Using palaeo-climate comparisons to constrain future projections in CMIP5

We present a selection of methodologies for using the palaeo-climate model component of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (Phase 5) (CMIP5) to attempt to constrain future climate projections using the same models. The constraints arise from measures of skill in hindcasting palaeo-climate changes from the present over three periods: the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) (21 000 yr before present, ka), the mid-Holocene (MH) (6 ka) and the Last Millennium (LM) (850–1850 CE). The skill measures may be used to validate robust patterns of climate change across scenarios or to distinguish between models that have differing outcomes in future scenarios. We find that the multi-model ensemble of palaeo-simulations is adequate for addressing at least some of these issues. For example, selected benchmarks for the LGM and MH are correlated to the rank of future projections of precipitation/temperature or sea ice extent to indicate that models that produce the best agreement with palaeo-climate information give demonstrably different future results than the rest of the models. We also explore cases where comparisons are strongly dependent on uncertain forcing time series or show important non-stationarity, making direct inferences for the future problematic. Overall, we demonstrate that there is a strong potential for the palaeo-climate simulations to help inform the future projections and urge all the modelling groups to complete this subset of the CMIP5 runs.

Mid-holocene and last glacial maximum climate simulations with the IPSL model-part I: comparing IPSLCM5A to IPSLCM4

The climates of the mid-Holocene (MH), 6,000 years ago, and of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), 21,000 years ago, have extensively been simulated, in particular in the framework of the Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparion Project. These periods are well documented by paleo-records, which can be used for evaluating model results for climates different from the present one. Here, we present new simulations of the MH and the LGM climates obtained with the IPSL_CM5A model and compare them to our previous results obtained with the IPSL_CM4 model. Compared to IPSL_CM4, IPSL_CM5A includes two new features: the interactive representation of the plant phenology and marine biogeochemistry. But one of the most important differences between these models is the latitudinal resolution and vertical domain of their atmospheric component, which have been improved in IPSL_CM5A and results in a better representation of the mid-latitude jet-streams. The Asian monsoon’s representation is also substantially improved. The global average mean annual temperature simulated for the pre-industrial (PI) period is colder in IPSL_CM5A than in IPSL_CM4 but their climate sensitivity to a CO2 doubling is similar. Here we show that these differences in the simulated PI climate have an impact on the simulated MH and LGM climatic anomalies. The larger cooling response to LGM boundary conditions in IPSL_CM5A appears to be mainly due to differences between the PMIP3 and PMIP2 boundary conditions, as shown by a short wave radiative forcing/feedback analysis based on a simplified perturbation method. It is found that the sensitivity computed from the LGM climate is lower than that computed from 2 × CO2 simulations, confirming previous studies based on different models. For the MH, the Asian monsoon, stronger in the IPSL_CM5A PI simulation, is also more sensitive to the insolation changes. The African monsoon is also further amplified in IPSL_CM5A due to the impact of the interactive phenology. Finally the changes in variability for both models and for MH and LGM are presented taking the example of the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which is very different in the PI simulations. ENSO variability is damped in both model versions at the MH, whereas inconsistent responses are found between the two versions for the LGM. Part 2 of this paper examines whether these differences between IPSL_CM4 and IPSL_CM5A can be distinguished when comparing those results to palaeo-climatic reconstructions and investigates new approaches for model-data comparisons made possible by the inclusion of new components in IPSL_CM5A.

Comparison of the portion size and frequency of consumption of 156 foods across seven European countries: insights from the Food4ME study

There are no standardised serving/portion sizes defined for foods consumed in the European Union (EU). Typical serving sizes can deviate significantly from the 100 g/100 ml labelling specification required by the EU legislation. Where the nutritional value of a portion is specified, the portion size is determined by the manufacturers. Our objective was to investigate the potential for standardising portion sizes for specific foods, thereby ensuring complementarity across countries. We compared portion size for 156 food items measured using a food frequency questionnaire across the seven countries participating in the Food4me study. The probability of consuming a food and the frequency of consumption differed across countries for 93% and 58% of the foods, respectively. However, the individual country mean portion size differed from the average across countries in only 16% of comparisons. Thus, although dietary choices vary markedly across countries, there is much less variation in portion sizes. Our results highlight the potential for standardisation of portion sizes on nutrition labels in the EU

The SPARC Data Initiative: comparisons of CFC-11, CFC-12, HF and SF6 climatologies from international satellite limb sounders

A quality assessment of the CFC-11 (CCl3F), CFC-12 (CCl2F2), HF, and SF6 products from limb-viewing satellite instruments is provided by means of a detailed intercomparison. The climatologies in the form of monthly zonal mean time series are obtained from HALOE, MIPAS, ACE-FTS, and HIRDLS within the time period 1991–2010. The intercomparisons focus on the mean biases of the monthly and annual zonal mean fields and aim to identify their vertical, latitudinal and temporal structure. The CFC evaluations (based on MIPAS, ACE-FTS and HIRDLS) reveal that the uncertainty in our knowledge of the atmospheric CFC-11 and CFC-12 mean state, as given by satellite data sets, is smallest in the tropics and mid-latitudes at altitudes below 50 and 20 hPa, respectively, with a 1σ multi-instrument spread of up to ±5 %. For HF, the situation is reversed. The two available data sets (HALOE and ACE-FTS) agree well above 100 hPa, with a spread in this region of ±5 to ±10 %, while at altitudes below 100 hPa the HF annual mean state is less well known, with a spread ±30 % and larger. The atmospheric SF6 annual mean states derived from two satellite data sets (MIPAS and ACE-FTS) show only very small differences with a spread of less than ±5 % and often below ±2.5 %. While the overall agreement among the climatological data sets is very good for large parts of the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (CFCs, SF6) or middle stratosphere (HF), individual discrepancies have been identified. Pronounced deviations between the instrument climatologies exist for particular atmospheric regions which differ from gas to gas. Notable features are differently shaped isopleths in the subtropics, deviations in the vertical gradients in the lower stratosphere and in the meridional gradients in the upper troposphere, and inconsistencies in the seasonal cycle. Additionally, long-term drifts between the instruments have been identified for the CFC-11 and CFC-12 time series. The evaluations as a whole provide guidance on what data sets are the most reliable for applications such as studies of atmospheric transport and variability, model–measurement comparisons and detection of long-term trends. The data sets will be publicly available from the SPARC Data Centre and through PANGAEA (doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.849223).