Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosres

Impact of the 2018 major sudden stratospheric warming on weather over

the midlatitude regions of Eastern Europe and East Asia
Yu Shi a, Oleksandr Evtushevsky b, Gennadi Milinevsky a, c, *, Xiaolong Wang d, **,
Andrew Klekociuk e, Wei Han a, Asen Grytsai b, Yuke Wang f, Lidong Wang d,
Bohdan Novosyadlyj a, g, Yulia Andrienko b
a
College of Physics, International Center of Future Science, Jilin University, 2699 Qianjin Str., Changchun 130012, China
b
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 60, Volodymyrska Str., Kyiv 01601, Ukraine
c
State Institution National Antarctic Scientific Center, 16, Taras Shevchenko Boulevard, Kyiv 01601, Ukraine
d
State Key Laboratory of Integrated Optoelectronics, College of Electronic Science and Engineering, International Center of Future Science, Jilin University, 2699 Qianjin
Str., Changchun 130012, China
e
School of Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences, University of Adelaide, 10 Pulteney Str., Adelaide 5005, Australia
f
Chang Guang Satellite Technology Co., Ltd, 1299, Mingxi Road, Changchun 130000, China
g
Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, 8, Kyryla i Methodia Str., Lviv 79005, Ukraine

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The impact of the Arctic major sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) in 2018 on regional cold weather in the
Sudden stratospheric warming northern midlatitudes is analyzed. Data from temperature observations in East Asia (Changchun, Northern
Air temperature China) and Eastern Europe (Kharkiv, Northern Ukraine) and NCEP–NCAR and ERA5 reanalyses are used. The
Tropopause descent
variability of the vertical meridional profiles of temperature, temperature anomalies, vertical velocities and
Vertical velocity
Cooling
geopotential height during two strong surface cooling events is compared. Weather anomalies in Changchun and
Weather anomaly Kharkiv appeared under strong vortex conditions with wave 1 dominance (the pre-SSW period in January) and
during vortex perturbation and split due to intensification of wave 2 (major SSW in February), respectively. The
results show that the positive stratospheric temperature anomaly migrated both downward to the lowermost
stratosphere at 200–300 hPa, and equatorward, reaching midlatitudes. In both events, the change in the
lowermost stratosphere heating was associated with a lowering of the tropopause by 2–3 km in 5–8 days. The
descent of the tropopause over Changchun (Kharkiv) was accompanied by a downward air motion so that the
midtropospheric layer at altitudes 4–5 km (3–4 km) and temperature − 20 ◦ C to − 30 ◦ C (− 10 ◦ C to − 20 ◦ C) was
pushed down to the surface. Observations showed that the surface temperatures during these events dropped by
18 ◦ C in Changchun and by 14 ◦ C in Kharkiv. Besides the altitudinal (3–5 km), the results indicate latitudinal
(near the climatological mean edge of the stratospheric polar vortex at ~60◦ N) location of the cold air source for
the occurrence of extreme low temperatures in East Asia and Eastern Europe. Preliminary analysis of cooling
events suggests a relatively smaller contribution of meridional surface transport of cold air to the midlatitudes
compared to its downwelling from the midtropospheric level. Possible mechanisms of strong surface cooling in
midlatitudes are discussed.

1. Introduction
Rapid changes in zonal circulation and temperature in the polar
stratosphere occur during sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) events.
The impact of these dramatic changes extends both vertically, down into
the troposphere and up into the mesosphere (Baldwin et al., 2021), and
horizontally into mid- and low latitudes (Chandran and Collins, 2014).
While the onset of SSW may develop over a few days, the main phase of
warming and the recovery phase can last for weeks and months,
respectively (Baldwin et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023). An SSW is caused by a
sharp increase in the amplitude of planetary-scale waves that propagate
upward from the troposphere and perturb the stratospheric polar vortex

* Corresponding author at: College of Physics, International Center of Future Science, Jilin University, 2699 Qianjin Str., Changchun 130012, China.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: milinevskyi@jlu.edu.cn (G. Milinevsky), brucewang@jlu.edu.cn (X. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2023.107112
Received 5 April 2023; Received in revised form 9 November 2023; Accepted 9 November 2023
Available online 13 November 2023
0169-8095/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Y. Shi et al.
(Butler et al., 2015). The main influences come from waves with zonal
wavenumbers m = 1 (wave 1) and m = 2 (wave 2), which act to shift the
vortex away from the pole or split it into two parts (Baldwin et al.,
2021).
In the Northern Hemisphere (NH), it is known that the upper-
stratospheric and lower-mesospheric anomalies are driven immedi­
ately following an SSW (Hitchcock and Shepherd, 2013), whereas
anomalies can descend downward into the troposphere on time scales of
weeks to months (Baldwin and Dunkerton, 2001; Thompson et al., 2002;
Wang et al., 2020). The stratosphere–troposphere coupling is the effect
of the extension of dynamically forced stratospheric wind anomalies
downwards into the troposphere, however, a complete understanding of
the mechanism has yet to be developed (Kodera et al., 1990; Kidston
et al., 2015; Baldwin et al., 2021). The tropospheric response to an
Arctic SSW is associated with anomalies in the Northern Annular Mode
(NAM) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and surface weather
anomalies, in particular, with the events of extremely low temperatures
described in many studies (Baldwin and Dunkerton, 2001; Kidston et al.,
2015; Nath et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2018; Karpechko et al., 2018; Charl­
ton-Perez et al., 2018; Domeisen et al., 2020; Lü et al., 2020; Xie et al.,
2020; Zhang et al., 2022).
Regional changes in the perturbed stratospheric vortex can induce
zonally asymmetric effects in the tropopause and the troposphere and
regionally asymmetric stratosphere–troposphere coupling (Thompson
and Wallace, 2000; Kodera et al., 2016; Hall et al., 2021; Kim and Kim,
2021). SSWs can also influence the troposphere by causing planetary
wave reflection (Kodera et al., 2016; Nath et al., 2016; Rupp et al.,
2022). As shown in Nath et al. (2016), planetary wave packets propa­
gated upward and were then reflected back down during the SSW 2013,
and led to the formation of extreme cold weather over the central Eur­
asia, covering Kazakhstan and Northwestern China.
It has previously been shown that displacement of the stratospheric
polar vortex can significantly affect troposphere–stratosphere coupling
and influence the occurrence of extreme cold events in East Asia (Lu
et al., 2022; Zhong and Wu, 2023). In the case of vortex splitting events,
these have promoted tropospheric circulation changes with a negative
Arctic Oscillation or NAO pattern that have produced extreme cold
events over Europe (Seviour et al., 2013; Lü et al., 2020).
Statistical studies show that about a third of observed major SSWs
can be unambiguously classified as split events and another third as
displacement events; for the rest of the events, the polar vortex both
displaces and splits within a period of several days (Baldwin et al., 2021,
and refences therein). The surface weather responses related to the 35
major SSWs over the period 1958–2010 are stronger following split
events (Lehtonen and Karpechko, 2016). On average, split events (under
amplification of wave 2) account for about 50% of SSWs and a surface
response can first appear within 2–3 days after their onset (Kidston et al.,
2015).
It was shown that the stratospheric anomaly can lead the surface
signal with a lag of around +3 days and surface anomalies can persist up
to 60 days (Domeisen et al., 2020). White et al. (2021) found that on
seasonal timescales (i.e., approximately longer than 3–4 weeks), the
tropospheric responses to displacements (due to wave 1 amplification)
and splits are indistinguishable. However, at lags closer to the SSW
onset, there are clear differences, with splits being associated with a
more barotropic NAM structure that extends deep into the troposphere,
whereas displacements are associated with a more gradual downward
propagation over ~ 10–15 days. Overall, vortex morphology is impor­
tant for determining the tropospheric response (Kidston et al., 2015;
Lehtonen and Karpechko, 2016; Domeisen et al., 2020).
In recent winters, particular variability has occurred in stratospheric
dynamics and vortex evolution and their resulting surface weather re­
sponses. As shown by Rao et al. (2020), the SSWs in 2018 (split event)
and 2019 (displacement followed by split) differed not only in their
morphology types but also in magnitudes (the former being stronger).
The observed strong SSW in February 2018 is more likely to have a
2
Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112
downward impact, as compared to the observed event in January 2019,
while the dominant wave number (the wave-2/wave-1 amplitude) is not
the primary factor determining the downward propagation of SSWs in
these events (Rao et al., 2020). In contrast to SSW occurred in early
January 2019, the strong surface cooling was observed in late January
2019 across much of the United States Midwest, which was explained by
the impact of the stratosphere through downward transport (Xiong
et al., 2022). An exceptionally strong and persistent vortex resulted in
the early February 2020 minor SSW (Manney et al., 2022). Due to weak
wave activity in the stratosphere associated with a quasi-simultaneous
reflection of both wave 1 and wave 2, a strong and zonally symmetric
polar vortex led to extreme Eurasian weather with anomalously high
temperatures in early 2020 (Rupp et al., 2022). This indicated the
generally robust dynamical coupling between stratosphere and tropo­
sphere in both directions (Rupp et al., 2022). During the SSW onset,
wave 2 split the vortex in early January 2021 (Lu et al., 2021). The SSW
2021 was attributed also to a mixture of the two event types, with the
vortex displaced long enough but not far enough south to be a
displacement event (Wright et al., 2021). Zhang et al. (2022) emphasize
the unique role of downward propagation of the major SSW on the
extreme cold wave in East Asia in early January 2021. The results by
Cohen et al. (2021, 2023) highlight an important type of stratospher­
e–troposphere coupling, stratospheric polar vortex stretching, that in­
volves wave reflection and stretching of the vortex in the winter of 2021
and is linked with extreme cold across parts of Asia and North America,
including the February 2021 Texas cold wave. Wright et al. (2021) show
that the early January SSW in 2021 may have acted as either a trigger or
an intensifier for several extreme winter weather events affecting
densely populated regions of the NH over the next 2 months. The au­
thors, however, conclude, that their analysis is not able to explain why
different regions may have been impacted at different times during the
SSW evolution.
Another circumstance that plays an important role in the connection
between the troposphere and stratosphere is their coupled thermal state,
which is usually realized through the tropopause. On synoptic and
monthly timescales, tropopause height variations are positively corre­
lated with tropospheric temperature variations and anticorrelated with
stratospheric temperature variations (Seidel and Randel, 2006). In
general, the tropopause ascent (descent) is related to a warming (cool­
ing) in the upper troposphere and a cooling (warming) in the lower
stratosphere, as well as to anticyclonic (cyclonic) systems in the tropo­
sphere (Thompson and Wallace, 2000; Seidel and Randel, 2006). The
tropopause pressure is closely related to the temperature difference
between lower stratosphere (100 hPa) and middle troposphere (500
hPa) (Zängl and Hoinka, 2001).
In this work, we analyze the 2018 Arctic SSW and the short-term
effects in the stratosphere–troposphere coupling that occurred during
the week following the event. As noted above, the SSW 2018 was
attributed to split event (Rao et al., 2020), however, the polar vortex
asymmetry evolved from a displacement type before the SSW to a
splitting type during the event (Xie et al., 2020). This occurred due to
alternate amplitude increases in wave 1 (vortex displacement) and wave
2 (vortex split) (Wang et al., 2019a). In February 2018 the largest
remnant of the vortex moved to the Western Hemisphere and Europe (Lü
et al., 2020). This contributed to regional differences in the tropospheric
weather response to the SSW. To extend and update the results of Wang
et al. (2019a, 2020), we compare the variability of vertical profiles of
temperature and geopotential height anomalies and vertical velocity
omega over the East Asia (Northern China, the Changchun region) and
the Eastern Europe (Northern Ukraine, the Kharkiv region) in February
2018. The strong cooling observed in Changchun in January 2018, in the
pre-SSW conditions, is considered in the context of stratosphere–­
troposphere coupling.
Y. Shi et al. Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112

2. Data and method

We focus on the weather conditions in regions near Changchun,

China (43.9◦ N, 125.3◦ E) and Kharkiv, Ukraine (50.0◦ N, 36.3◦ E) during
January–March 2018. Both stations report to the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) Global Telecommunications System (GTS), and are
thus available to be assimilated in reanalyses. The latitude/longitude
domains of 48–52◦ N/30–40◦ E (midlatitude Eastern Europe) and
42–46◦ N/120–130◦ E (midlatitude East Asia) for the regions of Kharkiv
and Changchun, respectively, are considered. Temperature and geo­
potential height anomalies in the stratosphere and troposphere are
analyzed based on the NCEP-NCAR reanalysis (NNR) data (Kalnay et al.,
1996) and the ERA5 reanalysis (Hersbach et al., 2020). Temperature
anomalies in the NNR and ERA5 time series and latitude–longitude grid
are presented relative to the 1991–2020 climatology. We first created
time–latitude, latitude–pressure and longitude–pressure cross sections
of the temperature anomalies with the climate plotting and analysis
tools available in NNR (https://psl.noaa.gov/data/getpage/). The re­
sults from the NNR data were then verified with the ERA5 data. In
addition, polar maps of the temperature in the stratosphere and tropo­
sphere are compared. Vertical velocities (omega) are also presented to
examine possible stratosphere–troposphere coupling. The tropopause
pressure data were obtained from the NCEP Global Data Assimilation
System GDAS at https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.ncep.html.
The reanalysis datasets were downloaded as netCDF files and plotted in
the same graphical representation using the NASA Panoply Data Viewer
(https://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/panoply/). The local temperature
variations are based on measurements at weather stations in Changchun
and Kharkiv shown by red curves in Fig. 1 (data from https://meteostat.
net/ for Changchun (WMO 54161) and Kharkiv (WMO 34300) weather
stations: https://meteostat.net/en/station/54161 and https://meteostat
.net/en/station/34300).
Fig. 1. Daily temperatures observed at weather stations (a) Changchun in East
Asia and (b) Kharkiv in Eastern Europe (red curves) in January–March 2018
3. Results compared with those obtained using the NNR (green curves) and ERA5 (blue
curves) reanalyses. Red vertical lines show the time of the SSW 2018 event.
3.1. Evolution of surface air temperatures These dates February 10 – March 01 were determined based on the reversal of
the 10 hPa zonal wind as used in (Wang et al., 2019a). Black (red) upward
The observed surface temperature is compared with temperature arrows 1–4 indicate significant cooling (warming). Downwards dashed arrows
from reanalyses NNR and ERA5 shown by green and blue curves, mark a temperature drop during strong cooling events. Black dashed curve
respectively, in Fig. 1. It is seen from Fig. 1 that the temperature vari­ shows daily climatology 1991–2020. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
ations from reanalyses are very similar to the observed ones. Correla­
this article.)
tions between three datasets are r = 0.94–0.99 and differences between
them are shown in Table 1. Differences indicate that, in January–March
2018, NNR overestimated (underestimated) observed values by 1.2 ± Table 1
1.6 ◦ C (− 2.3 ± 1.5 ◦ C) at Kharkiv (Changchun). ERA continuously Difference between daily surface temperatures (in ◦ C), observed at Changchun
overestimated observations by 1.1 ± 1.0 ◦ C (Changchun) and 1.8 ± and Kharkiv, and reanalyses NNR and ERA5 in January–March 2018.
1.1 ◦ C (Kharkiv). These differences are to some extent influenced by the
Difference Changchun Kharkiv
topography over the broader area represented by the reanalyses. The
NNR minus obs − 2.3 ± 1.5 1.2 ± 1.6
mean invariant geopotential height in the reanalysis grid boxes closest
ERA5 minus obs 1.1 ± 1.0 1.8 ± 1.1
to the stations is within approximately <100 m of the altitude of each ERA5 minus NNR 3.4 ± 1.2 0.6 ± 1.1
site. So, the temperature lapse rate, which is on the order of − 1 ◦ C for
each 100 m of altitude gained (e.g., Marshall and Plumb, 2008), likely
accounts for at least some of each temperature difference when − 16 ◦ C was observed in Kharkiv on 24–27 February, during the SSW
compared with the WMO GTS data. We examine changes in temperature (cooling 3, red curve in Fig. 1b). The temperature drop was 18 ◦ C in 5
over time, which are equally well represented in both reanalyses and days in Changchun and 14 ◦ C in 8 days in Kharkiv (downwards dashed
strongly correlated with observations. arrows in Fig. 1). Cooling 4 at both sites occurred during the SSW re­
Since we pay the main attention to regional cooling events, four cases covery phase in March. The general tendency of seasonal temperature
of temperature decrease at each of the stations are indicated by black increase in Kharkiv was observed in late February – March, however the
upward arrows 1–4 in Fig. 1 (hereinafter referred to as cooling 1 – temperature remained noticeably below climatological values (black
cooling 4). The two cases of significant temperature increase in dashed curve in Fig. 1b). This anomalous cooling by about 5–10 ◦ C
Changchun are marked by red upward arrows (Fig. 1a). In general, the suggests the influence of SSW on seasonal time scale, which is not clearly
temperature variability at the stations was different. In Changchun, a visible in Changchun (Fig. 1a).
strong minimum of − 26 ◦ C was observed on 24–25 January, in the pre- In this work, we present the manifestations of temperature anomaly
SSW period (cooling 2, red curve in Fig. 1a). Then the temperature changes in vertical time/latitude/longitude representations to deter­
increased relatively monotonously following the annual cycle of air mine whether surface anomalies can be related to stratospheric ones. A
temperature (black dashed curve in Fig. 1a). In contrast, a minimum of comparative analysis of temperature, geopotential height, and vertical

3
Y. Shi et al. Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112

velocity data is performed in terms of regional stratosphere–troposphere The polar vortex in January–February 2018 was generally shifted to
coupling in Eastern Europe and East Asia. the Western Hemisphere and Europe and split in two pieces with the
SSW onset: one centered over Canada, and the other migrating westward
from central Eurasia to western Europe between 11 and 15 February (Lü
3.2. Time–latitude temperature anomalies in January–March 2018
et al., 2020). Due to the asymmetry of the vortex relative to the pole and
the 6◦ latitude difference between the stations, the warm anomaly
Fig. 2 shows latitudinal changes of regional temperature anomalies
contour at 8 ◦ C in the lowermost stratosphere (T200; “lowermost
in January–March 2018. The longitude segments 30–40◦ E (Kharkiv re­
stratosphere” in terms of Holton et al. (1995)) extends south of 50◦ N
gion, left column in Fig. 2) and 120–130◦ E (Changchun region, right
(Fig. 2c) but does not quite reach 44◦ N (Fig. 2h). This suggests a possible
column) are compared. Anomalies at four pressure levels of 10, 100, 200
difference in the expected weather impact of the SSW at the two
and 500 hPa (panels T10, T100, T200 and T500, respectively) and at the
observation sites. In the troposphere, synoptic scales dominate in both
surface (panel T-surf) are presented.
the lifetime and the latitudinal extent of positive and negative anoma­
The SSW event is clearly seen in T10, T100 and T200 (Fig. 2) as the
lies, which thus appear more fragmented (from a few days to a week,
abrupt stratosphere warming between about 10 February and 1 March
panels T500 and T-surf) than in the stratosphere. All four coolings 1–4 in
2018 (red vertical lines), in correspondence with earlier studies (Rao
surface temperature, shown in Fig. 1, can be identified in time–latitude
et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019a; Butler et al., 2020; Rao et al., 2020; Lu
cross sections as negative temperature anomalies in T-surf at station
et al., 2021; Rao et al., 2021). The strongest anomaly of >18 ◦ C appears
latitudes (upward arrows 1–4 and rectangles in Fig. 2e and j). It is also
in the middle stratosphere (panel T10) and decreases to 12 ◦ C and 8 ◦ C in
seen from Fig. 2e and j that while coolings 1–2 in January (pre-SSW
the lower stratosphere (panels T100 and T200, respectively). It is seen
period) are approximately close in time at both stations, coolings 3–4
that time–latitude extension of warm anomaly in the Changchun
differ by a few weeks. Only cooling 3 in the Kharkiv region, which is the
segment (Fig. 2f–h) is less than in the Kharkiv region (Fig. 2a–c).

Fig. 2. The NH time–latitude air temperature anomalies at the pressure levels 10, 100, 200, 500 hPa and at the surface (panels T10, T100, T200, T500 and T-surf,
respectively) in January–March 2018, averaged in longitude segments (a–e) 30–40◦ E centered in Kharkiv and (f–j) 120–130◦ E centered in Changchun. The latitude
range covers the Northern Hemisphere, and station latitudes of 50◦ N (Kharkiv, left) and 44◦ N (Changchun, right) are marked by dashed horizontal lines. The red
vertical lines indicate the duration of SSW 2018. The black (red) upward arrows in (e) and (j) are placed at the time of cold (warm) surface anomalies at the
corresponding latitude. The strongest cold (warm) anomalies are shown by thick solid (dashed) contours marked in ◦ C for T10, T100 and T200; for T500 and T-surf,
contours are shown for ±5 ◦ C anomalies. Temperature anomalies are based on the NNR climatology 1991–2020. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

4
Y. Shi et al.
strongest (up to − 12 ◦ C, white rectangle in Fig. 2e; compare to − 14 ◦ C
by local observation in Fig. 1b) among eight cases, coincides with the
SSW, falling at the end of the event in late February. The strongest
cooling 2 in the Changchun region was between − 5 ◦ C and − 10 ◦ C
(white rectangle in Fig. 2j) and occurred in the second half of January
(pre-SSW period). It was associated with the intrusion of cold polar air as
seen from latitudinal and temporal shift of corresponding negative
anomaly. The latter was located at polar cap latitudes during the first
half of January and moved equatorward to the polar vortex edge and
into the midlatitudes during the cooling 2 event (Fig. 2j). Note that the
climatological mean latitude of the vortex edge defined by the westerly
maximum is about 60◦ N (Waugh et al., 2017). Similar evolution is also
observed in the appearance of coolings 1 and 3 at 44◦ N (Fig. 2j) and
cooling 4 at 50◦ N (Fig. 2e). Therefore, cooling 3 in the Kharkiv region
does not appear associated with polar intrusion and looks like mostly as
a midlatitude effect directly related to the SSW in February 2018.
Cooling 4 in the Changchun region arose immediately after the SSW
event (Fig. 2j), did not show an obvious connection with the polar air
mass and can be considered to have a connection with the regional
stratospheric influence.
Note that the two positive T-surf anomalies at Changchun latitude in
March (red upward arrows in Fig. 2j), are associated with two warmings
of up to 7 ◦ C and 16 ◦ C in Changchun in March (red upward arrows and
red curve in Fig. 1b).
3.3. Temperature vertical latitude and longitude variability during SSW
Variability of vertical profiles of temperature anomalies in the lat­
itudinal and longitudinal directions is presented in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 for
the Kharkiv and Changchun regions, respectively. The SSW period is
shown every other day from 20 to 28 February, which corresponds to the
surface cooling 3 in Fig. 2e (white rectangle). Upper panels show that
the latitudinal gradient in the positive stratospheric anomaly is steeper
over the Kharkiv region (Fig. 3a–e) than over the Changchun region
(Fig. 4a–e). In the latter case, this is the result not only of a shift of the
polar vortex to the Western Hemisphere noted in Section 3.1, but also of
the diagonal pattern in the T-anomaly distribution in Fig. 4 (upper
panel) with a poleward tilt between the lower and middle stratosphere.
This pattern indicates that the positive stratospheric anomaly
Fig. 3. Daily vertical profiles of air temperature anomalies in the troposphere–stratosphere in (a–e) latitude–pressure cross section (0–90◦ N, 1000–10 hPa), averaged
over the segment 30–40◦ E, and (f–j) longitude–pressure cross section (0–180◦ E, 1000–10 hPa), averaged in the zone 48–52◦ N; both ranges are centered on Kharkiv
coordinates (50◦ N, 35◦ E), indicated by vertical lines and open circles on the horizontal axis. Contour intervals are 4 ◦ C. The thick dashed curve shows the thermal
tropopause pressure. Temperature anomalies are based on the NNR climatology 1991–2020.
5
Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112
propagates downward and equatorward, which is visible also over the
Kharkiv region (Fig. 3, upper panel). In both cases, stratospheric warm
anomalies of 4–8 ◦ C extend to midlatitudes across station latitudes
(upper panels in Figs. 3 and 4), but they are concentrated at the higher
latitudes over the Changchun longitude segment (upper panel in Fig. 4).
The sensitivity of the latitudinal profiles of the tropopause to thermal
anomalies in the lowermost stratosphere is quite noticeable (dashed
curves in Figs. 3 and 4, upper panels). As the lower edge of the warm
anomaly descends, the tropopause sags and reaches its lowest height. In
the Kharkiv segment at latitudes near 50◦ N, tropopause height varies
between pressure levels of 300 hPa and 250 hPa, or about 9 km and 10
km on 20 and 22 February (Fig. 3a and b). It decreases then to the 400
hPa (~7 km) pressure level on 24 and 26 February (Fig. 3c and d),
lowering by 2–3 km during a week. Note that the typical height of the
winter tropopause in this region is 9–10 km (Zängl and Hoinka, 2001;
Seidel and Randel, 2006). On the same dates, the cold anomaly at the
surface intensifies from − 4 ◦ C to − 12 ◦ C. A similar interaction of the
positive stratospheric anomaly with the tropopause descent and surface
temperature decrease can be observed in the Changchun segment
(Fig. 4a–e). However, the cooling of the troposphere near the latitude of
the station was less strong, between − 4 ◦ C and − 8 ◦ C on 20, 22 and 24
February (Fig. 4a–c). The cooling here was even weaker near the surface
(0 ◦ C to − 4 ◦ C; Fig. 4, upper panel). This difference between regions
during the SSW corresponds to the difference in T-surf anomalies at
station latitudes (Fig. 2e and j, time interval between red vertical lines).
The stratosphere–tropopause–troposphere coupling, which is visible
from the longitudinal profiles, was the strongest in the Kharkiv region on
26 February (Fig. 3i). On this date, the surface negative anomaly was as
strong as in the latitudinal profile: − 8 ◦ C to − 12 ◦ C. The longitude
distribution of the surface anomaly in the Changchun region shows
weaker cooling, 0 ◦ C to − 4 ◦ C (Fig. 4, lower panel), consistent with the
results for latitudinal changes in Fig. 4 (upper panel) and T-surf in
Fig. 2j, as well as with the weak temperature oscillations observed in
Changchun during SSW (Fig. 1a, red curve between red vertical lines).
Longitudinally, vertical cross sections also show weaker positive
anomalies in the stratosphere (Fig. 4, lower panel) than in the Kharkiv
region (Fig. 3, lower panel) due to the vortex dynamics. As noted in
Section 3.1, the polar vortex in February 2018 was generally shifted to
the Western Hemisphere and Europe and this may explain the difference
Y. Shi et al.
Fig. 4. Daily vertical profiles of air temperature anomalies in the troposphere–stratosphere in (a–e) latitude–pressure cross section (0–90◦ N, 1000–10 hPa), averaged
over the segment 120–130◦ E, and (f–j) longitude–pressure cross section (0–180◦ E, 1000–10 hPa), averaged in the zone 42–46◦ N; both ranges are centered on
Changchun coordinates (44◦ N, 125◦ E), indicated by vertical lines and open circles on the horizontal axis. Contours for positive (negative) anomalies are shown by
solid (dashed) lines with a step of 4 ◦ C. The thick dashed curve shows the thermal tropopause pressure. Temperature anomalies are based on the NNR clima­
tology 1991–2020.
in the stratospheric influence on the tropopause level and surface
weather in the Northern Ukraine than in the Northern China.
Note that the tropopause elevates to about 100 hPa (16 km) over the
warm tropics and descends to about 300 hPa (9 km) in the polar region,
which is clearly visible from the meridional profiles in Figs. 3 and 4
(dashed curves in upper panels) and is consistent with the climatology
(Seidel and Randel, 2006).
Positive stratospheric T-anomalies in Figs. 3 and 4 are significantly
larger in magnitude and size than the tropospheric ones and appear
dynamically more active. They cause anomalous descent of the tropo­
pause, which is accompanied by troposphere cooling. Analyzing the pre-
SSW period, it was found that stratospheric disturbances could also
contribute to strong surface cooling observed in Changchun in January
2018 (cooling 2 in Fig. 1a). Fig. 5 demonstrates how the sharp move­
ment of the positive stratospheric anomaly downward (between the
middle and lowermost stratosphere) and equatorward (between the
polar and midlatitudes) from 19 to 24 January is accompanied by
changes in the height of the midlatitude tropopause and the temperature
of the troposphere. At the Changchun latitude (open circle and vertical
Fig. 5. The NH latitude–pressure cross sections of air temperature anomalies in
the Changchun segment (120–130◦ E) on (a) 19 January and (b) 24 January
2018, which illustrate stratosphere–troposphere coupling in a case of cooling 2
in Fig. 1a. Open circle and vertical line indicate Changchun latitude 44◦ N.
Temperature anomalies are based on the NNR climatology 1991–2020.
6
Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112
line in Fig. 5), the tropopause shifted downward from 230 hPa (Fig. 5a)
to 400 hPa (Fig. 5b), or from ~10 km to ~7 km over five days. At the
same time, the surface T-anomaly decreased from 0 ◦ C (that is, tem­
perature was close to the climatological mean) on 19 January to − 12 ◦ C
on 24 January (Fig. 5a and b, respectively). Cooling 2 in Fig. 2j was
associated with the intrusion of cold polar air into midlatitudes, and the
surface negative anomaly in Fig. 5 also shows similar equatorward
displacement from about 60◦ N (Fig. 5a) to 40–50◦ N (Fig. 5b). It is
interesting that the positive stratospheric anomaly crosses the tropo­
pause and penetrates into the subtropical troposphere (Fig. 5b) on the
date of a strong temperature minimum of − 26 ◦ C in Changchun (cooling
2 in Fig. 1a, red curve).
It is necessary to make some clarifications regarding estimates of the
degree of surface cooling. On the date of extreme cooling, the negative
surface anomaly reached − 12 ◦ C in the Changchun region (Fig. 5b) and
in the Kharkiv region (Fig. 3d and i), both covering the 4◦ × 10◦ lat­
itude–longitude domains. The observed temperature drop was between
− 8 ◦ C and − 26 ◦ C (by 18 ◦ C in 5 days) in Changchun in January and
between − 2 ◦ C and − 16 ◦ C (by 14 ◦ C in 8 days) in Kharkiv in February
(downwards dashed arrows in Fig. 1a and b, respectively). Therefore, a
rapid decrease in the height of the tropopause by 2–3 km in 5–8 days is
associated with a decrease in the local surface temperature by 18 ◦ C in
Changchun and by 14 ◦ C in Kharkiv. According to the larger extent and
magnitude of the stratospheric anomalies, as well as their higher dy­
namic activity, the strong winter coolings may be contributed by the
downward forcing caused by the rapid heating of the lowermost
stratosphere with a significant lowering of the tropopause above each of
the two stations (see Sections 3.4–3.6 for more details and Section 4 for
discussion). The noticeable strengthening of the negative tropospheric
anomaly towards the surface is also noteworthy (Fig. 3d and i and
Fig. 5b). This effect could be related to the so-called “surface amplifi­
cation” of the stratospheric signal observed in pressure over the polar
cap (Baldwin et al., 2019, 2021). Such a relation with respect to mid­
latitude tropospheric temperature can be analyzed separately in more
detail.
The results of Figs. 3–5 based on the NNR data are well reproduced
using the ERA5 data, both qualitatively and quantitatively (Supple­
mental Figs. S1–S3), in accordance with the general consistency of
reanalyses in Fig. 1 and Table 1.
Y. Shi et al.
3.4. Temperature extremes on polar maps
Next, we compare the geographic distribution of stratospheric and
tropospheric temperatures in pre-SSW and SSW cooling events using
polar maps based on the NNR data. Surface temperature minimum in
Changchun on 24 January (cooling 2 in Fig. 1a) appeared under zonally
asymmetric temperature extremes in the lowermost stratosphere (T200
in Fig. 6a). The areas of lowest and highest temperature (red contour
− 60 ◦ C and black contours − 48 ◦ C, respectively) are located on opposite
sides of the pole, approximately around meridians 0◦ E–180◦ E. One of
the localized temperature maxima is just above Changchun (white circle
inside black contour − 48 ◦ C). In the middle troposphere (T500 in
Fig. 6b), the cold area enclosed by the red contour − 30 ◦ C covers the
whole polar region and undulates over the middle latitudes. The tem­
perature minimum inside the contour of − 40 ◦ C stretches in a strip
across the pole along meridians 120◦ E–60◦ W (Fig. 6b) falling roughly
between the temperature extremes in T200 (Fig. 6a).
Geographically, the T200 and T500 temperature anomalies in the
pre-SSW period appear to be formed independently. Nevertheless,
Changchun is locally falls under two opposite regional extremes in the
lowermost stratosphere (temperature maximum) and middle tropo­
sphere (temperature minimum). This is consistent with altitudinal
alternation of temperature anomalies at the station latitude (contours
±8 ◦ C around vertical line in Fig. 5b). On the other hand, meridional
elongation of the T500 minimum − 40 ◦ C in Fig. 6b reaching Changchun
reflects the intrusion of cold polar air into the midlatitudes Similar effect
was observed from the latitudinal migration of negative temperature
Fig. 6. The NH temperature on (a, b) 24 January and (c, d) 26 February 2018
in (a, c) the lowermost stratosphere (T200) and (b, d) the middle troposphere
(T500) in polar projection. Temperature fields compare conditions for the time
of appearance of local temperature minimum in Changchun (pre-SSW period,
left) and Kharkiv (during SSW, right). Red and black contours outline the areas
of temperature minima and maxima, respectively. Black dashed contour in (d)
reproduces temperature maximum − 48 ◦ C in (c). White circles indicate location
of the stations and the thick solid circle shows the latitude 60◦ N. Temperature
fields are derived from the NNR data. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
7
Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112
anomalies in the troposphere and at the surface in January in Fig. 2i and
j and Fig. 5. In contrast to the pre-SSW period, during SSW there is a
clear spatial anticorrelation between the extremes in the T-fields in the
lowermost stratosphere and middle troposphere (Fig. 6c and d). The
temperature maximum of − 48 ◦ C in T200 (Fig. 6c), reproduced on the
polar map for T500 (dashed contour in Fig. 6d), coincides quite closely
with the temperature minimum of − 40 ◦ C. Both extremes are zonally
orientated and this stratosphere–troposphere interaction during SSW
can contribute to the temperature minimum in both the troposphere
over Kharkiv (white circle in Fig. 6d) and at the surface (cooling 3 in
Fig. 1b). As emphasized above in Subsection 3.2 (Fig. 2), cooling 3 in the
Kharkiv region does not appear associated with polar air intrusion, but is
closely coupled with the cold air mass in the vortex edge region near
60◦ N. This conclusion is supported by the limited latitudinal extent of
the elongated T500 minimum of − 40 ◦ C, which does not cover to polar
region (Fig. 6d).
The main property that distinguishes T-minima in the troposphere is
their meridional and zonal orientation in pre-SSW and SSW conditions
as seen from the T-fields in Fig. 6b and d, respectively, with an
approximately mirror image of the stratospheric T-maximum in the
latter case. Although the large-scale polar-to-midlatitude linkage is
different, the regional stratosphere–troposphere coupling in both cold
weather events is generally similar. It is further confirmed by the
structure of vertical air movements and the distribution of geopotential
height anomalies in Subsection 3.5.
3.5. Vertical movements during cooling events
Fig. 7 illustrates stratosphere–troposphere coupling in the two
cooling events using the pressure vertical velocity and air temperature
cross sections in the NH meridional plane averaged in the corresponding
segments. To compare changes in vertical profiles depending on weather
conditions, pairs of days with the coldest and previous warmest tem­
perature were selected based on the observations (Fig. 1). The compared
dates are January 15 and 24, 2018 for the Changchun region (Fig. 7, left)
and February 15 and 26, 2018 for the Kharkiv region (Fig. 7, right). If
approximately zero omega values at the station latitudes are observed in
the warm days (Fig. 7a and e), then positive values of 0.08–0.15 Pa s− 1
(Fig. 7b) and 0.05–0.10 Pa s− 1 (Fig. 7f) are presented by the omega
contours in the cold days at corresponding vertical lines. Increasing
pressure with time indicates descending movements between the
lowermost stratosphere (200–300 hPa, just above tropopause shown by
dashed curve) and the troposphere throughout its depth. This descent
can favor the penetration of air particles that are colder than in the
surrounding areas (Fig. 6b and d) into the lower tropospheric layers all
the way to the surface, causing cool weather.
The midlatitude omega maxima in their latitudinal location closely
coincide with the positive temperature anomalies in the lowermost
stratosphere (Section 3.3). Here, the tropopause shows a sharp descent
with a steeper meridional gradient just near the latitude of each station
(dashed curves in Fig. 7b and f). The lowered tropopause heights,
accompanied by downward motion of air (Fig. 7b and f), resemble the
conditions of stratospheric intrusions or tropopause folds (Holton et al.,
1995; Kim et al., 2001; Škerlak et al., 2015; Barnes et al., 2022; Xiong
et al., 2022). However, the stratospheric intrusions usually penetrate
into the middle troposphere and do not reach the surface, except for
extremely cold air outbreak (Xiong et al., 2022) or deep tropopause fold
(Škerlak et al., 2015) events. Circulation in the vertical plane includes
neighboring ascending branches located further south in the tropics or
subtropics (blue area in Fig. 7b and f, respectively). This pattern looks
like the midlatitude Ferrel cell in the tropospheric circulation (Liu,
2021), but demonstrates opposite direction. It is possible that the cool­
ing events are associated with the formation of a characteristic circu­
lation pattern in the meridional plane, as suggested by the results below.
The tropopause descent and air downwelling in the NH midlatitudes
are closely related to the vertical thermal transformation of the
Y. Shi et al. Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112

Fig. 7. The NH latitude–pressure cross sections of (a, b, e, f) vertical velocity omega (Pa s− 1) and (c, d, g, h) air temperature in (left) the Changchun segment
(120–130◦ E) and (right) the Kharkiv segment (30–40◦ E). The dates of the warmer and coldest weather conditions based on Fig. 1 are compared. Open circles and
vertical lines indicate Changchun (44◦ N) and Kharkiv (50◦ N) latitudes. The dashed curve shows the thermal tropopause pressure. The tropospheric layers associated
with the surface cooling events are outlined by thin white contours: − 20 ◦ C to − 30 ◦ C in (c, d) and − 10 ◦ C to − 20 ◦ C in (g, h) and thick black vertical and dashed
horizontal lines show the change in altitudinal location of these layers over Changchun and Kharkiv; temperature extremes are highlighted by signed contours. The
yellow curves in (g, h) indicate the latitude–altitude change in the position of the temperature minimum. The NNR data were used. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

atmospheric layers, which contributes to regional cooling at the surface.
Meridional temperature profiles between the dates of warmer and colder
surface weather show a 3–5 km descent of midtropospheric air to the
surface (Fig. 7c, d, g, h). In the Changchun segment, the temperature
layer of − 20 ◦ C to − 30 ◦ C (thin white contours in Fig. 7d) was respon­
sible for the strong temperature minimum of − 26 ◦ C observed in
Changchun on 24 January 2018 (cooling 2 on red curve in Fig. 1a). This
layer was much higher at Changchun on 15 January 2018 (500–600 hPa,
or about 4–5 km altitude; thin white contours − 20 ◦ C and − 30 ◦ C, black
vertical and dashed horizontal lines in Fig. 7c), when warmer temper­
ature − 10 ◦ C was observed (Fig. 1a, red curve). Similarly, the tem­
perature layer of − 10 ◦ C to − 20 ◦ C in the Kharkiv segment (30–40◦ E,
thin white contours in Fig. 7g and h) was responsible for the cold tem­
perature of − 16 ◦ C in Kharkiv on 26 February 2018 (cooling 3 on red
curve in Fig. 1b). It was at pressure levels 600–700 hPa (about 3–4 km)
on 15 February2018 (thin white contours − 10 ◦ C and − 20 ◦ C, black
vertical and dashed horizontal lines in Fig. 7g), when the observed
surface temperature was warmer, about − 5 ◦ C (Fig. 1b, red curve).
Thus, regardless of stratospheric vortex conditions, strong regional
cooling in the troposphere is accompanied by the descent of cold mid­
tropospheric air to the surface. At the Changchun latitude, the vertical
velocity estimated from the 9-day altitude decrease of the selected
troposphere layer (black vertical lines in Fig. 7c and d) was approxi­
mately 0.09 Pa s − 1. This value corresponds to the omega values at the
Changchun latitude on 24 January (0.08–0.15 Pa s − 1, Fig. 7b), on the
day of intensified air downwelling. The average estimated velocity for
the 11-day interval at the Kharkiv latitude was approximately 0.06 Pa s
− 1
(Fig. 7g and h) and this value falls within the range of 0.05–0.10 Pa s
− 1
on 26 February (Fig. 7f). The linear downward velocity of cold air
between the midtroposphere and the surface occurred at a velocity of
about 0.5 km day− 1 and 0.3 km day− 1 over the Changchun and Kharkiv
regions, respectively.
Meridional temperature profiles in Fig. 7d and h are in close agree­
ment with those in (Xiong et al., 2022, their Fig. 9, left) for the extreme

8
Y. Shi et al.
cooling event in late January 2019 based on the satellite and reanalysis
data. Xiong et al. (2022) provided direct evidence from satellite obser­
vations to confirm the impact of the downward transport on the cold air
outbreak process. In addition, our results in Fig. 7 allow to identify the
altitudinal location of the midtropospheric layer, the lowering of which
down to the surface contributes to the extreme surface cooling.
Lowering this layer looks like pushing it down to the surface in condi­
tions of consistent patterns in downward movement of the warm
stratospheric anomaly, the tropopause descent and general air mass
downwelling through the troposphere (Figs. 3–5 and Fig. 7). The change
in the shape of the isolines in Fig. 7c, d, g and h can be considered as a
large-scale deformation field observed during stratospheric intrusions
and tropopause folds (Holton et al., 1995). The dynamics of the strato­
spheric polar vortex in winter appears to be a determining factor
influencing surface weather through a chain of stratosphere–tropo­
sphere coupling processes, which are generally known from much pre­
vious works (Thompson et al., 2002; Haigh et al., 2005; Kidston et al.,
2015; Charlton-Perez et al., 2018; Domeisen and Butler, 2020; Xiong
et al., 2022). In our analysis, we tried to quantify some elements of this
chain.
3.6. Geopotential height anomalies and surface winds
Fig. 8 shows the latitude–pressure cross sections of geopotential
height anomalies in the two cooling events occurred in East Asia (top)
and Eastern Europe (bottom). In general, the magnitude and lat­
itude–altitude extents of positive Z-anomalies in the stratosphere are
Fig. 8. Latitude–pressure cross sections of geopotential height anomalies (Z-
anomalies, in m) in (a, b) the Changchun segment (120–130◦ E) on 19 and 24
January 2018 (for the dates in Fig. 5a and b, respectively) and (c, d) the Kharkiv
segment (30–40◦ E) on 22 and 26 February 2018 (for the dates in Fig. 3b and d,
respectively). Open circles and vertical lines indicate Changchun latitude 44◦ N
in (a, b) and Kharkiv latitude 50◦ N in (c, d), and contour intervals are ±82.5 m
and ± 75.0 m, respectively. The dashed curve shows the thermal tropopause
pressure. Z-anomalies are based on the NNR climatology 1991–2020.
9
Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112
larger during February 2018 SSW event (Fig. 8c and d) than in January
2018 pre-SSW conditions (Fig. 8a and b). This relationship corresponds
to larger positive T-anomalies in the stratosphere in Figs. 3 and 4 (upper
panels) compared to Fig. 5. The downward and equatorward motions of
positive and negative Z-anomalies in both events are similar, but they
are a more noticeable in the Changcun segment (Fig. 8, upper panel)
than in the Kharkiv segment (Fig. 8, lower panel). This difference ap­
pears to be related to a change in the spatial temperature distributions.
In January 2018, Changchun fell under a positive anomaly that rapidly
descended from the polar stratosphere to the midlatitude tropopause
(Fig. 5), with vertical and meridional components of motion. A merid­
ionally extended temperature minimum was observed in the tropo­
sphere (Fig. 6b). The zonally oriented temperature anomalies over
Kharkiv in February 2018 (Fig. 6c and d) were probably less favored for
the meridional component of movement in the lowermost stratosphere
and midtroposphere.
Negative Z-anomaly in the Changchun region (Fig. 8a and b) reflects
a deepening of the East Asia major trough, which is a climatological
midtropospheric cyclonic structure of low pressure (e.g. Wang et al.,
2010). On the western side, this structure causes northerly winds, which
promote the penetration of cold air masses from higher latitudes into the
middle latitudes and are accompanied by surface cooling (Wang et al.,
2010). Below the negative Z-anomaly, the surface low-pressure system
can be identified by counterclockwise circulation around its center L
marked on the surface vector wind map (Fig. 9a). The wind direction
indicates the presence of northwesterlies (NW) in the Changchun region
on 24 January 2018 (thick curved arrow in Fig. 9a). The NW wind in this
region is on the western side of the low-pressure system L (Fig. 9a),
which is consistent with the winter climatology for the East Asia region
Fig. 9. (left) The surface vector wind and (right) surface temperature in (a, b)
East Asia (20–70◦ N, 100–160◦ E) on 24 January 2018 and (c, d) Eastern Europe
(20–70◦ N, 10–70◦ E) on 26 February 2018. Black vertical and horizontal lines
indicate the coordinates of (top) Changchun and (bottom) Kharkiv, and the
curved arrows show the prevailing NW and NE wind directions over the station
regions, respectively. The letter “L” in (a, c) indicates the center of the low-
pressure system, with its characteristic counterclockwise circulation, as seen
from the vector directions. Temperature minima (maxima) in (b, d) are outlined
by signed white (black) contours and zero temperature is indicated by a
dashed contour.
Y. Shi et al.
(Wang et al., 2010, their Fig. 1). This wind direction contributes to the
advancement of the region of negative temperatures into the middle
latitudes, as can be seen from the contour of zero temperature (dashed
curve in Fig. 9b). It is possible to conclude about the regional influence
of the surface temperature minimum in the vortex edge region (~60◦ N)
on cooling in the midlatitude East Asia (Fig. 9b). Likewise, the north­
easterly (NE) winds in the Kharkiv region (thick curved arrow around
the low-pressure center L in Fig. 9c) contribute to surface cooling on 26
February 2018 (Fig. 9d). The minimum temperature in the Changchun
segment is about 10◦ lower, and negative temperatures are generally
colder than in the Kharkiv segment (white contours and dark and light
blue in Fig. 9b and 9d, respectively). This explains the stronger observed
cooling 2 in Changchun (Fig. 1a) compared to cooling 3 in Kharkiv
(Fig. 1b). Note that the location of the cyclone centers L and the struc­
ture of the surface vector winds in Fig. 9a and 9c generally correspond to
the location and shape of the low-pressure systems on the sea level
pressure maps (not shown).
As can be estimated from Fig. 7d and h, the latitudinal minimum
temperature near the surface at ~60◦ N was about 5 ◦ C colder than the
temperature around each of the stations. At the same time, the meridi­
onal component of the surface wind (v-wind) near the stations on the
extreme cold days ranged from − 1 m s− 1 to − 5 m s− 1 (not shown). This
results in a combination of relatively low temperature gradients with
weak northerlies, suggesting a comparatively smaller contribution of
meridional transport of cold air to surface cooling than the much colder
air downwelling from the 3–5 km tropospheric layer (thin white con­
tours in Fig. 7d and h). Recall, that the extreme cooling in these indi­
vidual events was by 14 ◦ C at Kharkiv and 18 ◦ C at Changchun (Section
3.1; downwards dashed arrows in Fig. 1). However, a more reliable
quantification of the relationship between the contribution of vertical
and horizontal thermal advection in extremely cold weather needs to be
made in future studies.
4. Discussion
4.1. Downward motion
We have described the regional manifestations of stratospheric
forcing in individual surface cooling events. Temperature variations in
East Asia (Changchun, Northern China) in January 2018 (the pre-SSW
period) and in Eastern Europe (Kharkiv, Northern Ukraine) in
February 2018 (the SSW period) appear to be largely influenced by
dynamical changes in stratospheric temperature patterns. According to
our results, the downward stratospheric forcing in the two considered
events played a greater role in the occurrence of cold weather (Sections
3.2–3.5) compared to the circulation of air masses at the surface (Section
3.6). There was a noticeable decrease in the tropopause height under the
influence of a positive stratospheric temperature anomaly that moved
equatorward (between the polar and midlatitudes to subtropics) and
downward (between the middle and lowermost stratosphere). Rean­
alysis ERA5 shows the anomaly patterns and magnitudes (Supplemental
Figs. S1–S3) very close to those from the NNR in Figs. 3–5. The tropo­
pause height is typically positively (negatively) correlated with the
tropospheric (stratospheric) temperature (Seidel and Randel, 2006). The
positive stratospheric T-anomalies in Figs. 3–5 are much more intense,
spatially extended and dynamically active than tropospheric ones of
both signs. This became the ground for an association of a sharp
decrease in the tropopause height precisely with the influence of the
warm anomaly in the lowermost stratosphere. In turn, the dynamics of
the stratospheric polar vortex is a determining factor in changes in the
warm stratospheric anomaly above the tropopause (Tomassini et al.,
2012; Baldwin et al., 2019; Xiong et al., 2022), as was confirmed by
zonally asymmetric patterns of the stratospheric temperature (Fig. 6a
and c).
Over 5–8 days, the tropopause descended by 2–3 km (Fig. 3c and
d and Fig. 5) to the 7 km altitude, or pressure level of ~400 hPa, and at
10
Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112
the same time the observed surface temperature decreased by 18 ◦ C
(cooling 2 in Changchun, Fig. 1a) and 14 ◦ C (cooling 3 in Kharkiv,
Fig. 1b). The tropopause descent to about 350–400 hPa (7–8 km) has
been observed in the events of stratospheric intrusions and tropopause
folds (Li et al., 2015; Škerlak et al., 2015; Xiong et al., 2022). The
stratosphere warming during the SSW events generally decrease the
tropopause height in the polar regions by 1.5–2 km and the stronger the
event is, the larger the influences of SSW events on the tropopause layer
are (Wang et al., 2023a). In this work, we described the vertical
sequence of processes that connect anomalous warming of the strato­
sphere with the tropopause descent, downward air movements in the
stratosphere–troposphere and the extreme surface cooling.
In both regional cooling events, the clear vertical air movements
between the lowermost stratosphere throughout the troposphere down
to the surface occurred (Fig. 7b and f). A large contribution to the surface
cooling is made by the downward displacement of the air of the middle
troposphere (Fig. 7c, d, g, h). In undisturbed conditions, this atmo­
spheric layer is several tens of degrees colder than at the surface due to
the negative vertical thermal gradient. Typically observed lapse rate is
about 6.5 ◦ C km− 1 (Stone and Carlson, 1979), and the troposphere at an
altitude of 3–5 km usually contains air with a temperature of about
− 20 ◦ C to − 30 ◦ C. Being pushed down to the surface (Fig. 7d and h), this
layer is capable of causing extreme cold weather. A nearly vertically
aligned temperature minimum is in the troposphere (yellow curves in
Fig. 7d and h) and the T-contours here significantly deformed and
deflected downward towards the surface. Such the change in the shape
of the isolines in Fig. 7 indicates a significant role of vertical thermal
coupling in the formation of extreme surface cooling in the midlatitudes.
This process, to quote Holton et al. (1995, p. 421), “may also to some
extent be regarded as the result of the systematic effect of the large-scale
deformation field”, inherent in the formation of stratospheric intrusions
and tropopause folds.
During cooling 2 in Changchun (Fig. 1a), which occurred in the pre-
SSW conditions, such a downward influence was especially noticeable
(Fig. 5, Fig. 7b, c, d). Rapid downward/equatorward propagation of the
positive temperature anomaly occurred in a large latitudinal range from
the polar middle stratosphere into the subtropical middle troposphere
(Fig. 5). It was accompanied by significant lowering of the midlatitude
tropopause by about 3 km, air descent between the lowermost strato­
sphere and troposphere up to the surface with omega velocity of about
0.1 Pa s− 1 (Fig. 7b) and strong surface cooling with negative anomaly of
− 12 ◦ C relative to the climatological mean (Fig. 1a and Fig. 5b).
Downward motions with omega values of the order of ~0.1 Pa s− 1 are
generally consistent with those observed during the formation of
stratospheric intrusions and tropopause folds (Meloen et al., 2003;
Škerlak et al., 2015; Tao et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2023b).
The downward transport of stratospheric air was found by the tem­
perature, wind and relative humidity measurements using the Cross-
track Infrared Sounder (CrIS) onboard Suomi National Polar-Orbiting
Partnership (SNPP) in late January 2019 cooling (Xiong et al., 2022).
It has been demonstrated that along the path of cold air transport,
particularly near the mid-latitude coldest surface center, there exists a
deep tropopause folding, lowest geopotential heights (from ERA-5
reanalysis), significant downward transport of stratospheric dry air,
and a warm center above the tropopause. Unlike the New Year’s SSW on
1–2 January 2019, which was classified as a non-downward propagating
event (Rao et al., 2020) with only minor surface effects (Butler et al.,
2020), extreme cold weather in late January 2019 across a large region
in the midwestern United States and Eastern Canada was associated with
stratosphere-to-troposphere transport (Xiong et al., 2022). Along the
path of stratospheric intrusion, ozone concentration was enhanced
(Xiong et al., 2022), which could be associated with an increase in air
temperature. However, the downward transport of cold stratospheric air
in this region ensured a lower temperature than in adjacent areas (Xiong
et al., 2022). These atmospheric circulation conditions are broadly
consistent with our results for i) anomalous regional descent of the
Y. Shi et al.
tropopause beneath the warm stratospheric anomaly, ii) downward
migration of negative T- and Z-anomalies, iii) downward vertical ve­
locity omega, and iv) descent of colder midtropospheric layers up to the
surface, leading to cold weather anomalies (Figs. 3–5 and Figs. 7 and 8).
Many atmospheric events show signs of intrusion of stratospheric air
into the troposphere and tropopause folding, which, however, are not
usually associated with surface cooling effects. Most of works on
stratospheric intrusions and tropopause folds analyze aspects of ozone,
water vapor, wind, cyclogenesis, precipitation (Holton et al., 1995; Kim
et al., 2001; Škerlak et al., 2015; Barnes et al., 2022; Xiong et al., 2022)
and do not highlight possible thermal effects. We emphasize that
although the downward movements occur through the stratosphere–­
troposphere, the extreme surface cooling can be directly related to the
cold air in the midtroposphere. Namely, our results indicate the location
of the midtropospheric layer at an altitude of 3–5 km, the descent of
which to the surface contributes to cold weather in both East Asia and
Eastern Europe. The overall quantitative and qualitative coincidence of
the results (Figs. 3–7) indicates in favor of fairly reliable establishment
of the process of rapid downwelling of atmospheric air during the
extreme cold weather. At the same time, there may be a meridional
(equatorward) component of air movement at the surface, which can
also contribute to the regional cooling (Section 3.6). However, accord­
ing to a preliminary estimate, this pathway appears to be less significant
compared to the downward stratospheric forcing.
4.2. Surface cooling mechanisms
The tropospheric response to SSW events is highly variable and
although well quantified statistically, is not completely understood in
detail (Kidston et al., 2015; Baldwin et al., 2021; Wright et al., 2021;
Rupp et al., 2022; Hall et al., 2023). Extreme cold weather conditions in
the boreal winter can occur due to tropospheric circulation anomalies
without any stratospheric connection (Wang et al., 2010; Li et al., 2019;
Wang et al., 2019b; Terpstra et al., 2021) and with a clear downward
influence of the stratospheric circulation on the surface weather
throughout much of the NH mid–high latitudes (Baldwin and Dunker­
ton, 1999; Thompson et al., 2002; Haigh et al., 2005; Kretschmer et al.,
2018; Rao et al., 2020; White et al., 2021; Lü et al., 2020; Lu et al.,
2022).
Analyzing the occurrence of cold spells over Northern Europe,
Tomassini et al. (2012) show that the lowered tropopause height is a
consequence of the warming in the lower stratosphere leading to a
compression of the tropospheric column below, appearance of wind
anomalies and advection of cold air from the north-east. Authors
conclude that initially vertically propagating planetary waves disturb
the stratospheric circulation in the polar region, causing strong strato­
spheric warmings, and the impact of the stratosphere on the troposphere
can be understood as dynamical response to these heating anomalies. A
decrease in the height of the tropospheric column as a result of strato­
spheric warming and a decrease in the height of the tropopause, as also
suggested in (Kim and Kim, 2021), may be related to tropospheric
anomalies.
The tropopause locates in the transition layer between the tropo­
sphere and stratosphere with the lowest air temperature, so called
tropopause cold-point region (Holton et al., 1995; Kim et al., 2013).
Figs. 7 and 9 demonstrate possibility of the coldest air, which resides in
the lowermost stratosphere and tropopause cold-point region, to
descend into the troposphere pushing the midtropospheric layers of air
down all the way to the surface and causing a cold weather anomaly.
Our results, thus, indicate the presence of a chain of vertical air move­
ments, which is associated with stratosphere–tropopause–troposphere
thermal interaction and the occurrence of cold weather events on a
regional scale not previously reported in the literature. The evolution of
the temperature anomalies and air masses in both pre-SSW and SSW
conditions appears to have occurred as a dynamical response to rapid
lowering of the tropopause during heating of the lowermost stratosphere
11
Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112
and descent of cold air from the tropopause and middle troposphere
regions. This process may also be involved in the phenomena of cold air
outbreaks, stratospheric intrusions and deep tropopause folds (Škerlak
et al., 2015; Xiong et al., 2022).
In term of ‘split–displacement’, the stratospheric polar vortex
evolved from a displacement type before SSW 2018 to a splitting type
during the event, and finally back to the displacement type (Xie et al.,
2020; Rao et al., 2021; Liang et al., 2022). This was a result of alternate
amplitude increase in planetary wave 1 (vortex displacement) and wave
2 (vortex split) (Wang et al., 2019a). In SSW 2018, the stratospheric
vortex was shifted to the Western Hemisphere and Europe (Lü et al.,
2020), However, the regional stratosphere–troposphere coupling in this
event was not associated with cold polar air, but with warm midlatitude
anomaly above the tropopause (Fig. 3 and Fig. 6a and c). The longitu­
dinal location of the maximum temperature in the lowermost strato­
sphere (Fig. 6c) determined a weaker weather response in the
Changchun region than in Kharkiv region during the SSW 2018. It was
found earlier that wave 1 causes vortex asymmetry with more persistent
shift to Eurasia in recent decades (Zhang et al., 2016). The SSW onset
and evolution in the conditions of the wave 1 amplification were
accompanied by vortex shift to northern Eurasia and the adjacent polar
ocean in more than three-quarters of the events (Li et al., 2023) and
strongest response to SSW is observed in the North Atlantic Basin
(Baldwin et al., 2021). The wave reflection during SSW 2013 led to the
formation of extreme cold weather over the central Eurasia (Nath et al.,
2016), whereas the vortex shift towards northern East Asia during SSW
2021 resulted in extreme low surface temperatures (Zhang et al., 2022).
These results are evidence of the diversity of regional manifestations
of SSW effects in weather depending on various factors influencing the
mechanisms of the downward forcing of the stratosphere (Domeisen
et al., 2020; Baldwin et al., 2021; Kolstad et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023).
Surface cooling is often associated with midlatitude cold air outbreaks
driven by horizontal thermal advection of cold Arctic air (Tomassini
et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2019b; Zhang et al., 2022). Our study highlights
the contribution of downward air motion in the occurrence of cold
weather phenomena, which is consistent with the impact of the strato­
sphere to the cold air outbreak process through the downward transport
observed by the satellite measurements (Xiong et al., 2022). In our re­
sults, the northerly wind component (Fig. 9) is associated with a nega­
tive Z-anomaly (Fig. 8) and cyclonic circulation (Fig. 9a and 9c). The
regions considered are located on the western side of low-pressure sys­
tems that favors the northerlies to contribute to the cold air advection
into the midlatitudes (Wang et al., 2010; Xiong et al., 2022). A
distinctive feature of our finding is that this southward transport path,
however, connects the midlatitude regions not with polar region, but
with the vortex edge region with a temperature minimum near 60◦ N
(yellow curve in Fig. 7d and h and arrows in Fig. 9b and 9d). Never­
theless, preliminary analysis suggests a comparatively smaller contri­
bution of meridional surface transport of cold air from this region to the
midlatitudes in comparison with the much colder air downwelling from
the 3–5 km tropospheric layer (Section 3.6). Our study highlights the
significant contribution of downward air motion in the occurrence of
cold weather phenomena, which is consistent with the impact of the
stratosphere to the cold air outbreak process through the downward
transport observed using satellite measurements (Xiong et al., 2022).
Many aspects of planetary wave propagation, stratosphere heating,
tropopause lowering and weather anomalies, which have been thor­
oughly studied in last decades (Kodera et al., 1990; Baldwin and Dun­
kerton, 1999; Thompson et al., 2002; Haigh et al., 2005; Škerlak et al.,
2015; Yu et al., 2018; Domeisen and Butler, 2020; Wang et al., 2023a),
are still open to researchers. Negative tropospheric anomalies tend to
deepen near the surface (Figs. 3d and 5b), so it is worth taking into
account the extent to which the surface amplification of the strato­
spheric signal (Baldwin et al., 2019, 2021) may act regardless of SSW
and polar region, say, in the pre-SSW winter conditions over the NH
midlatitudes. The contribution of the descent of cold midtropospheric
Y. Shi et al.
air (Fig. 7) may take place in suggested phenomenon. It also deserves to
be clarified how effect of compression of the tropospheric column below
the descended tropopause (Tomassini et al., 2012; Kim and Kim, 2021)
can manifest itself not only in the polar region but also in the mid­
latitudes. According to the results of this work, regionality and the chain
of cause-and-effect relationships in stratosphere–troposphere coupling
are important areas of research.
5. Conclusions
We compare the evolution of temperature anomalies in the strato­
sphere and troposphere in two strong surface cooling events occurred in
the winter 2018 in East Asia (the Changchun region, Northern China)
and Eastern Europe (the Kharkiv region, Northern Ukraine). They
developed under strong vortex conditions and wave 1 dominance (the
pre-SSW period in January) and during vortex perturbation and split due
to intensification of wave 2 (major SSW in February), respectively.
Analysis of vertical variability in temperature anomaly profiles in time,
as well as by latitude and longitude, show that in both cases surface
cooling appears mainly as a response to rapid tropopause descent under
influence of heating in the lowermost stratosphere.
In both cases, the positive anomaly in the stratospheric temperature
rapidly migrates between polar and midlatitudes and penetrates into the
lowermost stratosphere at 200–300 hPa. This change in the lowermost
stratosphere heating is associated with a lowering of the midlatitude
tropopause by 2–3 km in 5–8 days and appearance of negative surface
anomaly of about − 12 ◦ C. The maximum tropopause pressure increased
to 400 hPa (tropopause height decreased to ~7 km, while climatologi­
cally it is 9–10 km in midlatitudes). Below the lowered tropopause,
meridional temperature profiles demonstrate significant deformation
and deflection of the T-contours down to the surface. The cold mid­
tropospheric layer from altitudes of 3–5 km was pushed down to the
surface moving with a downward velocity of about 0.3–0.5 km day− 1.
Observations showed that the surface temperatures during these events
dropped by 18 ◦ C in Changchun and by 14 ◦ C in Kharkiv. To a large
extent, the cold air descent can be responsible for the thermal coupling
between the lowermost stratosphere – tropopause cold-point regions
and the surface on a synoptic time scale. Such cold weather events can
develop in both the pre-SSW conditions and the SSW conditions.
In both events, a sharp lowering of the tropopause was accompanied
by a negative regional geopotential height anomaly in the altitude range
of the lowermost stratosphere, tropopause and middle troposphere. The
Z-anomaly minimum in the meridional cross-section was located near
the climatological latitudes of the polar vortex edge (~60◦ N). It was
associated with the surface low-pressure system with cyclonic circula­
tion responsible for the northerly winds on its western side. The north­
erlies contributed to the cold air advection near the surface into the
midlatitudes. An important feature of our finding is that this southward
transport path, however, connected the midlatitude regions not with
polar region, but with the vortex edge region with a temperature min­
imum near 60◦ N, which served as a direct source of extremly cold air,
entering the midlatitudes both at the surface and at the midtroposphere
level. Preliminary analysis suggests a relatively smaller contribution of
meridional surface transport compared to the midtropospheric layer
downwelling. A detailed quantification of the relative roles of vertical
and horizontal transport of cold air masses in the emergence of
extremely low temperatures over East Asia and Eastern Europe in winter
2018 is a task for further study.
Comparisons of the NNR and ERA5 reanalyses demonstrate close
agreement between the temperature timeseries and vertical anomaly
profiles in their variability, patterns and magnitudes. The results show
general consistency with the concepts of compression of the tropo­
spheric column below the lowered tropopause, the surface amplification
of the stratospheric signal, the large-scale deformation field, which are
considered in the literature, but their possible effects in midlatitude
cooling events are less studied. Aspects of changes in the Northern
12
Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112
Annular Mode, zonal wind, Eliassen–Palm flux, tropospheric jet streams,
associated with SSW, remained beyond the scope of this work and
require further analysis.
Author contributions
Conceptualization, O.E., Y.S. and G.M.; methodology, O.E. and Y.W.;
data acquisition, O.E., Y.A., B.N. and Y.W.; software and related figures,
O.E., Y.A., and Y.S.; validation, O.E., Y.S., B.N. and G.M.; investigation
and interpretation, O.E., A.K., G.M., Y.A., L.W. and X.W.; writing-
original draft preparation, O.E., A.G., A.K. and G.M.; writing-review
and editing, O.E., A.K., Y.S., G.M., W.H. and A.G.; visualization, O.E.,
Y.W. and Y.A.; supervision, G.M. and X.W.; project administration, G.M.
and W.H. Each author contributed to the interpretation and discussion
of the results and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research has been supported in part by the Jilin University,
China (Grant Numbers: G2022129014L, 2020L024J00170).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the three anonymous reviewers for their careful
reading of our manuscript and their many important comments and
suggestions. This work was partially supported by the College of Physics,
International Center of Future Science, Jilin University, China, and by
the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine in the framework of
project BF30-2021 at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.
This work contributed to Project 4293 of the Australian Antarctic Pro­
gram, and to the National Antarctic Scientific Center of Ukraine research
objectives. NCEP–NCAR reanalysis data were provided by the NOAA/
OAR/ESRL PSD, Boulder, Colorado, USA, from their website at
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/. The tropopause pressure data were
obtained from the NCEP Global Data Assimilation System GDAS at http
s://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.ncep.html. ERA5 data produced by
the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) were obtained from the
ECMWF reanalysis at https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/
dataset/reanalysis-era5-pressure-levels?tab=overview.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2023.107112.
References
Baldwin, M.P., Dunkerton, T.J., 1999. Propagation of the Arctic Oscillation from the
stratosphere to the troposphere. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 30937–30946. https://doi.
org/10.1029/1999JD900445.
Baldwin, M.P., Dunkerton, T.J., 2001. Stratospheric harbingers of anomalous weather
regimes. Science 294, 581–584. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1063315.
Baldwin, M.P., Birner, T., Brasseur, G., Burrows, J., Butchart, N., Garcia, R., Geller, M.,
Gray, L., Hamilton, K., Harnik, N., Hegglin, M.I., Langematz, U., Robock, A., Sato, K.,
Scaife, A.A., 2019. 100 years of progress in understanding the stratosphere and
mesosphere. In: Chapter 27 in Meteorological Monographs, 59. https://doi.org/
10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-19-0003.1, 27.1–27.62.
Baldwin, M.P., Ayarzagüena, B., Birner, T., Butchart, N., Butler, A.H., Charlton-Perez, A.
J., Domeisen, D.I.V., Garfinkel, C.I., Garny, H., Gerber, E.P., Hegglin, M.I.,
Y. Shi et al.
Langematz, U., Pedatella, N.M., 2021. Sudden stratospheric warmings. Rev.
Geophys. 59, e2020RG000708 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020RG000708.
Barnes, M.A., Ndarana, T., Sprenger, M., Landman, W.A., 2022. Stratospheric intrusion
depth and its effect on surface cyclogenetic forcing: an idealized potential vorticity
(PV) inversion experiment. Weather Clim. Dynam. 3, 1291–1309. https://doi.org/
10.5194/wcd-3-1291-2022.
Butler, A.H., Seidel, D.J., Hardiman, S.C., Butchart, N., Birner, T., Match, A., 2015.
Defining sudden stratospheric warmings. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 96, 1913–1928.
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00173.1.
Butler, A.H., Lawrence, Z.D., Lee, S.H., Lillo, S.P., Long, C.S., 2020. Differences between
the 2018 and 2019 stratospheric polar vortex split events. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc.
146, 3503–3521. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3858.
Chandran, A., Collins, R.L., 2014. Stratospheric sudden warming effects on winds and
temperature in the middle atmosphere at middle and low latitudes: a study using
WACCM. Ann. Geophys. 32, 859–874. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-32-859-2014.
Charlton-Perez, A.J., Ferranti, L., Lee, R.W., 2018. The influence of the stratospheric
state on North Atlantic weather regimes. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 144, 1140–1151.
https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3280.
Cohen, J., Agel, L., Barlow, M., Garfinkel, C.I., White, I., 2021. Linking Arctic variability
and change with extreme winter weather in the United States. Science 373,
1116–1121. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi9167.
Cohen, J., Agel, L., Barlow, M., Garfinkel, C.I., White, I., 2023. Response to Limited
surface impacts of the January 2021 sudden stratospheric warming. Nat. Commun.
14, 3289. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38772-3.
Domeisen, D.I.V., Butler, A.H., 2020. Stratospheric drivers of extreme events at the
Earth’s surface. Commun. Earth Environ. 1, 59. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-
020-00060-z.
Domeisen, D.I.V., Butler, A.H., Charlton-Perez, A.J., Ayarzagüena, B., Baldwin, M.P.,
Dunn-Sigouin, E., Furtado, J.C., Garfinkel, C.I., Hitchcock, P., Karpechko, A.Yu.,
Kim, H., Knight, J., Lang, A.L., Lim, E.-P., Marshall, A., Roff, G., Schwartz, C.,
Simpson, I.R., Son, S.-W., Taguchi, M., 2020. The role of the stratosphere in
subseasonal to seasonal prediction: 2. Predictability arising from stratosphere-
troposphere coupling. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 125, e2019JD030923 https://doi.
org/10.1029/2019JD030923.
Haigh, J.D., Blackburn, M., Day, R., 2005. The response of tropospheric circulation to
perturbations in lower-stratospheric temperature. J. Clim. 18, 3672–3685. https://
doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3472.1.
Hall, R.J., Mitchell, D.M., Seviour, W.J.M., Wright, C.J., 2021. Tracking the stratosphere-
to-surface impact of Sudden Stratospheric Warmings. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 126,
e2020JD033881 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033881.
Hall, R.J., Mitchell, D.M., Seviour, W.J.M., Wright, C.J., 2023. Surface hazards in North-
west Europe following sudden stratospheric warming events. Environ. Res. Lett. 18,
064002 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acd0c3.
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J.,
Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., et al., 2020. The ERA5 global
reanalysis. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 146, 1999–2049. https://doi.org/10.1002/
qj.3803.
Hitchcock, P., Shepherd, T.G., 2013. Zonal-mean dynamics of extended recoveries from
stratospheric sudden warmings. J. Atmos. Sci. 70, 688–707. https://doi.org/
10.1175/JAS-D-12-0111.1.
Holton, J.R., Haynes, P.H., McIntyre, M.E., Douglass, A.R., Rood, R.B., Pfister, L., 1995.
Stratosphere-troposphere exchange. Rev. Geophys. 33, 403–439. https://doi.org/
10.1029/95RG02097.
Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kistler, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., Gandin, L., Iredell, M.,
Saha, S., White, G., Woollen, J., Zhu, Y., Chelliah, M., Ebisuzaki, W., Higgins, W.,
Janowiak, J., Mo, K.C., Ropelewski, C., Wang, J., Leetmaa, A., Reynolds, R.,
Jenne, R., Joseph, D., 1996. The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 77, 437–472. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0437:
TNYRP>2.0.CO;2.
Karpechko, A.Y., Charlton-Perez, A., Balmaseda, M., Tyrrell, N., Vitart, F., 2018.
Predicting sudden stratospheric warming 2018 and its climate impacts with a
multimodel ensemble. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45 https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018GL081091, 13,538–13,546.
Kidston, J., Scaife, A.A., Hardiman, S.C., Mitchell, M.D., Butchart, N., Baldwin, M.P.,
Gray, L.J., 2015. Stratospheric influence on tropospheric jet streams, storm tracks
and surface weather. Nat. Geosci. 8, 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2424.
Kim, J., Kim, K.-Y., 2021. The leading modes of NH extratropical tropopause variability
and their connection with stratosphere-troposphere variability. Clim. Dyn. 56,
2413–2430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05595-7.
Kim, K.-E., Jung, E.-S., Campistron, B., Heo, B.-H., 2001. A physical examination of
tropopause height and stratospheric air intrusion – a case study. J. Meteorol. Soc.
Jap. Ser. II. 79, 1093–1103. https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.79.1093.
Kim, J., Grise, K.M., Son, S.-W., 2013. Thermal characteristics of the cold-point
tropopause region in CMIP5 models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118 https://doi.org/
10.1002/jgrd.50649.
Kodera, K., Yamazaki, K., Chiba, M., Shibata, K., 1990. Downward propagation of upper
stratospheric mean zonal wind perturbation to the troposphere. Geophys. Res. Lett.
17 https://doi.org/10.1029/GL017i009p01263, 1263–1266. 90GL01408.
Kodera, K., Mukougawa, M., Maury, P., Ueda, M., Claud, C., 2016. Absorbing and
reflecting sudden stratospheric warming events and their relationship with
tropospheric circulation. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 121, 80–94. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2015JD023359.
Kolstad, E.W., Lee, S.H., Butler, A.H., Domeisen, D.I.V., Wulff, C.O., 2022. Diverse
surface signatures of stratospheric polar vortex anomalies. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.
127 https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037422.
13
Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112
Kretschmer, M., Cohen, J., Matthias, V., Runge, J., Coumou, D., 2018. The different
stratospheric influence on cold-extremes in Eurasia and North America. npj Clim.
Atmos. Sci. 44 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0054-4.
Lehtonen, I., Karpechko, A.Yu., 2016. Observed and modeled tropospheric cold
anomalies associated with sudden stratospheric warmings. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.
121, 1591–1610. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023860.
Li, D., Bian, J.C., Fan, Q.J., 2015. A deep stratospheric intrusion associated with an
intense cut-off low event over East Asia. Sci. China Earth Sci. 58, 116–128. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11430-014-4977-2.
Li, Y., Zhang, J., Lu, Y., Zhu, J., Feng, J., 2019. Characteristics of transient eddy fluxes
during blocking highs associated with two cold events in China. Atmosphere 10, 235.
https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10050235.
Li, Y., Kirchengast, G., Schwaerz, M., Yuan, Y., 2023. Monitoring sudden stratospheric
warmings under climate change since 1980 based on reanalysis data verified by
radio occultation. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 23, 1259–1284. https://doi.org/10.5194/
acp-23-1259-2023.
Liang, Z., Rao, J., Guo, D., Lu, Q., 2022. Simulation and projection of the sudden
stratospheric warming events in different scenarios by CESM2-WACCM. Clim. Dyn.
59, 3741–3761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06293-2.
Liu, R., 2021. Latest trends of atmospheric cells under global warming. IOP Conf. Ser.:
Earth Environ. Sci. 658, 012003 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/658/1/
012003.
Lü, Z., Li, F., Orsolini, Y.J., Gao, Y., He, S., 2020. Understanding of European cold
extremes, sudden stratospheric warming, and Siberian snow accumulation in the
winter of 2017/18. J. Clim. 33, 527–545. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-
0861.1.
Lu, Q., Rao, J., Liang, Z., Guo, D., Luo, J., Liu, S., Wang, C., Wang, T., 2021. The sudden
stratospheric warming in January 2021. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (8), 084029 https://
doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac12f4.
Lu, Q., Rao, J., Shi, C., Guo, D., Fu, G., Wang, J., Liang, Z., 2022. Possible influence of
sudden stratospheric warmings on the atmospheric environment in the
Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 22, 13087–13102. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-22-13087-2022.
Manney, G.L., Millán, L.F., Santee, M.L., Wargan, K., Lambert, A., Neu, J.L., Werner, F.,
Lawrence, Z.D., Schwartz, M.J., Livesey, N.J., Read, W.G., 2022. Signatures of
anomalous transport in the 2019/2020 Arctic stratospheric polar vortex. J. Geophys.
Res. Atmos. 127, e2022JD037407 https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037407.
Marshall, J., Plumb, R.A., 2008. Atmosphere, ocean, and climate dynamics: an
introductory text. In: International Geophysics Series, 93. Elsevier Academic Press,
Burlington, MA 01803, USA, p. 319. ISBN 978-0-12-558691-7.
Meloen, J., Siegmund, P., van Velthoven, P., Kelder, H., Sprenger, M., Wernli, H.,
Kentarchos, A., Roelofs, G., Feichter, J., Land, C., Forster, C., James, P., Stohl, A.,
Collins, W., Cristofanelli, P., 2003. Stratosphere-troposphere exchange: a model and
method intercomparison. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 8526. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2002JD002274.
Nath, D., Chen, W., Cai, Z., Zelin, C., Pogoreltsev, A.I., Wei, K., 2016. Dynamics of 2013
Sudden Stratospheric Warming event and its impact on cold weather over Eurasia:
Role of planetary wave reflection. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/
srep24174.
Rao, J., Ren, R., Chen, H., Yu, Y., Zhou, Y., 2018. The stratospheric sudden warming
event in February 2018 and its prediction by a climate system model. J. Geophys.
Res. Atmos. 123 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028908, 13,332–13,345.
Rao, J., Garfinkel, C.I., White, I.P., 2020. Predicting the downward and surface influence
of the February 2018 and January 2019 sudden stratospheric warming events in
subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 125, e2019JD031919
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031919.
Rao, J., Liu, S., Chen, Y., 2021. Northern Hemisphere sudden stratospheric warming and
its downward impact in four chinese CMIP6 models. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 38, 187–202.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-020-0250-0.
Rupp, P., Loeffel, S., Garny, H., Chen, X., Pinto, J.G., Birner, T., 2022. Potential links
between tropospheric and stratospheric circulation extremes during early 2020.
J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 127, e2021JD035667 https://doi.org/10.1029/
2021JD035667.
Seidel, D.J., Randel, W.J., 2006. Variability and trends in the global tropopause
estimated from radiosonde data. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D21101. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2006JD007363.
Seviour, W.J.M., Mitchell, D.M., Gray, L.J., 2013. A practical method to identify
displaced and split stratospheric polar vortex events. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40,
5268–5273. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50927.
Škerlak, B., Sprenger, M., Pfahl, S., Tyrlis, E., Wernli, H., 2015. Tropopause folds in ERA-
Interim: global climatology and relation to extreme weather events. J. Geophys. Res.
Atmos. 120, 4860–4877. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022787.
Stone, P.H., Carlson, J.H., 1979. Atmospheric lapse rate regimes and their
parameterization. J. Atmos. Sci. 36, 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469
(1979)036<0415:ALRRAT>2.0.CO;2.
Tao, W., Zhang, J., Zhang, X., 2017. The role of stratosphere vortex downward intrusion
in a long-lasting late-summer Arctic storm. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 143, 1953–1966.
https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3055.
Terpstra, A., Renfrew, I.A., Sergeev, D.E., 2021. Characteristics of cold-air outbreak
events and associated polar mesoscale cyclogenesis over the North Atlantic region.
J. Clim. 34, 4567–4584. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0595.1.
Thompson, D.W., Wallace, J.M., 2000. Annular modes in the extratropical circulation.
Part I: month-to-month variability. J. Clim. 13, 1000–1016. https://doi.org/
10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<1000:AMITEC>2.0.CO;2.
Thompson, D.J., Baldwin, M.P., Wallace, J.M., 2002. Stratospheric connection to
Northern Hemisphere wintertime weather: Implications for prediction. J. Clim. 15,
Y. Shi et al.
1421–1428. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<1421:SCTNHW>2.0.
CO;2.
Tomassini, L., Gerber, E.P., Baldwin, M.P., Bunzel, F., Giorgetta, M., 2012. The role of
stratosphere–troposphere coupling in the occurrence of extreme winter cold spells
over northern Europe. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 4, M00A03. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2012MS000177.
Wang, B., Wu, Z., Chang, C.-P., Liu, J., Li, J., Zhou, T., 2010. Another look at interannual-
to-interdecadal variations of the East Asian winter monsoon: the northern and
southern temperature modes. J. Clim. 23, 1495–1512. https://doi.org/10.1175/
2009JCLI3243.1.
Wang, Y., Shulga, V., Milinevsky, G., Patoka, A., Evtushevsky, O., Klekociuk, A., Han, W.,
Grytsai, A., Shulga, D., Myshenko, V., Antyufeyev, V., 2019a. Winter 2018 major
sudden stratospheric warming impact on midlatitude mesosphere from microwave
radiometer measurements. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 19, 10303–10317. https://doi.org/
10.5194/acp-19-10303-2019.
Wang, F., Vavrus, S.J., Francis, J.A., Martin, J.E., 2019b. The role of horizontal thermal
advection in regulating wintertime mean and extreme temperatures over interior
North America during the past and future. Clim. Dyn. 53, 6125–6144. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00382-019-04917-8.
Wang, Y., Evtushevsky, O., Milinevsky, G., Shulga, V., Yukhymchuk, Y., Han, W.,
Shulga, D., Grytsai, A., 2020. The major sudden stratospheric warming impact on
mid-latitude surface weather. EPJ Web Conf. 237, 04007. https://doi.org/10.1051/
epjconf/202023704007.
Wang, Y., Li, Y., Wang, G., Yuan, Y., Geng, H., 2023a. Influences of Sudden Stratospheric
Warming events on tropopause based on GNSS Radio Occultation data. Atmosphere
14, 1553. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14101553.
Wang, H., Wang, W., Shangguan, M., Wang, T., Hong, J., Zhao, S., Zhu, J., 2023b. The
stratosphere-to-troposphere transport related to Rossby wave breaking and its
impact on summertime ground-level ozone in Eastern China. Remote Sens. 15, 2647.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15102647.
Waugh, D.W., Sobel, A.H., Polvani, L.M., 2017. What is the polar vortex and how does it
influence weather? Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 98, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1175/
BAMS-D-15-00212.1.
14
Atmospheric Research 297 (2024) 107112
White, I.P., Garfinkel, C.I., Cohen, J., Jucker, M., Rao, J., 2021. The impact of split and
displacement sudden stratospheric warmings on the troposphere. J. Geophys. Res.
Atmos. 126, e2020JD033989 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033989.
Wright, C.J., Hall, R.J., Banyard, T.P., Hindley, N.P., Krisch, I., Mitchell, D.M.,
Seviour, W.J.M., 2021. Dynamical and surface impacts of the January 2021 sudden
stratospheric warming in novel Aeolus wind observations, MLS and ERA5. Weather
Clim. Dynam. 2, 1283–1301. https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-1283-2021.
Xie, J., Hu, J., Xu, H., Liu, S., He, H., 2020. Dynamic diagnosis of stratospheric sudden
warming event in the boreal winter of 2018 and its possible impact on weather over
North America. Atmosphere 11, 438. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11050438.
Xiong, X., Liu, X., Wu, W., Knowland, K.E., Yang, F., Yang, Q., Zhou, D.K., 2022. Impact
of stratosphere on cold air outbreak: Observed evidence by CrIS on SNPP and its
comparison with models. Atmosphere 13, 876. https://doi.org/10.3390/
atmos13060876.
Yu, Y., Cai, M., Shi, C., Ren, R., 2018. On the linkage among strong stratospheric mass
circulation, stratospheric sudden warming, and cold weather events. Mon. Weather
Rev. 146, 2717–2739. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0110.1.
Zängl, G., Hoinka, K.P., 2001. The tropopause in the polar regions. J. Clim. 14,
3117–3139. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<3117:TTITPR>2.0.CO;
2.
Zhang, J., Tian, W., Chipperfield, M.P., Xie, F., Huang, J., 2016. Persistent shift of the
Arctic polar vortex towards the Eurasian continent in recent decades. Nat. Clim.
Chang. 6, 1094–1099. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3136.
Zhang, Y.X., Si, D., Ding, Y.H., Jiang, D.B., Li, Q.Q., Wang, G.F., 2022. Influence of major
stratospheric sudden warming on the unprecedented cold wave in East Asia in
January 2021. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 39, 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-022-
1318-9.
Zhong, W.G., Wu, Z.W., 2023. Interannual variability of the wintertime Asian-Bering-
north American teleconnection linked to Eurasian snow cover and Maritime
Continent Sea surface temperature. J. Clim. 36, 2815–2831. https://doi.org/
10.1175/JCLI-D-22-0367.1.