Was the strengthening of the Northern polar vortex in 2024/2025 associated with the Hunga Tonga eruption?

Kuchar, Ales; Stocker, Matthias; Bell, Alistair; Lehner, Bruno; Kult-Herdin, Jessica; Chiodo, Gabriel; Sukhodolov, Timofei; Rozanov, Eugene; Stober, Gunter; Rieder, Harald E.

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-406

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-406

Preprints

16 Feb 2026

| 16 Feb 2026

Was the strengthening of the Northern polar vortex in 2024/2025 associated with the Hunga Tonga eruption?

Ales Kuchar, Matthias Stocker, Alistair Bell, Bruno Lehner, Jessica Kult-Herdin, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, Eugene Rozanov, Gunter Stober, and Harald E. Rieder

Abstract. The 2022 Hunga Tonga (HT) eruption injected an unprecedented amount of water vapour (WV) into the stratosphere and mesosphere, emerging as a potential multi-year driver of variability in those layers and associated climate feedbacks. Using satellite and reanalysis datasets, and ensemble simulations with the SOCOLv4 model, with and without the HT forcing, we diagnose the chain of processes linking the eruption to the exceptionally strong Northern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex (SPV) observed in winter 2024/2025. Satellite data show "tongues" of enhanced WV (up to 2 ppmv above climatology) descending from the mesosphere into the polar stratosphere, collocated with ozone reductions and persistent cold anomalies of about 5–15 K, alongside a record-strong SPV. Our model can reproduce the main structure of the descending plume, its effects on chemistry, and the SPV strengthening, albeit with underestimated amplitudes and an earlier onset than observed. Offline radiative transfer calculations indicate that the WV and ozone anomalies drive net radiative cooling over the polar stratosphere, sharpening meridional temperature gradients and thereby intensifying the vortex. The observed 2024/2025 winter thus represents a plausible manifestation of HT-induced vortex variability, with simulations also indicating a shift toward sudden stratospheric warmings in the winter 2025/2026 as the WV forcing declines.

Received: 23 Jan 2026 – Discussion started: 16 Feb 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 3452 KB)

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 (3452 KB)

Supplement (26450 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

04 Nov 2026

Evidence for Hunga-Tonga eruption influence on the anomalously strong Northern-Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex in 2024/2025

Ales Kuchar, Matthias Stocker, Alistair Bell, Bruno Lehner, Jessica Kult-Herdin, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, Eugene Rozanov, Gunter Stober, and Harald E. Rieder

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 15479–15493, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-15479-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-15479-2026, 2026

Short summary

Ales Kuchar, Matthias Stocker, Alistair Bell, Bruno Lehner, Jessica Kult-Herdin, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, Eugene Rozanov, Gunter Stober, and Harald E. Rieder

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-406', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Mar 2026

Review of “Was the strengthening of the Northern polar vortex in 2024/2025 associated with the Hunga Tonga eruption?”, by Kuchar et al.
This study examines the impact of the water vapor anomaly from the January 2022 Hunga Tonga (HT) volcanic eruption on the Northern Hemisphere polar vortex, specifically focusing on the winter of 2024/2025. The paper compares the observed responses with simulations from the SOCOLv4 model with and without the HT forcing, using 10 ensemble members each. The authors show that the Northern polar stratosphere in winter 2024/2025 was characterized by the descent of a significant HT-induced water vapor anomaly (up to 2 ppmv) in MLS observations. The SOCOLv4 simulations, along with an offline radiative transfer model, are used to calculate the direct H2O radiative cooling and the indirect cooling caused by reduced shortwave ozone heating due to chemically induced ozone loss. The authors argue that this cooling then strengthened the meridional temperature gradient and the stratospheric polar vortex, which then inhibited wave forcing of the vortex, leading to a stronger than usual polar vortex throughout most of the 2024/2025 winter. The authors also suggest that the winter of 2025/2026 may have an increased probability for sudden stratospheric warmings as the HT water vapor anomaly diminishes.
General comments:
The paper presents some interesting results which are relevant within the scope of ACP. The possible link between the HT water vapor anomaly and the stronger than normal Northern polar vortex during the 2024/2025 winter (~3 years after the eruption) is of considerable interest. The SOCOLv4 model results qualitatively illustrate the possible mechanism(s) involved. However, I have some concerns about the interpretation and presentation of results where corrections and/or clarifications are necessary, as discussed below. I would characterize some of these as major revisions which should be addressed for the paper to be published.

Specific comments:
Abstract, L11-12: “...shift toward sudden stratospheric warmings in the winter 2025/2026 as the WV forcing declines.” Do the authors mean more SSWs here? As WV declines back towards pre-Hunga levels, one would expect stratospheric dynamics would also tend toward more “normal” pre-Hunga behavior, i.e., a tendency towards more frequent SSWs and a weaker SPV compared to 2024/2025. Please clarify.
L20: “WV inputs of HT were distributed…” – should specify what locations and time periods are being referred to here, e.g., Southern hemisphere subtropics in the days/weeks following the eruption (see the Hunga APARC report, section 2.3). Similar comment for the following sentence (L20-21), i.e., when were the positive residuals of WV over high latitudes.
L24: Return of stratospheric air to the troposphere at mid-high latitudes by the BDC is also likely an important sink of the H2O anomaly.
L36: Suggest changing to “linked to a stratospheric WV increase.” not “linked to the stratospheric WV increase.” since you’re not specifically talking about HT here.
L59: “…illustrate the enormous strength of the SPV.” Please be more specific here, i.e., I assume the authors are referring to the fact that although there is large variability, the SPV is generally stronger than average during ~December-February (2024/2025).
L59-74: The authors show MLS observations of water vapor, ozone, and temperature anomalies for the winters of 2024/2025 (Figure 2) and 2025/2026 (Figure A3). However, there is no discussion of the statistical significance of these results, for example, how these anomalies compare to the range of interannual variability (as done in Figure 1) seen over the MLS time period (2004-2025). The H2O anomaly from HT is quite large in 2024/2025, and is likely outside the range of variability and is therefore more easily detectable. But what about temperature and ozone? MERRA-2 temperature anomalies in the Northern polar region during winter 2015/2016 and 2021/2022 are not impacted by HT but show patterns similar to Figure 2. So are the patterns in 2024/2025 uniquely due to HT? Perhaps the HT forcing contributed to the observed responses in 2024/2025, with some partial attribution to natural variability. But this should be discussed and clarified.
Also, observations for the 2023/2024 winter are not shown. If the HT H2O had not yet reached the Northern polar region (or was too weak to drive a temperature/ozone response) in the 2023/2024 winter, it would be helpful to at least briefly mention this point.
L65: “negative ozone (< 0.5 ppmv) anomaly” is confusing, since this implies that ozone anomalies of 0 to + 0.5 ppmv are also negative.
L66-67: “descend downward” is redundant.
L68-70: “In March, we observe a significant increase in both temperature and ozone…”. However, the stratospheric ozone anomalies have both alternating positive and negative bands. Also, the temperature anomaly is positive only in the stratosphere, with a strong negative anomaly in the mesosphere. These points should be corrected/clarified.
L71: “The by then ….” Wording should be corrected.
L72-74: “The close correspondence between the WV and ozone anomalies and the diagnosed temperature response suggests that they are the primary drivers of the initial cooling observed in OW3.”
This point is not clear as written. The large WV anomaly in the stratosphere (> +1 ppmv) corresponds to both a positive ozone anomaly in early winter (as discussed on L67-68), and a negative ozone anomaly in Dec-Feb. And what is the “initial cooling observed in OW3”? Is this the cooling at the beginning of the winter? This cooling is rather weak in the plots shown. There is a correlation between the negative ozone and temperature anomalies in the middle and lower stratosphere during Dec-Feb. This appears to be due to weaker than normal wave driving as shown in Figure 1B. If so, this should be clearly discussed as a dynamical process, not radiative as is currently implied (L71-74).
L76-116: While the model H2O anomaly in Figure 3 is statistically significant throughout the winter, the model ozone, temperature, and zonal wind responses are significant only in small areas (Fig.3). This would imply that the HT-induced responses are not necessarily detectable above the background variability. This is not mentioned (as far as I could tell), but should be discussed.
L82: “… we understand MW3 as the upcoming OW4.” Wording is not clear. Perhaps: “we assume MW3 matches with the upcoming OW4.”? Or something to that effect?
L86-88: should clarify that the positive ozone anomaly is only for Sept.-Nov. and over a very narrow vertical extent. And this feature is shown by a very faint green color in Figure 3B and is hard to see. It would be good to make it a darker or more visible green if possible.
L88-89: should clarify that the weaker poleward transport is reflected by the EHF in Fig. 3D. But the negative ozone and temperature anomalies are mostly not statistically significant.
L94: “more muted” - suggest using “weaker” as this is more precise wording.
L128: need to define “EPP”
L190-191: “We report the Holton-Tan mechanism…” What is meant by this? Do you mean the model simulates qualitatively the Holtan-Tan mechanism? Please clarify.
Figure A1: SWOOSH appears to show a H2O anomaly of ~0.5 ppmv at 10-20 hPa in early 2022, whereas MLS shows a maximum of up to 2 ppmv in the global average at this time (APARC, 2025, Fig. S3.14). This is a big difference and should be noted/discussed and/or the SWOOSH data should be checked for accuracy here. Also, the contours overlaid on the shading are difficult to interpret. Suggest putting the SWOOSH data in a second panel with shading/contours consistent with the model.
L209: “in consequence of” should be “as a consequence of”
Figure A4: This needs more explanation. It took me some time to understand that the bottom, middle, and top rows are o3 only, h2o only, and o3+h2o, respectively. This needs to be explained clearly in the caption. Panels F and I are probably not necessary. I think it’s better just to clearly label what’s being input. And it needs to be stated that the x-axis scales are all different. This was also confusing. I assume the input o3 and h2o for 2024-10-10 are held constant throughout the 200-day integration? And is integrating for 200 days needed for convergence? And why was this specific date chosen, as opposed to sometime in mid-winter? This all needs to be clearly stated/discussed.
Figure A6: With the current colors, it is very hard to distinguish between the blue and green for easterly/westerly winds, especially since the dots are small. Suggest using red colors for the westerlies, or something with greater contrast for easterly/westerly. Also, the dots should be made larger. Should also mention/clarify in the caption that the dots correspond to each of the 10 ensemble members. And what time period does the 10hPa equatorial ZW correspond to? Is it the average over the winter? This should be clearly stated in the caption.
L246-249: The sentence: “A similar configuration occurred in OW3, when the QBO was also in its westerly phase” should be checked/corrected or clarified, since OW3 as I understand it (winter 2024/2025 according to Fig. 2) shows QBO easterlies in Figure A6.
And L250-251: It’s also unclear that “… the forced SPV response in MW2 arises from the HT-induced WV”. MW2 (2023/2024) has equatorial winds in the westerly QBO phase (Fig. A6) which create conditions that favor a stronger SPV as stated at the beginning of the paragraph. Perhaps both mechanisms contributed to the stronger SPV, but this needs to be clearly discussed.
L252-255: It would be interesting to know if reanalysis SLP in February 2026 show a pattern similar to the model in Figure A8.
Figure A8: To be clear, suggest adding “SOCOLv4” at the beginning of the caption right before “Monthly anomaly”.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-406-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ales Kuchar, 09 Jun 2026
  
  We thank the reviewer for his/her thoughtful comments and suggestions. Please see the attached supplement for our detailed responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-406-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-406', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Mar 2026

The paper poses the question of whether the Hunga Tonga eruption led to a strengthening of the Northern hemisphere polar vortex in winter 2024/2025. They argue that water vapor injected from the Hunga Tunga eruption makes its way into the polar vortex and starts a chain of processes that lead to a stronger polar vortex. They make use of satellite, reanalysis and model (SOCOLv4) datasets to support their mechanism. Whilst this paper is certainly addressing an important and timely problem and the topic could make a good contribution to the literature, there are some major methodological flaws that we would like to see addressed.
Major comments:
- Line 65 and Figure 2: There needs to be more evidence presented to link the water vapor anomaly to the ozone and temperature anomalies. We are not convinced that the ozone and temperature anomalies are actually collocated with the water vapor. Are these ozone and T anomalies large compared to the usual climate anomalies during strong vortex years?
- Radiative transfer calculations: Radiative–convective equilibrium (which is valid in the tropics) does not hold in the polar regions and is the correct calculation to use to diagnose the radiative heating rates. The relevant balance is radiative–advective equilibrium (Caballero and Merlis, 2025; Cronin and Jansen, 2015).
- Mechanistic explanation: the paper presents a variety of coincident observed & simulated variables to demonstrate influence on the SPV from WV anomalies. The mechanistic explanation is plausible but at present the paper does not clearly show a causal link. The response in simulation runs with a strong WV anomaly should be compared with runs with a weak WV anomaly to diagnose a different response. Other strong SPV years should be considered; is the response distinct from these years as a result of the increased WV?
- Line 129: “The key elements are the slow Brewer-Dobson descent of the HT WV anomaly, enhanced HOx and ClOx chemistry leading to … ozone loss” It is not clear to us where these statements are drawn from. It has not been clearly demonstrated that 1) the descent of the WV anomaly is slow and 2) HOx and ClOx chemistry are responsible for the ozone loss. Which months and at what height levels are these chemical cycles causing ozone loss? Is the heterogeneous chemistry adequately capturing these processes in the SOCOL model? Can you quantify how “slow” the WV anomaly descent is? A slower Brewer-Dobson circulation relative to climatology would be contradicted by the more rapid dissipation of the WV anomaly in the simulations.
Minor comments:
- Line 93: “These temperature anomalies are comparable with those … simulated” is contradicted by the following sentence and not reflected in figure 3C. The colourbar in 3C has too many levels to be easily interpreted, but it looks like a minimum temperature anomaly around -5K.
- Line 190: What exactly do you mean by “We report the Holton-Tan mechanism (Holton and Tan, 1980)”? Do you mean that you can demonstrate a strong link between the QBO phase and the strength of the polar vortex in your model?

References:
Caballero, R., and T. M. Merlis, 2025: Polar Feedbacks in Clear-Sky Radiative–Advective Equilibrium from an Airmass Transformation Perspective. J. Climate, 38, 3399–3416, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-24-0031.1.
Cronin, T. W., and M. F.Jansen (2016), Analytic radiative-advective equilibrium as a model for high-latitude climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 449–457, doi:10.1002/2015GL067172.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-406-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ales Kuchar, 09 Jun 2026
  
  We thank the reviewer for his/her thoughtful comments and suggestions. Please see the attached supplement for our detailed responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-406-AC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Ales Kuchar on behalf of the Authors (09 Jun 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 Jul 2026) by Matthew Toohey

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (10 Jul 2026)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (13 Jul 2026) by Matthew Toohey

I thank the authors for their replies to the review comments and the revised manuscript version. I have reviewed the reviewer comments, author replies and the revised manuscript, and the input from a third independent referee. All reviewers noted that the manuscript’s topic fits within the scope of ACP, and that the topic is important and timely. However, the initial reviewers also pointed to methodological flaws and issues with the interpretation and presentation of results, and provided major comments which they suggested should be resolved before the manuscript would be acceptable for publication in ACP. Based on the third reviewer’s assessment, and my own reading of the revised manuscript, I find the major comments are mostly adequately addressed and recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication subject to minor revisions. Please note that while the revisions are characterized as “minor”, this means only that the revisions will be assessed by the editor and not through another review, but that the importance of the revisions is not necessarily small.

Comments

1. The article did not meet the reviewer evaluation criteria necessary for publication as an ACP letter. Furthermore, the readability of the article suffered from the imposed constraints on length and figure number. The manuscript will be reclassified as a research article, and the authors are asked to reformat the article, incorporating the appendix text and figures into the main text.

2. In response to comments about the “statistic significance” of the results, the authors “therefore interpret the simulations as evidence for a forced tendency rather than deterministic grid-point attribution.” This statement is not easy to understand: “tendency” is often used to refer to a time derivative (e.g., a temperature tendency), especially in contexts where heating rates are examined, but I guess this is not the meaning that is intended. (I would guess the intended meaning is more related to the probability of a strong or weak vortex?) Clear explanation is especially important given some recent works that have called into question the purported links between volcanic and solar forcing and the polar vortex (e.g., Polvani et al., 2019; Chiodo et al., 2019). Also, what is “grid-point attribution”? Some careful rephrasing here is essential, and the room afforded by the move to the research article format should be used to be more explicit about the authors’ interpretation of the results.

3. Related to point 2, a main conclusion of the study is written that “the WV and ozone anomalies are, in combination, sufficient to generate substantial radiative cooling, which sharpens the meridional temperature gradient and strengthens polar stratospheric westerly winds”. This statement (line 134 of revised document) answers the question set out in the paper’s title, and is much more confident than the statement mentioned in point 2 above. However, there is no evidence shown in the manuscript to support the finding that the temperature gradient is sharpened. This seems to be inferred from the polar temperatures, but not shown explicitly. Please include information on the temperature gradient, or rephrase to be consistent with the evidence shown in the manuscript.

4. Concerning the article title, according to the ACP guidelines (https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/policies/guidelines_for_authors.html), “ACP prefers titles that highlight the scientific results/findings or implications of the study”. Using a question as a title is not explicitly forbidden according to the guidelines, but certainly it does not satisfy the intent of the guidelines to highlight the unique results/findings of the study. I would encourage the authors to choose a title which more closely aligns with the ACP guidelines, but also does not overstate the robustness of their results.

Please also address the comments of Reviewer 3:

Line, 86 How dependent are your results from the selection of the time interval?
Figure 9: The mean trajectory path in panel c) is difficult to read, maybe another color?
Figure 10: The red line lies with 50 hours so the test is a bit confusing
line, 357 the link is not working anymore
line, 366 Kroll et al (2021) is not cited anymore

References:

Chiodo, G., Oehrlein, J., Polvani, L. M., Fyfe, J. C., and Smith, A. K.: Insignificant influence of the 11-year solar cycle on the North Atlantic Oscillation, Nat. Geosci. 2019 122, 12, 94–99, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0293-3, 2019.

Polvani, L. M., Banerjee, A., and Schmidt, A.: Northern Hemisphere continental winter warming following the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption: reconciling models and observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 6351–6366, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-6351-2019, 2019.

Hide

AR by Ales Kuchar on behalf of the Authors (24 Jul 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (21 Aug 2026) by Matthew Toohey

Dear authors,

Thank you for the revised manuscript. With the reorganization based on the change in manuscript type, a few more minor issues have become apparent. Please address the following minor comments before possible acceptance.

L46: please rephrase this statement. First, the study cannot “seek”, you might write “the aim of this study is to…” Secondly, I find “extend the portfolio of pathways by which the HT eruption may have modulated stratospheric and mesospheric conditions” a bit strange. The goal should be to investigate what really happened, not to invent possible mechanisms.
L51: “what predictive power” or “what degree of predictive power”
L54: “a reanalysis data set”
L74: If the quality screening criteria are described in a citable document a citation should be included here.
L84: The description of the SOCOL simulations should be moved to the Methods section rather than the Data section.
L86: what is meant by HT forcing? Is it just a WV injection? How much WV, where injected, over what time period, spatial distribution? Was SO2 included as well, or prescribed stratospheric aerosols?
L87: “We can demonstrate” is difficult to deal with as a reader and editor. Do you mean it has already been demonstrated, in which case provide a citation. If this result is important to the present study and has not been previously published, then there should be evidence (e.g., a figure) provided to support it. If it is not central to the present study, I would suggest to cut the statement.
L93: It is hard or nearly impossible to identify the 0.5 ppmv contour on Fig 2 with the close spacing of the degrees of the color scale. Do you mean the labeled 0.8 ppmv contour? Please either label the 0.5 ppmv contour in the figure or rephrase in terms of 0.8 ppmv.
L95: It’s not quite clear here if the model bias is common to all models, or many models, or just different versions of SOCOL. There is room to expand this text for clarity, especially as it seems very important to the methodology of the study.
L103: the Konrad radiative convective model is introduced here, but not mentioned again in the manuscript. Later instances refer only to RRTMG. It remains unclear whether any of the capabilities of Konrad are used in the present study, or if it simply is a wrapper to the RT calculations of RRTMG. If this is the case, it would be necessary to rewrite this section as it would be more accurate to frame this as using RRTMG.
L104: On what evidence do you base the statement “these radiative calculations are robust for various solar zenith angles”?
L107: The student’s t-test is used to quantify the significance of anomalies, correct? This should be made clearer, and more details on the method given, i.e., how does the method differ for observations (when one compares I presume to the distribution of non perturbed conditions) and the paired simulations.
L110: The PW analysis described here is applied to the SOCOL output?
L151: I would suggest the phrasing “we argue that the winter MW2 in our simulations is comparable to OW3…”
L173: What line-by-line calculations are referred to here? No line-by-line model has been mentioned (RRTMG is a band model).

Hide

AR by Ales Kuchar on behalf of the Authors (01 Sep 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (18 Sep 2026) by Matthew Toohey

AR by Ales Kuchar on behalf of the Authors (25 Sep 2026) Manuscript

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-406', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Mar 2026

Review of “Was the strengthening of the Northern polar vortex in 2024/2025 associated with the Hunga Tonga eruption?”, by Kuchar et al.
This study examines the impact of the water vapor anomaly from the January 2022 Hunga Tonga (HT) volcanic eruption on the Northern Hemisphere polar vortex, specifically focusing on the winter of 2024/2025. The paper compares the observed responses with simulations from the SOCOLv4 model with and without the HT forcing, using 10 ensemble members each. The authors show that the Northern polar stratosphere in winter 2024/2025 was characterized by the descent of a significant HT-induced water vapor anomaly (up to 2 ppmv) in MLS observations. The SOCOLv4 simulations, along with an offline radiative transfer model, are used to calculate the direct H2O radiative cooling and the indirect cooling caused by reduced shortwave ozone heating due to chemically induced ozone loss. The authors argue that this cooling then strengthened the meridional temperature gradient and the stratospheric polar vortex, which then inhibited wave forcing of the vortex, leading to a stronger than usual polar vortex throughout most of the 2024/2025 winter. The authors also suggest that the winter of 2025/2026 may have an increased probability for sudden stratospheric warmings as the HT water vapor anomaly diminishes.
General comments:
The paper presents some interesting results which are relevant within the scope of ACP. The possible link between the HT water vapor anomaly and the stronger than normal Northern polar vortex during the 2024/2025 winter (~3 years after the eruption) is of considerable interest. The SOCOLv4 model results qualitatively illustrate the possible mechanism(s) involved. However, I have some concerns about the interpretation and presentation of results where corrections and/or clarifications are necessary, as discussed below. I would characterize some of these as major revisions which should be addressed for the paper to be published.

Specific comments:
Abstract, L11-12: “...shift toward sudden stratospheric warmings in the winter 2025/2026 as the WV forcing declines.” Do the authors mean more SSWs here? As WV declines back towards pre-Hunga levels, one would expect stratospheric dynamics would also tend toward more “normal” pre-Hunga behavior, i.e., a tendency towards more frequent SSWs and a weaker SPV compared to 2024/2025. Please clarify.
L20: “WV inputs of HT were distributed…” – should specify what locations and time periods are being referred to here, e.g., Southern hemisphere subtropics in the days/weeks following the eruption (see the Hunga APARC report, section 2.3). Similar comment for the following sentence (L20-21), i.e., when were the positive residuals of WV over high latitudes.
L24: Return of stratospheric air to the troposphere at mid-high latitudes by the BDC is also likely an important sink of the H2O anomaly.
L36: Suggest changing to “linked to a stratospheric WV increase.” not “linked to the stratospheric WV increase.” since you’re not specifically talking about HT here.
L59: “…illustrate the enormous strength of the SPV.” Please be more specific here, i.e., I assume the authors are referring to the fact that although there is large variability, the SPV is generally stronger than average during ~December-February (2024/2025).
L59-74: The authors show MLS observations of water vapor, ozone, and temperature anomalies for the winters of 2024/2025 (Figure 2) and 2025/2026 (Figure A3). However, there is no discussion of the statistical significance of these results, for example, how these anomalies compare to the range of interannual variability (as done in Figure 1) seen over the MLS time period (2004-2025). The H2O anomaly from HT is quite large in 2024/2025, and is likely outside the range of variability and is therefore more easily detectable. But what about temperature and ozone? MERRA-2 temperature anomalies in the Northern polar region during winter 2015/2016 and 2021/2022 are not impacted by HT but show patterns similar to Figure 2. So are the patterns in 2024/2025 uniquely due to HT? Perhaps the HT forcing contributed to the observed responses in 2024/2025, with some partial attribution to natural variability. But this should be discussed and clarified.
Also, observations for the 2023/2024 winter are not shown. If the HT H2O had not yet reached the Northern polar region (or was too weak to drive a temperature/ozone response) in the 2023/2024 winter, it would be helpful to at least briefly mention this point.
L65: “negative ozone (< 0.5 ppmv) anomaly” is confusing, since this implies that ozone anomalies of 0 to + 0.5 ppmv are also negative.
L66-67: “descend downward” is redundant.
L68-70: “In March, we observe a significant increase in both temperature and ozone…”. However, the stratospheric ozone anomalies have both alternating positive and negative bands. Also, the temperature anomaly is positive only in the stratosphere, with a strong negative anomaly in the mesosphere. These points should be corrected/clarified.
L71: “The by then ….” Wording should be corrected.
L72-74: “The close correspondence between the WV and ozone anomalies and the diagnosed temperature response suggests that they are the primary drivers of the initial cooling observed in OW3.”
This point is not clear as written. The large WV anomaly in the stratosphere (> +1 ppmv) corresponds to both a positive ozone anomaly in early winter (as discussed on L67-68), and a negative ozone anomaly in Dec-Feb. And what is the “initial cooling observed in OW3”? Is this the cooling at the beginning of the winter? This cooling is rather weak in the plots shown. There is a correlation between the negative ozone and temperature anomalies in the middle and lower stratosphere during Dec-Feb. This appears to be due to weaker than normal wave driving as shown in Figure 1B. If so, this should be clearly discussed as a dynamical process, not radiative as is currently implied (L71-74).
L76-116: While the model H2O anomaly in Figure 3 is statistically significant throughout the winter, the model ozone, temperature, and zonal wind responses are significant only in small areas (Fig.3). This would imply that the HT-induced responses are not necessarily detectable above the background variability. This is not mentioned (as far as I could tell), but should be discussed.
L82: “… we understand MW3 as the upcoming OW4.” Wording is not clear. Perhaps: “we assume MW3 matches with the upcoming OW4.”? Or something to that effect?
L86-88: should clarify that the positive ozone anomaly is only for Sept.-Nov. and over a very narrow vertical extent. And this feature is shown by a very faint green color in Figure 3B and is hard to see. It would be good to make it a darker or more visible green if possible.
L88-89: should clarify that the weaker poleward transport is reflected by the EHF in Fig. 3D. But the negative ozone and temperature anomalies are mostly not statistically significant.
L94: “more muted” - suggest using “weaker” as this is more precise wording.
L128: need to define “EPP”
L190-191: “We report the Holton-Tan mechanism…” What is meant by this? Do you mean the model simulates qualitatively the Holtan-Tan mechanism? Please clarify.
Figure A1: SWOOSH appears to show a H2O anomaly of ~0.5 ppmv at 10-20 hPa in early 2022, whereas MLS shows a maximum of up to 2 ppmv in the global average at this time (APARC, 2025, Fig. S3.14). This is a big difference and should be noted/discussed and/or the SWOOSH data should be checked for accuracy here. Also, the contours overlaid on the shading are difficult to interpret. Suggest putting the SWOOSH data in a second panel with shading/contours consistent with the model.
L209: “in consequence of” should be “as a consequence of”
Figure A4: This needs more explanation. It took me some time to understand that the bottom, middle, and top rows are o3 only, h2o only, and o3+h2o, respectively. This needs to be explained clearly in the caption. Panels F and I are probably not necessary. I think it’s better just to clearly label what’s being input. And it needs to be stated that the x-axis scales are all different. This was also confusing. I assume the input o3 and h2o for 2024-10-10 are held constant throughout the 200-day integration? And is integrating for 200 days needed for convergence? And why was this specific date chosen, as opposed to sometime in mid-winter? This all needs to be clearly stated/discussed.
Figure A6: With the current colors, it is very hard to distinguish between the blue and green for easterly/westerly winds, especially since the dots are small. Suggest using red colors for the westerlies, or something with greater contrast for easterly/westerly. Also, the dots should be made larger. Should also mention/clarify in the caption that the dots correspond to each of the 10 ensemble members. And what time period does the 10hPa equatorial ZW correspond to? Is it the average over the winter? This should be clearly stated in the caption.
L246-249: The sentence: “A similar configuration occurred in OW3, when the QBO was also in its westerly phase” should be checked/corrected or clarified, since OW3 as I understand it (winter 2024/2025 according to Fig. 2) shows QBO easterlies in Figure A6.
And L250-251: It’s also unclear that “… the forced SPV response in MW2 arises from the HT-induced WV”. MW2 (2023/2024) has equatorial winds in the westerly QBO phase (Fig. A6) which create conditions that favor a stronger SPV as stated at the beginning of the paragraph. Perhaps both mechanisms contributed to the stronger SPV, but this needs to be clearly discussed.
L252-255: It would be interesting to know if reanalysis SLP in February 2026 show a pattern similar to the model in Figure A8.
Figure A8: To be clear, suggest adding “SOCOLv4” at the beginning of the caption right before “Monthly anomaly”.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-406-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ales Kuchar, 09 Jun 2026
  
  We thank the reviewer for his/her thoughtful comments and suggestions. Please see the attached supplement for our detailed responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-406-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-406', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Mar 2026

The paper poses the question of whether the Hunga Tonga eruption led to a strengthening of the Northern hemisphere polar vortex in winter 2024/2025. They argue that water vapor injected from the Hunga Tunga eruption makes its way into the polar vortex and starts a chain of processes that lead to a stronger polar vortex. They make use of satellite, reanalysis and model (SOCOLv4) datasets to support their mechanism. Whilst this paper is certainly addressing an important and timely problem and the topic could make a good contribution to the literature, there are some major methodological flaws that we would like to see addressed.
Major comments:
- Line 65 and Figure 2: There needs to be more evidence presented to link the water vapor anomaly to the ozone and temperature anomalies. We are not convinced that the ozone and temperature anomalies are actually collocated with the water vapor. Are these ozone and T anomalies large compared to the usual climate anomalies during strong vortex years?
- Radiative transfer calculations: Radiative–convective equilibrium (which is valid in the tropics) does not hold in the polar regions and is the correct calculation to use to diagnose the radiative heating rates. The relevant balance is radiative–advective equilibrium (Caballero and Merlis, 2025; Cronin and Jansen, 2015).
- Mechanistic explanation: the paper presents a variety of coincident observed & simulated variables to demonstrate influence on the SPV from WV anomalies. The mechanistic explanation is plausible but at present the paper does not clearly show a causal link. The response in simulation runs with a strong WV anomaly should be compared with runs with a weak WV anomaly to diagnose a different response. Other strong SPV years should be considered; is the response distinct from these years as a result of the increased WV?
- Line 129: “The key elements are the slow Brewer-Dobson descent of the HT WV anomaly, enhanced HOx and ClOx chemistry leading to … ozone loss” It is not clear to us where these statements are drawn from. It has not been clearly demonstrated that 1) the descent of the WV anomaly is slow and 2) HOx and ClOx chemistry are responsible for the ozone loss. Which months and at what height levels are these chemical cycles causing ozone loss? Is the heterogeneous chemistry adequately capturing these processes in the SOCOL model? Can you quantify how “slow” the WV anomaly descent is? A slower Brewer-Dobson circulation relative to climatology would be contradicted by the more rapid dissipation of the WV anomaly in the simulations.
Minor comments:
- Line 93: “These temperature anomalies are comparable with those … simulated” is contradicted by the following sentence and not reflected in figure 3C. The colourbar in 3C has too many levels to be easily interpreted, but it looks like a minimum temperature anomaly around -5K.
- Line 190: What exactly do you mean by “We report the Holton-Tan mechanism (Holton and Tan, 1980)”? Do you mean that you can demonstrate a strong link between the QBO phase and the strength of the polar vortex in your model?

References:
Caballero, R., and T. M. Merlis, 2025: Polar Feedbacks in Clear-Sky Radiative–Advective Equilibrium from an Airmass Transformation Perspective. J. Climate, 38, 3399–3416, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-24-0031.1.
Cronin, T. W., and M. F.Jansen (2016), Analytic radiative-advective equilibrium as a model for high-latitude climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 449–457, doi:10.1002/2015GL067172.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-406-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ales Kuchar, 09 Jun 2026
  
  We thank the reviewer for his/her thoughtful comments and suggestions. Please see the attached supplement for our detailed responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-406-AC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Ales Kuchar on behalf of the Authors (09 Jun 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 Jul 2026) by Matthew Toohey

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (10 Jul 2026)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (13 Jul 2026) by Matthew Toohey

Hide

AR by Ales Kuchar on behalf of the Authors (24 Jul 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (21 Aug 2026) by Matthew Toohey

Hide

AR by Ales Kuchar on behalf of the Authors (01 Sep 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (18 Sep 2026) by Matthew Toohey

AR by Ales Kuchar on behalf of the Authors (25 Sep 2026) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

04 Nov 2026

Evidence for Hunga-Tonga eruption influence on the anomalously strong Northern-Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex in 2024/2025

Ales Kuchar, Matthias Stocker, Alistair Bell, Bruno Lehner, Jessica Kult-Herdin, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, Eugene Rozanov, Gunter Stober, and Harald E. Rieder

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 15479–15493, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-15479-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-15479-2026, 2026

Short summary

Ales Kuchar, Matthias Stocker, Alistair Bell, Bruno Lehner, Jessica Kult-Herdin, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, Eugene Rozanov, Gunter Stober, and Harald E. Rieder

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-406-supplement

Ales Kuchar, Matthias Stocker, Alistair Bell, Bruno Lehner, Jessica Kult-Herdin, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, Eugene Rozanov, Gunter Stober, and Harald E. Rieder

Viewed

Total article views: 5,639 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
3,340	2,126	173	5,639	501	133	202

HTML: 3,340
PDF: 2,126
XML: 173
Total: 5,639
Supplement: 501
BibTeX: 133
EndNote: 202

Views and downloads (calculated since 16 Feb 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2026	1,144	839	38	2,021
Mar 2026	1,161	782	64	2,007
Apr 2026	363	139	5	507
May 2026	193	111	8	312
Jun 2026	31	27	4	62
Jul 2026	96	30	5	131
Aug 2026	34	22	13	69
Sep 2026	124	74	21	219
Oct 2026	104	76	8	188
Nov 2026	90	26	7	123

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 16 Feb 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2026	1,144	839	38	2,021
Mar 2026	1,161	782	64	2,007
Apr 2026	363	139	5	507
May 2026	193	111	8	312
Jun 2026	31	27	4	62
Jul 2026	96	30	5	131
Aug 2026	34	22	13	69
Sep 2026	124	74	21	219
Oct 2026	104	76	8	188
Nov 2026	90	26	7	123

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 5,577 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 5,577 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 14 Nov 2026

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (3452 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

We investigated why the Northern Hemisphere winter polar vortex became unusually strong in the winter of 2024/2025. Using satellite and reanalysis datasets, and model simulations, we found that extra water erupted high in the atmosphere by the 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption led to cooling of polar latitudes of the upper atmosphere, helping the winds aloft intensify. This link suggests such volcanic eruptions can shape winters in the upper atmosphere for several years.

Was the strengthening of the Northern polar vortex in 2024/2025 associated with the Hunga Tonga eruption?

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Supplement

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0