the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Vortex Preconditioning of the 2021 Sudden Stratospheric Warming: Barotropic/Baroclinic Instability Associated with the Double Westerly Jets
Abstract. This study explores the abrupt split of the polar vortex in the upper stratosphere prior to a recent sudden stratospheric warming event on 5 January 2021 (SSW21) and the mechanisms of vortex preconditioning by using the Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications version 2 (MERRA2) global reanalysis data. SSW21 is preceded by the highly distorted polar vortex that was initially displaced off the pole but eventually split at the onset date. Vortex splitting is most significant in the mid-stratosphere (1 hPa altitude) accompanied by the anomalous growth of westward-propagating planetary waves (PWs) of zonal wavenumber (ZWN) 2 (WPW2). While previous studies have suggested the East Asian trough as a potential source for the abnormal WPW2 growth, the prominent westward-propagating nature cannot be explained satisfactorily by the upward propagation of the quasi-stationary ZWN2 fluxes in the troposphere. More importantly, WPW2 exhibits an obvious in-situ excitation signature within the barotropically and baroclinically destabilized stratosphere, dominated by the easterlies descending from the stratopause containing the WPW2 critical levels. This suggests that the vortex split is attributed to the WPW2 generated in situ within the stratosphere via instability. Vortex destabilization is achieved as the double-jet structure consisting of a subtropical mesospheric core and a polar stratospheric core develops into SSW21 by encouraging the anomalous dissipation of the upward-propagating tropospheric ZWN1 PWs. This double-jet configuration is likely a favorable precursor for SSW onset, not only for the SSW21 but generally for most SSWs, through promoting the anomalous growth of unstable PWs as well as the enhancement of the tropospheric PW dissipation.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(27017 KB)
-
Supplement
(3433 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(27017 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3433 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1044', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Jul 2023
Comments on “Vortex Preconditioning of the 2021 Sudden Stratospheric Warming: Barotropic/Baroclinic Instability Associated with the Double Westerly Jets” by Yoo et al.
Summary
In this study, the authors focus on the vortex preconditioning of the 2021 SSW. The paper emphasized the impacts of the double jet cores on the 2021 SSW. I reviewed this paper when it was submitted to another journal, and most of my concerns in previous reviews have been well addressed. Therefore, I have no major comments, and only several very minor revisions are required.Specific Comments:
1. L26: where => when2. L29: The tense in the first half sentence and the second half sentence is not consistent. Suggest to use the simple present tense.
3. L38: focuses => focuses on
4. L228-242: This paragraph should be moved to the “method” section.
5. There are too many plots in one figure, and the readability is still not good. Figure 1c can be further condensed and only typical days are shown. Many plots in Figures 3–5 are also duplicated from day to day.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1044-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ji-Hee Yoo, 04 Jul 2023
Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable comments on this manuscript. We will seriously consider your comments and will post responses to your comments/suggestions with the modified manuscript accordingly after the discussion period.
We would like to clarify one thing that this manuscript has never been peer-reviewed before. When we submitted the previous version of the manuscript to Geophysical Research Letters, the editor of GRL suggested us for submitting it to a more general article journal rather than letters, without sending the manuscript to the reviewers. We improved the original manuscript significantly for submission to ACP.
Once again, thanks for your support to our manuscript.
Sincerely.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1044-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ji-Hee Yoo, 04 Jul 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1044', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jul 2023
This manuscript presents a study on the dynamical mechanisms behind the stratospheric vortex split during the stratospheric sudden warming (SSW) that took place on January 5th, 2021 using the reanalysis MERRA2. The authors present strong pieces of evidence that support the interpretation of baroclinic/barotropic instability in the upper stratosphere as the cause of the explosive growth of the planetary wave-2 that led to the vortex split. Alternative dynamical mechanisms are also explored, such as wave propagation from the troposphere, wave growth by asymmetric gravity wave forcing, or resonance, but none of them were found to be consistent with the flow and wave fluxes evolution during the SSW onset.
I find that the analysis is thorough and the figures are clearly interpreted, and that the results make a strong case for internal stratospheric dynamics as a source of explosive wave growth during SSWs. I have only a few very minor comments, I recommend publication.
- Line 47. This needs to be changed, the latest major warming happened last winter, in February 2023.
- line 100: the level of 1 hPa is located around the stratopause, hence “upper stratosphere”.
- Lines 127-133. It seems to me that there is a bit of over-interpretation of Fig. 2a, the time-height evolution of EPFz is not entirely inconsistent with the theoretical vertical group velocity. Given the evidence provided in Figs. 2b and 3 on the decoupling between the wave-2 in the lower and upper stratosphere, there is no need to stretch the argument in Fig. 2a. Besides, I find it more compelling the fact that there appears a local EPFz maxima above 5hPa and lags-1 to 1, which cannot be explained by linear upward propagation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1044-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ji-Hee Yoo, 08 Jul 2023
Thank you sincerely for your thorough review and invaluable comments on this manuscript.
Following the discussion period, we will provide a response to each comment and carefully address your suggestions by making appropriate revisions to the manuscript.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1044-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ji-Hee Yoo, 08 Jul 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1044', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Jul 2023
Comments on “Vortex Preconditioning of the 2021 Sudden Stratospheric Warming: Barotropic/Baroclinic Instability Associated with the Double Westerly Jets” by Yoo et al.
Summary
In this study, the authors focus on the vortex preconditioning of the 2021 SSW. The paper emphasized the impacts of the double jet cores on the 2021 SSW. I reviewed this paper when it was submitted to another journal, and most of my concerns in previous reviews have been well addressed. Therefore, I have no major comments, and only several very minor revisions are required.Specific Comments:
1. L26: where => when2. L29: The tense in the first half sentence and the second half sentence is not consistent. Suggest to use the simple present tense.
3. L38: focuses => focuses on
4. L228-242: This paragraph should be moved to the “method” section.
5. There are too many plots in one figure, and the readability is still not good. Figure 1c can be further condensed and only typical days are shown. Many plots in Figures 3–5 are also duplicated from day to day.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1044-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ji-Hee Yoo, 04 Jul 2023
Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable comments on this manuscript. We will seriously consider your comments and will post responses to your comments/suggestions with the modified manuscript accordingly after the discussion period.
We would like to clarify one thing that this manuscript has never been peer-reviewed before. When we submitted the previous version of the manuscript to Geophysical Research Letters, the editor of GRL suggested us for submitting it to a more general article journal rather than letters, without sending the manuscript to the reviewers. We improved the original manuscript significantly for submission to ACP.
Once again, thanks for your support to our manuscript.
Sincerely.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1044-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ji-Hee Yoo, 04 Jul 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1044', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jul 2023
This manuscript presents a study on the dynamical mechanisms behind the stratospheric vortex split during the stratospheric sudden warming (SSW) that took place on January 5th, 2021 using the reanalysis MERRA2. The authors present strong pieces of evidence that support the interpretation of baroclinic/barotropic instability in the upper stratosphere as the cause of the explosive growth of the planetary wave-2 that led to the vortex split. Alternative dynamical mechanisms are also explored, such as wave propagation from the troposphere, wave growth by asymmetric gravity wave forcing, or resonance, but none of them were found to be consistent with the flow and wave fluxes evolution during the SSW onset.
I find that the analysis is thorough and the figures are clearly interpreted, and that the results make a strong case for internal stratospheric dynamics as a source of explosive wave growth during SSWs. I have only a few very minor comments, I recommend publication.
- Line 47. This needs to be changed, the latest major warming happened last winter, in February 2023.
- line 100: the level of 1 hPa is located around the stratopause, hence “upper stratosphere”.
- Lines 127-133. It seems to me that there is a bit of over-interpretation of Fig. 2a, the time-height evolution of EPFz is not entirely inconsistent with the theoretical vertical group velocity. Given the evidence provided in Figs. 2b and 3 on the decoupling between the wave-2 in the lower and upper stratosphere, there is no need to stretch the argument in Fig. 2a. Besides, I find it more compelling the fact that there appears a local EPFz maxima above 5hPa and lags-1 to 1, which cannot be explained by linear upward propagation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1044-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ji-Hee Yoo, 08 Jul 2023
Thank you sincerely for your thorough review and invaluable comments on this manuscript.
Following the discussion period, we will provide a response to each comment and carefully address your suggestions by making appropriate revisions to the manuscript.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1044-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ji-Hee Yoo, 08 Jul 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
228 | 85 | 19 | 332 | 35 | 7 | 7 |
- HTML: 228
- PDF: 85
- XML: 19
- Total: 332
- Supplement: 35
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Ji-Hee Yoo
Hye-Yeong Chun
Min-Jee Kang
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(27017 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3433 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper