Ed Gerber

Ed Gerber

Professor at the Courant Institute

Extratropical Stratosphere-Troposphere Coupling

3 minute read

Published:

Please see our chapter on extratropical stratosphere-troposphere coupling, just submitted as Chapter 6 of the SPARC Reanalysis Intercomparison Project, S-RIP. I’m quite pleased by the final (or at least, submitted) product! Kudos to Patrick Martineau, my co-lead on this 17 author effort which started over 6 years ago. Six years ago, a far away time when I only had one kid. To say that I’m very relieved to have this submitted is an understatement!

This chapter assesses the representation of the two-way coupling between the troposphere and the stratospheric polar vortices in the reanalysis products. A broad range of time scales are evaluated, from sub-seasonal to decadal, with a particular emphasis on Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) events, which are among the clearest manifestations of coupling between the tropospheric and stratospheric circulations. Coupled variability on synoptic to seasonal time scales is evaluated by comparing the timing, evolution, and dynamical consistency of SSW events and Final Warming events, and the representation of the Annular Mode indices. Variability on interannual time scales is evaluated by comparing the modulation of sub-seasonal stratosphere-troposphere coupling by El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO). Finally, variability on decadal time scales is evaluated by comparing atmospheric circulation trends driven by the depletion of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica.

As the large scale circulation cannot easily be characterized from direct observations, this chapter has largely focused on the consistency between the reanalyses, asking the question: would the characterization of stratosphere-troposphere coupling provided by a given reanalysis differ from that provided by another? The internal self consistency of reanalyses has also been evaluated, allowing for more objective grading of the reanalyses. In the satellite era, there is generally good agreement among full-input reanalyses on stratosphere-troposphere coupling on synoptic to interannual time scales. In addition, conventional-input reanalyses in the Northern Hemisphere (and hence full-input reanalyses before the introduction of satellites) are fairly consistent as far back as 1958. There is, however, demonstrable evidence of improvement in the more recent reanalyses. While results in prior studies based on older reanalyses will generally not be significantly different from comparable results based on the modern reanalyses, due to large sampling uncertainty, we strongly recommend that users discontinue use of older reanalyses. The dominance of sampling uncertainty implies that our assessment of stratosphere-troposphere coupling is limited by the length of the reanalysis records. Consequently, the availability of high quality pre-satellite era reanalysis in the Northern Hemisphere reduces our uncertainty in the tropospheric response to SSWs by approximately 20%.

Among the more modern reanalyses, a consistent trend in the coupled stratosphere-troposphere circulation is found, associated with ozone loss in the austral hemisphere. Caution should always be employed in the assessment of decadal variations and trends in stratosphere-troposphere coupling, however, due to changes in the observational network. It also shown that uncertainties in older and conventional-input reanalyses increase with height, particularly above 10 hPa, and that satellite observations appear to be critical for an assessment of stratosphere-tropospheric coupling in the austral hemisphere. Finally, surface-input reanalyses have also been evaluated. While they should not be used in place of a full-input reanalysis, there is evidence that ERA-20C captures a substantial fraction of the variability between the troposphere and stratosphere, and so may be valuable for research into low frequency variations in stratospheric-troposphere coupling.

You May Also Enjoy

Stressed out jet streams!

1 minute read

Published:

Xingjian (Ken) Yan, a precocious undergraduate (now bound for a PhD at MIT) working with Lei Wang and I just submitted a paper exploring the utility of the traffic jam theory of blocking onset for perdiction to Geophysical Research Letters. Ken defined and explored “flux exceedance events”, meteorological situations where the jet stream gets overloaded with storm activity. Nakamura and Huang suggested that this overloaded jet situation creates a pile up storm activity – a traffic jam – leading to blocking events. Ken found that the climatological structure of exceedance events is remarkably similar to that of blocks, but that they appear to be distinct phenomenon: an overloaded jet stream is unfortunately not a reliable harbinger of an atmospheric block.

Protection without poison

1 minute read

Published:

Aaron Match developed a new theory for why the ozone layer is up in the stratosphere, reaching a maximum 26 km above the surface in paper submitted to the journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. In 1880, Walter Hartley deduced that ozone must be absorbing UV-B and UV-C radiation from the sun, but since it isn’t present at the surface (except in polluted air), this ozone must be somewhere “up there”. The stratosphere wasn’t discovered for a couple more decades, but it turns out that ozone that shields us from this harmful UV radiation is largely between 16 and 40 km above us. It’s a good thing its there: ozone is toxic. If it were uniformly distributed through the atmosphere, the concentration at the surface would be 8 times the EPA safety limit. Why is ozone safely up in the stratosphere, where it protects us without poisoning us? Advanced chemistry climate models can accurately predict the distribution of ozone, but in turns out our text book understanding of the ozone layer were incomplete and gave the wrong explanation for why it reaches a maximum in the stratosphere at 26 km.

Using Explainable AI and Transfer Learning to understand and predict the maintenance of Atlantic blocking with limited observational data

1 minute read

Published:

Huan Zhang submitted our paper on how to use machine learning to predict the persistence of blocking events to the new Journal of Geophysical Research Machine Learning and Computation, published by the AGU. Blocking events are persistent high pressure systems that “block” the flow of the jet stream. They are associated with extreme weather, as they shift the direction of storms, and, in summer, create heat domes that drive heat waves. A key element of a block is its persistence. Huan developed a convolutional neural network to predict whether an nascent blocking anomaly would persist, or fade away, and then interrogated the network to understand why it worked, and how it could be trained with the short observational record.

So, you have an imperfect data-driven parameterization for climate modeling. How can you make it better?

1 minute read

Published:

Minah Yang submitted a paper on how to combat data imbalance in regression problems to JAMES. The goal is to improve the performance of data-driven paramterizations, particularly for profiles that are rare, but important. This is a data imbalance problem: we need ensure that the parameterization works well on input-output pairs that are seldom seen in training. Minah proposes a technique based on histogram equalization, visualized below with help from Cece, Minah’s faithful companion! The idea is to oversample or reweight these rare cases during training, to ensure the method learns from them.