Jr., B. J. Hoskins, and M. E. McIntyre, 1980: Eliassen–Palm cross sections for the troposphere. J. Atmos. Sci., 37, 26002616, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037<2600:EPCSFT>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gelaro, R., and Coauthors, 2017: The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, version 2 (MERRA-2). J. Climate, 30, 54195454, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, 2015: MERRA-2 inst3_3d_asm_np: 3d,3-hourly,instantaneous,pressure-level,assimilation,assimilated meteorological fields v5.12.4. Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC), Greenbelt, MD, accessed 1 August 2016, https://doi.org/10.5067/QBZ6MG944HW0.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Hodges, K. I., 1994: A general method for tracking analysis and its application to meteorological data. Mon. Wea. Rev., 122, 25732586, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1994)122<2573:AGMFTA>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hodges, K. I., 1995: Feature tracking on the unit sphere. Mon. Wea. Rev., 123, 34583465, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1995)123<3458:FTOTUS>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Holton, J. R., 2004: An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology. 4th ed. Elsevier Academic Press, 535 pp.

  • Martius, O., L. M. Polvani, and H. C. Davies, 2009: Blocking precursors to stratospheric sudden warming events. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L14806, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038776.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nishii, K., H. Nakamura, and T. Miyasaka, 2009: Modulations in the planetary wave field induced by upward-propagating Rossby wave packets prior to stratospheric sudden warming events: A case study. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 135, 3952, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.359.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nishii, K., H. Nakamura, and Y. J. Orsolini, 2011: Geographical dependence observed in blocking high influence on the stratopsheric variability through enhancement and suppression of upward planetary-wave propagation. J. Climate, 24, 64086423, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-10-05021.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Polvani, L. M., and D. W. Waugh, 2004: Upward wave activity flux as a precursor to extreme stratospheric events and subsequent anomalous surface weather regimes. J. Climate, 17, 35483554, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<3548:UWAFAA>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Quiroz, R. S., 1986: The association of stratospheric warmings with tropospheric blocking. J. Geophys. Res., 91, 52775285, https://doi.org/10.1029/JD091iD04p05277.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rienecker, M. M., and Coauthors, 2011: MERRA: NASA’s Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications. J. Climate, 24, 36243648, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00015.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sanders, F., and J. R. Gyakum, 1980: Synoptic-dynamic climatology of the “bomb.” Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 15891606, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1980)108<1589:SDCOT>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tibaldi, S., and F. Molteni, 1990: On the operational predictability of blocking. Tellus, 42A, 343365, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v42i3.11882.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Woollings, T., A. Charlton-Perez, S. Ineson, A. G. Marshall, and G. Masato, 2010: Associations between stratospheric variability and tropospheric blocking. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D06108, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012742.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1188 368 19
PDF Downloads 629 163 15

Troposphere–Stratosphere Coupling Following Tropospheric Blocking and Extratropical Cyclones

Hannah E. AttardDepartment of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York

Search for other papers by Hannah E. Attard in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Andrea L. LangDepartment of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York

Search for other papers by Andrea L. Lang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

A climatology of the 100- and 250-hPa 45°–75°N zonal-mean meridional eddy heat flux anomaly, hereafter heat flux anomaly, was created to examine its variability following cool-season (i.e., October–April) blocks and extratropical cyclones. The goal is to elucidate the dynamical and environmental differences between synoptic events followed by the most extreme heat flux anomalies. The analysis was conducted with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, version 2 reanalysis. The results show that, on average, European blocks and west Pacific cyclones are followed by positive heat flux anomalies while west Pacific blocks and Atlantic extratropical cyclones are followed by negative heat flux anomalies. However, there was a large range of the 11-day-average heat flux anomaly following the events. Events in each region were further partitioned by their 100-hPa heat flux anomaly for a temporal and spatial analysis of the top and bottom quartile of events. Top-quartile events exhibited a baroclinic wave structure with height from the troposphere through the stratosphere, whereas bottom-quartile events were associated with a barotropic wave structure with height; these structures are significant at the 5% level. The results suggest that the sign of the heat flux anomaly is not dependent on the location of the synoptic event alone, but that there are common climatological and anomalous wave patterns surrounding the synoptic events that result in positive or negative heat flux anomaly. Regardless of event region, the precursor stratospheric structure is a key indicator in whether an event is followed by positive or negative 100-hPa heat flux anomalies.

Current affiliation: National Research Council Postdoctoral Associate/Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.

© 2019 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Andrea L. Lang, alang@albany.edu

Abstract

A climatology of the 100- and 250-hPa 45°–75°N zonal-mean meridional eddy heat flux anomaly, hereafter heat flux anomaly, was created to examine its variability following cool-season (i.e., October–April) blocks and extratropical cyclones. The goal is to elucidate the dynamical and environmental differences between synoptic events followed by the most extreme heat flux anomalies. The analysis was conducted with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, version 2 reanalysis. The results show that, on average, European blocks and west Pacific cyclones are followed by positive heat flux anomalies while west Pacific blocks and Atlantic extratropical cyclones are followed by negative heat flux anomalies. However, there was a large range of the 11-day-average heat flux anomaly following the events. Events in each region were further partitioned by their 100-hPa heat flux anomaly for a temporal and spatial analysis of the top and bottom quartile of events. Top-quartile events exhibited a baroclinic wave structure with height from the troposphere through the stratosphere, whereas bottom-quartile events were associated with a barotropic wave structure with height; these structures are significant at the 5% level. The results suggest that the sign of the heat flux anomaly is not dependent on the location of the synoptic event alone, but that there are common climatological and anomalous wave patterns surrounding the synoptic events that result in positive or negative heat flux anomaly. Regardless of event region, the precursor stratospheric structure is a key indicator in whether an event is followed by positive or negative 100-hPa heat flux anomalies.

Current affiliation: National Research Council Postdoctoral Associate/Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.

© 2019 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Andrea L. Lang, alang@albany.edu
Save