We use height‐resolved and total column satellite observations and 3‐D chemical transport model simulations to study stratospheric ozone variations during 1998–2017 as ozone‐depleting substances ...decline. In 2017 extrapolar lower stratospheric ozone displayed a strong positive anomaly following much lower values in 2016. This points to large interannual variability rather than an ongoing downward trend, as reported recently by Ball et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp‐18‐1379‐2018). The observed ozone variations are well captured by the chemical transport model throughout the stratosphere and are largely driven by meteorology. Model sensitivity experiments show that the contribution of past trends in short‐lived chlorine species to the ozone changes is small. Similarly, the potential impact of modest trends in natural brominated short‐lived species is small. These results confirm the important role that atmospheric dynamics plays in controlling ozone in the extrapolar lower stratosphere on multiannual time scales and the continued importance of monitoring ozone profiles as the stratosphere changes.
Plain Language Summary
Emission of long‐lived chlorine and bromine‐containing ozone‐depleting substances has led to the depletion of the ozone layer, most notably the Antarctic ozone hole. Policy action through the Montreal Protocol has phased out the production of the major long‐lived ozone‐depleting substances. Consequently, stratospheric chlorine and bromine amounts are declining, and we expect the ozone layer to slowly recover. However, although the tropical lower stratosphere is not a region where large ozone loss has so‐far been observed, a recent study by Ball et al. (2018) suggested that ozone there is decreasing, in disagreement with models and expectations of ozone recovery. We use updated observations and an atmospheric model to investigate these issues. First, we use an additional year of observations which show that ozone values in the lower stratosphere increased in 2017, which is a consequence of variations in atmospheric dynamics. Second, our 3‐D model performs well in reproducing the observed ozone variations. Although the model is not perfect, the comparisons suggest that we do have a good understanding of the lower stratospheric ozone. Third, we quantify the role of short‐lived chlorine and bromine compounds, which are not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, on the recent ozone changes. The effect is small.
Key Points
Observations show that lower stratospheric ozone at extrapolar latitudes increased strongly in 2017 relative to a negative anomaly in 2016
Model simulations reproduce the observed ozone variations well, and the main driver in the lower stratosphere is atmospheric dynamics
The contribution of an observation‐based trend in short‐lived chlorine species to recent lower stratospheric ozone variations is small
The eruption of the Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai volcano on 15 January 2022 was one of the most explosive eruptions of the last decades. The amount of water vapor injected into the stratosphere was ...unprecedented in the observational record, increasing the stratospheric water vapor burden by about 10%. Using model runs from the ATLAS chemistry and transport model and Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) satellite observations, we show that while 20%–40% more water vapor than usual was entrained into the Antarctic polar vortex in 2023 as it formed, the direct chemical effect of the increased water vapor on Antarctic ozone depletion in June through October was minor (less than 4 DU). This is because low temperatures in the vortex, as occur every year in the Antarctic, limit water vapor to the saturation pressure and thus reset any anomalies through the process of dehydration before they can affect ozone loss.
Plain Language Summary
The eruption of the Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai volcano on 15 January 2022 was one of the most explosive eruptions of the last decades. An amount of water vapor unprecedented in the observational record was injected into the stratosphere, increasing the total stratospheric water vapor mass by about 10%. Using model runs and satellite observations, we show that while the dispersion of the plume increased water vapor in the Antarctic in 2023 by 20%–40% at the beginning of the ozone hole season compared to earlier years, the effect of the increased water vapor on the Antarctic ozone hole was minor. This is because low temperatures in the vortex, as occur every year in the Antarctic, limit water vapor due to condensation and thus reset any anomalies before they can affect ozone loss.
Key Points
The Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai eruption increased water vapor in the emerging Antarctic vortex in 2023 by 20%–40% compared to earlier years
The increased water vapor from Hunga Tonga had a minor effect on Antarctic ozone depletion through the end of October (less than 4 DU)
This minor effect is due to low, but not unusual, vortex temperatures that reset water vapor anomalies before they could impact ozone loss
Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) measurements show that chemical processing was critical to the observed record‐low Arctic stratospheric ozone in spring 2020. The 16‐year MLS record indicates more ...polar denitrification and dehydration in 2019/2020 than in any Arctic winter except 2015/2016. Chlorine activation and ozone depletion began earlier than in any previously observed winter, with evidence of chemical ozone loss starting in November. Active chlorine then persisted as late into spring as it did in 2011. Empirical estimates suggest maximum chemical ozone losses near 2.8 ppmv by late March in both 2011 and 2020. However, peak chlorine activation, and thus peak ozone loss, occurred at lower altitudes in 2020 than in 2011, leading to the lowest Arctic ozone values ever observed at potential temperature levels from ∼400–480 K, with similar ozone values to those in 2011 at higher levels.
Plain Language Summary
Unlike the Antarctic, the Arctic does not usually experience an ozone hole because temperatures are often too high for the chemistry that destroys ozone. In 2019/2020, satellite measurements show record‐low stratospheric wintertime temperatures and record‐low springtime ozone concentrations in the Arctic lower stratosphere (about 12‐ to 20‐km altitude). Only one other winter/spring season, 2010/2011, in this 16‐year satellite data record comes close. Low temperatures, which result in chlorine being converted from nonreactive forms into forms that destroy ozone, started earlier than in any previous Arctic winter in the record and lingered later than in any year except 2011. The ozone‐destroying chemistry in 2019/2020 occurred at lower altitudes (where more of the ozone that filters out harmful ultraviolet radiation resides) than in 2010/2011. Such extensive ozone loss can have important health and biological impacts because it leads to more ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earths surface. While the success of the Montreal Protocol in limiting human emissions that increase ozone‐destroying gases in the stratosphere has resulted in much less Arctic ozone destruction than we would have otherwise had, future temperature changes could lead to other winters with even more chemical ozone depletion than in 2019/2020.
Key Points
MLS trace gas data show that exceptional polar vortex conditions led to record‐low ozone in the Arctic lower stratosphere in 2019/2020
Early and persistent cold conditions led to the longest period with chlorine in ozone‐destroying forms in the 16‐year MLS data record
Chemical ozone destruction began earlier than in any Arctic winter in the MLS record and ended later than in any year except 2010/2011
We use Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) trace gas measurements to investigate whether water vapor (H2O) injected into the stratosphere by the Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai (HTHH) eruption affected the ...2022 Antarctic stratospheric vortex. Other MLS‐measured long‐lived species are used to distinguish high HTHH H2O from that descending in the vortex from the upper‐stratospheric H2O peak. HTHH H2O reached high southern latitudes in June–July but was effectively excluded from the vortex by the strong transport barrier at its edge. MLS H2O, nitric acid, chlorine species, and ozone within the 2022 Antarctic polar vortex were near average; the vortex was large, strong, and long‐lived, but not exceptionally so. There is thus no clear evidence of HTHH influence on the 2022 Antarctic vortex or its composition. Substantial impacts on the stratospheric polar vortices are expected in succeeding years since the H2O injected by HTHH has spread globally.
Plain Language Summary
The 2022 Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai eruption injected vast amounts of water vapor into the stratosphere. Concern arose that this excess water vapor could affect the 2022 Antarctic stratospheric polar vortex and ozone hole: Water vapor plays a crucial role in forming polar stratospheric clouds, which provide surfaces upon which chemical reactions that destroy ozone take place. Enhanced water vapor also affects temperatures, which in turn affect the powerful winds defining the polar vortex boundary. Antarctic polar vortex development began in April–May; by June the intense vortex‐edge winds presented a formidable obstacle to transport. Satellite trace‐gas measurements show that when water vapor from the Hunga Tonga eruption reached the vortex edge in June, it faced an impenetrable barrier and “besieged” the vortex, building up exceptionally strong water vapor gradients across the vortex edge. Water vapor, ozone, and chemicals involved in ozone destruction remained near historical average levels within the vortex through spring 2022. Because excess water vapor spread throughout the south polar regions after vortex breakup, much larger effects on the Antarctic vortex and chemical processing within it are expected in 2023 and beyond, when high water vapor will be entrained into the vortex as it develops.
Key Points
Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) trace gas data show that the Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai H2O plume was effectively excluded from the 2022 Antarctic polar vortex
Antarctic lower stratospheric vortex strength, size, and longevity were among the largest on record, but within the range of previous years
Antarctic chemical ozone loss in 2022 was unexceptional, with MLS ozone and related trace gases observed to be near average
A major stratospheric sudden warming (SSW) in January 2009 was the strongest and most prolonged on record. Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) observations are used to provide an overview of dynamics ...and transport during the 2009 SSW, and to compare with the intense, long‐lasting SSW in January 2006. The Arctic polar vortex split during the 2009 SSW, whereas the 2006 SSW was a vortex displacement event. Winds reversed to easterly more rapidly and reverted to westerly more slowly in 2009 than in 2006. More mixing of trace gases out of the vortex during the decay of the vortex fragments, and less before the fulfillment of major SSW criteria, was seen in 2009 than in 2006; persistent well‐defined fragments of vortex and anticyclone air were more prevalent in 2009. The 2009 SSW had a more profound impact on the lower stratosphere than any previously observed SSW, with no significant recovery of the vortex in that region. The stratopause breakdown and subsequent reformation at very high altitude, accompanied by enhanced descent into a rapidly strengthening upper stratospheric vortex, were similar in 2009 and 2006. Many differences between 2006 and 2009 appear to be related to the different character of the SSWs in the two years.
We use a three‐dimensional chemical transport model and satellite observations to investigate Arctic ozone depletion in winter/spring 2019/20 and compare with earlier years. Persistently, low ...temperatures caused extensive chlorine activation through to March. March‐mean polar‐cap‐mean modeled chemical column ozone loss reached 78 DU (local maximum loss of ∼108 DU in the vortex), similar to that in 2011. However, weak dynamical replenishment of only 59 DU from December to March was key to producing very low (<220 DU) column ozone values. The only other winter to exhibit such weak transport in the past 20 years was 2010/11, so this process is fundamental to causing such low ozone values. A model simulation with peak observed stratospheric total chlorine and bromine loading (from the mid‐1990s) shows that gradual recovery of the ozone layer over the past 2 decades ameliorated the polar cap ozone depletion in March 2020 by ∼20 DU.
Plain Language Summary
Ozone depletion in the polar stratosphere is caused by chlorine and bromine species which are activated by low temperatures. Chlorine and bromine are transported to the stratosphere following the surface emission of ozone‐depleting substances (ODSs). While springtime ozone depletion in the Antarctic is almost always large, it is much more variable in the Arctic due to warmer temperatures and more disturbed stratospheric dynamics. Using a three‐dimensional atmospheric chemical transport model and satellite observations, we show that the very low ozone columns observed in March 2020 were a consequence of large chemical destruction and weaker‐than‐normal replenishment by transport. These very low ozone levels are, by some measures, record values despite 2 decades of decreasing stratospheric chlorine and bromine through controls of the Montreal Protocol. Had the meteorology of 2019/20 occurred 2 decades ago, the ozone loss would have been notably larger. The Arctic stratospheric dynamics for 2019/20 are extreme relative to the past 2 decades but fit a compact relationship that links column ozone variations over Arctic and Antarctic winters.
Key Points
Large mean Arctic (>63°N) chemical ozone destruction in 2019/20 of 78 DU, similar to other extreme cold winters in the past 2 decades
Anomalously weak wintertime dynamical replenishment of only ∼60 DU contributed strongly to the very low observed ozone column in March
Ozone recovery caused 20 DU less mean Arctic ozone loss in March 2020 than would have occurred with stratospheric halogens at 1995 levels
Mainstream and popular science media are rife with misunderstandings about what a “polar vortex” is. The term most aptly describes the stratospheric polar vortex, a single feature dominating the ...cool-season circulation from ∼15–50 km. Regional jet stream variations dominate the tropospheric circulation, which is not well-described as a polar vortex; indeed, there is no single consistent definition of a tropospheric polar vortex in the literature. Stratospheric polar vortex disturbances profoundly influence extreme weather events, including cold air outbreaks (CAOs). How the stratospheric polar vortex affects tropospheric jets, whose local excursions drive CAOs, is not fully understood. Public facing parts of publications describing research on this topic are not always clear about how the “polar vortex” is defined; greater clarity could improve communications both within the community and with non-specialist audiences.
PDF
