The westward quasi‐6‐day wave (Q6DW) with zonal wavenumber 1 is a prominent and recurrent phenomenon in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere (MLT) and has a significant impact on day‐to‐day ionospheric variability. Geopotential height measurements from Aura Microwave Limb Sounder and Specified Dynamics Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model eXtended Version simulations during 2005–2019 are utilized to study the climatological variations of Q6DW. The spectral analysis clearly indicates that four typical Q6DW events occur in the MLT region before and after the two equinoxes in 1 year. The wave amplitudes in the summer hemisphere are considerably larger than the amplitudes in the winter hemisphere. The Eliassen‐Palm flux diagnostics show that the wave source of the post‐September equinox event is located in both hemispheres, while the sources of the other three Q6DW events are in the winter hemisphere. The diagnostic analysis results show that the climatological features of Q6DW are primarily due to the seasonal variations of the mean flow, which can determine the Q6DW critical layers, baroclinic/barotropic instability, and waveguides. Specifically, the Q6DW can be amplified in the summer hemisphere mesosphere at high latitudes during pre‐ and postequinox periods when the critical layers penetrate the unstable region. At the two equinoxes, the Q6DW can also propagate into the MLT region with similar amplitudes in both hemispheres due to the weak zonal mean flow but without additional amplification. At the two solstices, the Q6DW is suppressed because the critical layers envelop the whole unstable region, which prevents its amplification through wave‐mean flow interaction.

Using the geopotential height measurements from the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder and the Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry instrument on the Thermosphere‐Ionosphere‐Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics satellite, we found eight westward quasi‐8‐day wave (Q8DW) events with zonal wavenumber 1 (W1) during the Arctic sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) in 2005–2020. The W1 Q8DW perturbations are mainly confined to the middle and high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, and peak at ∼50–80 km. Specified Dynamics Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model eXtended version simulations are utilized to reproduce the Q8DW activities. The diagnostic results indicate that the W1 Q8DWs originate from the high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere stratosphere. Their excitation, propagation, and amplification are primarily influenced by the critical layers and baroclinic/barotropic instability, which are dependent on the background conditions during SSWs. Our statistical results show that the W1 planetary waves with periods shorter than 12 days during the Arctic SSWs are most frequently observed at the period of ∼8 days, which is significantly different from the climatological periods of the Rossby (1, 1) and (1, 2) normal modes (6.14 and 9.81 days, respectively). These results indicate that the W1 Q8DW may be a new wave mode. Finally, we found that the reversal (or deceleration) and the recovery of the zonal mean flow during SSWs can result in a zonally symmetric Q8DW, and the W1 Q8DW is likely the child wave generated by the nonlinear interaction between the stationary planetary wave with zonal wavenumber 1 and zonally symmetric Q8DW.

A rare minor sudden stratospheric warming is observed in the Antarctic polar region during September 2019, which results in the enhancement of a westward wavenumber 1 quasi‐6‐day wave (Q6DW) in the mesopause region. The impacts of this Q6DW event to the ionosphere are then comparatively investigated with multiple data sets, including the ground‐based total electron content (TEC) from geostationary BeiDou satellite receivers and F2 layer maximum frequency (foF2) from ionosondes ranging from 20 to 40°N over eastern Asia. Besides, the global TEC maps from the International Global Navigation Satellite Systems Service (IGS) are also utilized to study the longitudinal variations. The ground‐based TEC and foF2 observations clearly shows planetary wave (PW) signals with a similar period as those in the mesosphere, which are further verified to be westward with zonal wavenumber 1 by IGS TEC maps. The ground‐based TEC and foF2 also show that the peak of the ionospheric response is at around 1,200–1,400 LT and 25°N over eastern Asia with maximum amplitudes of ∼9 TECU and ∼1.5 MHz, respectively, which are also well captured by IGS TEC maps. Nevertheless, the wave amplitudes exhibited by ground‐based TEC are 2–3 times larger than that in IGS TEC. Besides, the IGS TEC map shows that the ionospheric oscillations at different longitudes peak in the equatorial ionospheric anomaly crest region at similar solar local time, but with significant variabilities in their amplitude. Our analysis shows that the ground‐based ionospheric observations and IGS TEC maps generally exhibit consistent latitudinal structures on the neutral‐ion coupling through PWs.

The quasi‐two‐day waves (QTDWs) with westward‐propagating wavenumbers 2 (W2), 3 (W3), and 4 (W4) during the boreal summers were statistically examined using TIMED/SABER temperature observation datasets during 2002–2019 with a 6‐day two‐dimensional least‐squares fitting window. The W4 (W3) and W2 QTDWs were observed at ∼67–73 km and ∼30–40°N, and ∼89–95 km and ∼20–30°N, respectively. The W4 mode occurred 57 times over the past 18 years compared to 43 (52) times for the W3 (W2) QTDWs. The W4 QTDW reached maximum amplitudes of ∼9–10 K during 2006, 2009, and 2017, whereas W3 and W2 QTDWs attained maximum amplitudes of ∼8 K during 2017 and 2012. In addition, W4, W3, and W2 occurred more frequently with periods of 41–44 hr, 47–53 hr, and 44–50 hr, respectively. QTDW events with longer periods took place later than those events with shorter periods. Statistically, the W4 (W2) QTDW events were significantly more frequent during days 195–210 (165–180). In contrast, the W3 QTDW tended to occur during days 180–195 but was only slightly less frequent during days 195–210 and 210–225. Diagnostic analysis of the modern‐era retrospective analysis for research and applications ‐2 reanalysis dataset indicates that the attribution variations of the QTDWs, including their amplitudes and periods, were intimately related to the corresponding variabilities of the background zonal wind.