Weather Forecasters Set Sights Higher

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Anyone who has planned a picnic knows that current weather forecasts are not very reliable more than a week or so ahead. But by looking at conditions higher in the atmosphere, scientists may be better able to predict weather patterns weeks or months into the future, according to results published today in the journal Science.

Conventional methods of weather forecasting concentrate primarily on analyzing conditions in the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere where clouds and storms appear. Little attention is paid to the overlying stratosphere because major changes in its state typically take weeks or months to evolve. But Mark P. Baldwin of Northwest Research Associates and his colleagues present evidence that air circulation in the stratosphere can in fact hold clues to long-term weather behavior. They determined that temperature and pressure fluctuations transmitted from the troposphere up to the stratosphere do not simply die away as previously suspected but instead accumulate and cause subtle changes in stratospheric conditions. The changes are eventually fed back to the troposphere weeks later through a mechanism dubbed "stratospheric memory." To investigate this phenomenon, the scientists studied the Northern Annular Mode, a system of regular air movements that spans much of the northern hemisphere, and analyzed weather records as far back as the 1950s. They found that unusual behavior in the troposphere was associated with similar anomalies in the stratosphere that occurred 25 days earlier.

Having demonstrated this correlation in behavior, the scientists now hope to further explore the interaction between the two layers, which they admittedly don¿t yet fully understand. Still, the relationship may be enough to aid in weather predictions because meteorologists rely on two different methods to come up with extended forecasts. One is to enter detailed information on current conditions such as temperature and wind velocity into computer simulations. The other method is to examine historical weather data and make predictions based on statistics. Although a more detailed understanding of the physics of the two layers is necessary to improve the computer models, the stratospheric effects can simply be used as another factor to incorporate into statistical predictions. In addition to forecasting the weather, the authors hope that these insights will lead to improved models for global warming, ozone depletion and the effects of volcanic eruptions.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe