1. Can the Stratosphere Control the Extratropical Circulation Response to Surface Forcing? Chris Fletcher and Paul Kushner Atmospheric Physics Group University of Toronto Canada Judah Cohen AER Inc., Lexington, MA, USA AGU Chapman Conference, Santorini. September 27, 2007. Thanks: Steven Hardiman (U Toronto), Michael Sigmond (UVic) and CFCAS funding

2. In this talk I will: Explain why we are still interested in Siberian snow cover Show results from a large ensemble of transient simulations using a low top model forced with anomalous Siberian snow extent Demonstrate the large variability in tropospheric responses to snow forcing Try to convince you that, to better predict how the troposphere will respond to snow forcing, you should look at the initial state of the stratosphere rather than the troposphere Conclude that it’s probably not just about snow

3. Why are we interested in Siberian snow? Snow forcing in autumn/fall is proposed as a source of seasonal predictability in the NH extratropics during winter Dynamical mechanism involves wave-mean flow interaction in the stratosphere Cohen et al. [2007]

4. Results from NCEP Reanalysis Cohen et al. [2007] Correlations ~0.5  suggests it’s unreliable Stratospheric circulation anomalies can arise without a clear tropospheric precursor

5. Results from NCEP Reanalysis Cohen et al. [2007] Correlations ~0.5  suggests it’s unreliable Stratospheric circulation anomalies can arise without a clear tropospheric precursor

6. Results from ECHAM3 low top AGCM Cohen et al. [2007] Gong et al [2003]

7. Motivation Cohen et al. [2007] Research Questions: 1.Can snow really act as a precursor to strat-trop interaction? 2.If so, are there conditions where interaction is more likely to occur? Reanalysis data are suggestive but not conclusive; r ~ 0.5 Previous modeling results are from a small ensemble, an old AGCM and with no information about response variability

8. GFDL AM2 low-top AGCM Full atmospheric GCM run in standard configuration for tropospheric seasonal/climate prediction: – Finite-volume dynamical core: 2 o x 2.5 o (lat x lon) – 24 vertical levels with lid at 1hPa; 4 above 100hPa – Rayleigh drag in top level sponge layer – Decorrelation timescales of NAM and geopotential height compare well with reanalyses

9. Experimental Design i.Set of 100 independent Oct 1st initial conditions from long pre- industrial control run: –Atmospheric composition = 1870 levels –Climatological SST / sea ice

10. Experimental Design i.Set of 100 independent Oct 1st initial conditions from long pre- industrial control run: –Atmospheric composition = 1870 levels –Climatological SST / sea ice ii.From each initial condition we fix snow mass at Oct 1st levels then run two new simulations Oct 1st - Dec 31st: (1) HIGH SNOW = Fixed Oct 1st snow + 40cm snow over Siberia (2) LOW SNOW = Fixed Oct 1st snow Oct 1st.......................Dec 31st HIGH SNOW k LOW SNOW k Initial Condition k Time: 40cm Siberia Snow Mass for Ensemble Member k

11. Experimental Design i.Set of 100 independent Oct 1st initial conditions from long pre- industrial control run: –Atmospheric composition = 1870 levels –Climatological SST / sea ice ii.From each initial condition we fix snow mass at Oct 1st levels then run two new simulations Oct 1st - Dec 31st: (1) HIGH SNOW = Fixed Oct 1st snow + 40cm snow over Siberia (2) LOW SNOW = Fixed Oct 1st snow iii.Response is defined as minus Oct 1st.......................Dec 31st HIGH SNOW k LOW SNOW k Initial Condition k Time: 40cm Siberia Snow Mass for Ensemble Member k

12. Surface Albedo Response Albedo response ~0.4-0.5 Snow Perturbation Region (typical January extent)

13. Early Surface Response to Snow Forcing Peak Cooling ~ 12 K in 2 weeks SLP maximum ~ 6 hPa

14. Polar Cap Height Response -25 15 70

15. Polar Cap Height Response -25 15 70 Response highly variable in the troposphere:

16. Can we Better Predict the Response? [Z] Initial Condition: 5 days before perturbation 48 -12 Following Reichler et al. [2005] Strongest and most significant ‘predictor’ is located in the lower stratosphere

17. Can we Better Predict the Response? [Z] Initial Condition: 5 days before perturbation Initially WARM Initially COLD 115 50 25 Following Reichler et al. [2005] Strongest and most significant ‘predictor’ is located in the lower stratosphere

18. Strat-Trop Interaction Diagnostic Snow forcing begins Oct 1st, but strat-trop interaction is associated with WAF pulses whose timing is difficult to predict: - Find strongest WAF pulses then look at lagged SLP response - Does strat. initial condition influence interaction? d1-50: Find day of max upward ∆WAF at 50 hPa Wait 10 days, then record 30-day mean ∆SLP (e.g. Polvani and Waugh [2004])

19. 30-day Mean ∆SLP Following WAF Pulses Init. WARM: 18/51Init. COLD: 20/49 (e.g. Polvani and Waugh [2004])

20. Annular Mode Response in SLP Init WARM Init COLD (e.g. Polvani and Waugh [2004])

21. Annular Mode Response in SLP Init WARM Init COLD Subtle difference in NAM probabilities, but focused in areas of low seasonal predictability (e.g. East Coast US, Northern Europe). p(NAM < -1.0): WARM = 0.18 COLD = 0.10

22. Conclusions 1.Can snow really act as a precursor to strat-trop interaction? -Response is highly variable but snow forcing does induce WAF pulses, causing strat. and trop. warming responses 2.Are there conditions where interaction is more likely to occur? -Initial condition in polar strat. provides useful predictor of trop. response to snow forcing (better than trop. predictor) -Similar freq of interaction in “Init WARM” and “Init COLD” cases -“Init WARM”: interaction events produce more systematic downward prop and negative NAM response 3.Is this really about the snow? -No. Results should also apply to SST/sea ice forcing

23. 1.Can snow really act as a precursor to strat-trop interaction? -Response is highly variable but snow forcing does induce WAF pulses, causing strat. and trop. warming responses 2.Are there conditions where interaction is more likely to occur? -Initial condition in polar strat. provides useful predictor of trop. response to snow forcing (better than trop. predictor) -Similar freq of interaction in “Init WARM” and “Init COLD” cases -“Init WARM”: interaction events produce more systematic downward prop and negative NAM response 3.Is this really about the snow? -No. Results should also apply to SST/sea ice forcing 4.Results suggest a dynamical mechanism 5.Limitations: strat. resolution/drag scheme, persistence? 6.Ongoing: do we observe the same behavior in a strat-resolving model? Initial findings: confusing… Conclusions Fletcher, C. G. et al. (2007) Geophys. Res. Let., In Press. Preprint: http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/cgf/

24. The end.

26. Northern Annular Mode in SLP Reanalysis Source: NCEP/CPC AM2

27. Zonal mean climatologies ERA-40AM2-strat. AM2-trop.