Evaluation of climate models using palaeoclimatic data.

There is large uncertainty about the magnitude of warming and how rainfall patterns will change in response to any given scenario of future changes in atmospheric composition and land use. The models used for future climate projections were developed and calibrated using climate observations from the past 40 years. The geologic record of environmental responses to climate changes provides a unique opportunity to test model performance outside this limited climate range. Evaluation of model simulations against palaeodata shows that models reproduce the direction and large-scale patterns of past changes in climate, but tend to underestimate the magnitude of regional changes. As part of the effort to reduce model-related uncertainty and produce more reliable estimates of twenty-first century climate, the Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project is systematically applying palaeoevaluation techniques to simulations of the past run with the models used to make future projections. This evaluation will provide assessments of model performance, including whether a model is sufficiently sensitive to changes in atmospheric composition, as well as providing estimates of the strength of biosphere and other feedbacks that could amplify the model response to these changes and modify the characteristics of climate variability.

Clouds, circulation and climate sensitivity

Fundamental puzzles of climate science remain unsolved because of our limited understanding of how clouds, circulation and climate interact. One example is our inability to provide robust assessments of future global and regional climate changes. However, ongoing advances in our capacity to observe, simulate and conceptualize the climate system now make it possible to fill gaps in our knowledge. We argue that progress can be accelerated by focusing research on a handful of important scientific questions that have become tractable as a result of recent advances. We propose four such questions below; they involve understanding the role of cloud feedbacks and convective organization in climate, and the factors that control the position, the strength and the variability of the tropical rain belts and the extratropical storm tracks.

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.

PMIP4-CMIP6: the contribution of the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project to CMIP6

The goal of the Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) is to understand the response of the climate system to changes in different climate forcings and to feedbacks. Through comparison with observations of the environmental impacts of these climate changes, or with climate reconstructions based on physical, chemical or biological records, PMIP also addresses the issue of how well state-of-the-art models simulate climate changes. Palaeoclimate states are radically different from those of the recent past documented by the instrumental record and thus provide an out-of-sample test of the models used for future climate projections and a way to assess whether they have the correct sensitivity to forcings and feedbacks. Five distinctly different periods have been selected as focus for the core palaeoclimate experiments that are designed to contribute to the objectives of the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). This manuscript describes the motivation for the choice of these periods and the design of the numerical experiments, with a focus upon their novel features compared to the experiments performed in previous phases of PMIP and CMIP as well as the benefits of common analyses of the models across multiple climate states. It also describes the information needed to document each experiment and the model outputs required for analysis and benchmarking.