the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Southern Hemisphere Sudden Stratospheric Warmings Continue to Be Relevant Under Global Warming
Abstract. In 2019, a stratospheric warming event strongly disrupted the stratospheric circulation in the Southern Hemisphere. This disruption led to negative anomalies in the Southern Annular Mode that propagated down to the troposphere and contributed to hotter and drier conditions in Australia, culminating in a devastating fire season. Although such events have been rare in the past, it remains unclear how climate change will affect their occurrence and surface impacts in the coming decades. We conducted climate model time slice experiments to investigate how frequency and associated surface responses of Southern Hemispheric stratospheric warmings change under different global warming levels (present-day, 1.5 K, 2 K, 3 K, and 4 K). Additionally, we used an ensemble of historical experiments to confirm that our model simulations accurately capture the observed response to stratospheric warmings in the Southern Hemisphere. To investigate the change in stratosphere-troposphere coupling, we distinguish between downward- and non-propagating stratospheric events based on the Southern Annular Mode response on different atmospheric levels. Our findings show that the frequency of major stratospheric warmings remains close to the historical frequency up to a warming of 2 K before decreasing more significantly. The coupling between the stratosphere and the troposphere shows a large decrease only at the 4 K warming level. Hence, as long as global warming levels remain at intermediate levels, the possibility of sudden stratospheric warmings contributing to extreme events continues to be relevant and would add to heat-related stress in Australia and Southern Africa, making adaptation to global warming more challenging.
- Preprint
(6028 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6962 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3990', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Nov 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3990', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Apr 2026
Review for the submitted paper “Southern Hemisphere Sudden Stratospheric Warmings Continue to Be Relevant Under Global Warming» by Bischof et al
This paper investigates the role of Major and Minor Sudden Stratospheric Warmings (SSWs) in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) stratosphere on the surface climate during historical, present-day and future global warming levels.
For this an atmospheric general circulation model is used and set-up with prescribed forcing for Greenhouse gases, ozone, solar, land use, sea surface temperature and sea ice conditions. The paper includes interesting new aspects with respect to SSWs in the SH during a future warmer climate. However, the manuscript includes some significant shortcomings as further described below. If these can be adequately addressed the manuscript may be publishable.General comments:
-The introduction needs to be substantially revised to include the state of knowledge of Sudden Stratospheric Warmings in the Southern Hemisphere (see AMS JAS special issue in 2005, PREFACE in: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 62 Issue 3 (2005); Baldwin et al 2021 SSW Reviews of Geophys, and other key papers listed below). The authors/manuscript need to give credits to original references for SSWs in general and for Southern Hemispheric once. Both major and minor SSWs need to be introduced. More minor SSWs occurred in the SH which are not mentioned in the introduction nor in the rest of the paper. This needs to be also taken up in the results, discussion and conclusions of the paper. See further details below.
Major SSWs are frequently observed in the Northern Hemisphere stratosphere since their discovery in 1952 (Scherhag, 1952) with major events occurring every 2-3 years (i.e., Labitzke and van Loon 1999; Labitzke and Naujokat 2000 http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/SPARC/News15/15_Labitzke.html; Baldwin et al 2021). In contrast, only one major SSW was observed in the SH since regular monitoring of the stratosphere began with the International Geophysical Year in 1957 (Naujokat and Roscoe 2005; Simmons et al 2005; AMS JAS special issue on the major SSW in 2002 in the SH). However, minor SSWs which are defined with a rapid warming of the polar stratosphere within a couple of days reversal can occur several times per winter in the NH stratosphere and occasionally in the SH mid-winter as well.
Minor and Major SSWs in the SH (list may not be complete; AMS JAS special issue 2005 and add ons):
-September 1956 (Godson 1963; Naujokat and Roscoe 2005),
-July 1957 (Labitzke and van Loon 1965),
-July/August 1963 (Quiroz 1966; Julian 1967),
-August 1964 (Phillpot 1969),
-September 1967 (Phillpot 1969),
-July 1974 (Barnett 1974; Al-Ajmi et al. 1985),
-August/September 1988 (Kanzawa and Kawaguchi,1990; Hirota et al. 1990),
(-1991? and Sept 1992? (i.e., Poberaj et al 2011 JAS; Newman and Nash 2005 JAS) - minor SSWs?)
-September 2002 major SSW (AMS JAS special issue in 2005)
-September 2019 minor SSW (Liu et al 2022).
-The manuscript stays rather descriptive and misses physical and synoptical explanations, f.e., why the different changes for the surface response during different warming levels? How are the surface changes connected to synoptic patterns in the SH? What about the timing of ozone recovery versus the GHG increase impacts in relation to stratospheric temperature and wind and surface climate responses?-The authors seem to imply that the readers know their mentioned references already (f.e., Rao et al 2022 among others) and therefore understand their results presented here, for example on surface responses (Figures 5-6, 8-9). This could be improved i) by providing the basic facts and ii) by adding more clarifying panels to the figures as described below.
-For the model validation of SH major and minor SSWs more ERA5 data/graphics need to be added to i) validate the model and ii) for a better understanding; see detailed comments below.
-A discussion of the results is missing and would be very helpful for the readers including, f.e, model validation, model biases, physical reasons for the stratospheric and surface response changes during the different global warming-ozone recovery levels, synoptic details, SH dynamics of SSWs, and the relevance of SH SSWs given that their occurrences is so rare.
Specific comments:
-Introduction: Add minor SSW definition(s). The occurrence and frequency of minor SSWs in the SH need to be corrected and earlier events shall be added.
-Method: How can the model surface climate response be used in the results if the SST and sea ice fields are forced? Pls comment and discuss the limitations.
-Table 1: -Which period is used for ERA5? ERA5 data exists from the 1940s. -When were the “X”K levels reached and how does this relate to the ozone recovery and GHG levels? Pls add the details and discuss this point.
-Lines 135-136: Below a criterion is introduced which is different than here, pls clarify.
-Lines 138-140: Here a minor SSW criterion for the SH is mentioned following Rao et al (2022). How does this 20 m/s threshold-criteria compare with the original minor SSW criteria (WMO criteria, AMS JAS SH major SSW 2002 special issue) with a sudden warming in the polar stratosphere used in earlier papers for the SH? This needs explanations and careful revision.
-Figure 1: Which period is shown for ERA5? Pls add number of winters in both panels. Add panels to show the polar warming as well either with T90S or T_90S-60S at 10, 30, or 50 hPa. Add more years for ERA5 (before 1980) to show the other minor SSWs in the SH (see list above) as well.
-Figure 2: Add 2002 and 2019 as well to show the detailed evolution in comparison. What is shown model or ERA5 data? How many cases?
-Line177: Here the 20 m/s (at 60S, 10hPa) “Rao2022” criterion is used for both major and minor SSWs. Why is it different here compared to the one above?
-Figure 3: What is shown: model or ERA5? If the first, show ERA5 data and climatology as contours as well. What is different to Fig. 6a right?
-Figure 4: Which period and data are shown? How many cases? For the nSSWs composite, why is there a similar downward propagating pattern with negative anomalies in the troposphere between days 50-120?
-Lines 183-187: Connection to the synoptic situation? Why?
-Figure 5: Which period, how many cases?
-Figure 6: Which period, how many cases? Add ERA5 data for 2002 and 2019 as well. Why the difference in the anomaly patterns for the three composites? What is different for the nSSW composite compared for the other two once in terms of synoptic evolution?
-Table 2 & Fig 7: Add ERA5 in Table 2 as well. Why 0.44 in the 2K case; what is different here? Fig. 7: Are all SSWs (which criteria?) shown? Why the different evolution of SSWs onsets? Relate to > ozone recovery, GHG level, synoptics… > and discuss. This is interesting. Add the number of SSWs in the figure.
-Fig. 9: Interesting to see this. Are the surface impacts in the SH depending on ENSO? Add to the discussion. Add climatology as contours (also for the other figures or add climatologies in the supplement).
-Line 220; “find a higher frequency of nSSWs”. Why?
-Line 240: “impact by SH SSW is South Africa” Why and how? Also occurring in reanalyses /observations?
Add Discussion: -ozone recovery-GHG level timings, any QBO and ENSO impacts?
Conclusion:
-I would add a validation of the model here as well.
-Decrease of SSWs in 4K global warming levels. Why and when does it happen? > any link to the ozone recovery timing?
-Lines 284-286: No significant surface response for the 4K global warming level versus the 3K one. Why are they different? > any link to the ozone recovery timing?
-Lines 310-311: Show the ozone recovery and GHG levels timings together with the modelled changes of the SSWs responses to discuss and conclude this aspect.Refs:
-Line 314: Pls clarify if Garden 2022 is a Bachelor or a PhD thesis. See also reference in line 349.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3990-RC2
Data sets
Bischof et al. 2025 - Southern Hemisphere Sudden Stratospheric Warmings Continue to Be Relevant Under Global Warming S. Bischof et al. https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.16876611
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 861 | 783 | 49 | 1,693 | 82 | 30 | 33 |
- HTML: 861
- PDF: 783
- XML: 49
- Total: 1,693
- Supplement: 82
- BibTeX: 30
- EndNote: 33
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Comments on “Southern Hemisphere Sudden Stratospheric Warmings Continue to Be Relevant Under Global Warming” by Bischof et al.
Summary
This study uses a model to study the possible changes of the sudden warming in different scenarios at the present-day, historical, and different warming states. The SSW frequency in the southern Hemisphere is very low, and only one major SSW occurs in the Southern hemisphere based on the ERA5 since 1940. Even the data after 1979 are used to assess the SSW frequency, the frequency is once from 1979 now. The frequency is 1/45 once per year. However, the frequency in the model is much higher. This inconsistency should be included in the paper.
Major comments:
Other Comments: