23 Jan 2020

23 Jan 2020

Review status: a revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal CP and is expected to appear here in due course.

The PMIP4-CMIP6 Last Glacial Maximum experiments: preliminary results and comparison with the PMIP3-CMIP5 simulations

Masa Kageyama1, Sandy P. Harrison2, Marie-L. Kapsch3, Marcus Löfverström4, Juan M. Lora5, Uwe Mikolajewicz3, Sam Sherriff-Tadano6, Tristan Vadsaria6, Ayako Abe-Ouchi6, Nathaelle Bouttes1, Deepak Chandan7, Allegra N. LeGrande8, Fanny Lhardy1, Gerrit Lohmann9, Polina A. Morozova10, Rumi Ohgaito11, W. Richard Peltier7, Aurélien Quiquet1, Didier M. Roche1,12, Xiaoxu Shi9, Andreas Schmittner13, Jessica E. Tierney4, and Evgeny Volodin14 Masa Kageyama et al.
  • 1Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement/Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, UMR CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
  • 2School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Science (SAGES), University of Reading, UK
  • 3Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
  • 4University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
  • 5Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
  • 6Atmospheric and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan
  • 7Department of Physics, University of Toronto, 60 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S1A7, Canada
  • 8NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, USA
  • 9Alfred Wegener Institute, Bremerhaven, Germany
  • 10Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia
  • 11Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan
  • 12Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Science, Cluster Earth and Climate, de Boelelaan 1085, 1081HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • 13College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
  • 14Institute of Numerical Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Abstract. The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, ~ 21,000 years ago) has been a major focus for evaluating how well state-of-the-art climate models simulate climate changes as large as those expected in the future using paleoclimate reconstructions. A new generation of climate models have been used to generate LGM simulations as part of the Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) contribution to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Here we provide a preliminary analysis and evaluation of the results of these LGM experiments (PMIP4-CMIP6) and compare them with the previous generation of simulations (PMIP3-CMIP5). We show that the PMIP4-CMIP6 are globally less cold and less dry than the PMIP3-CMIP5 simulations, most probably because of the use of a more realistic specification of the northern hemisphere ice sheets in the latest simulations although changes in model configuration may also contribute to this. There are important differences in both atmospheric and ocean circulation between the two sets of experiments, with the northern and southern jet streams being more poleward and the changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation being less pronounced in the PMIP4-CMIP6 simulations than in the PMIP3-CMIP5 simulations. Changes in simulated precipitation patterns are influenced by both temperature and circulation changes. Differences in simulated climate between individual models remain large so, although there are differences in the average behaviour across the two ensembles, the new simulation results are not fundamentally different from the PMIP3-CMIP5 results. Evaluation of large-scale climate features, such as land-sea contrast and polar amplification, confirms that the models capture these well and within the uncertainty of the palaeoclimate reconstructions. Nevertheless, regional climate changes are less well simulated: the models underestimate extratropical cooling, particularly in winter, and precipitation changes. The spatial patterns of increased precipitation associated with changes in the jet streams are also poorly captured. However, changes in the tropics are more realistic, particularly the changes in tropical temperatures over the oceans. Although these results are preliminary in nature, because of the limited number of LGM simulations currently available, they nevertheless point to the utility of using paleoclimate simulations to understand the mechanisms of climate change and evaluate model performance.

Masa Kageyama et al.

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Masa Kageyama et al.

Masa Kageyama et al.


Total article views: 2,249 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,466 746 37 2,249 54 48
  • HTML: 1,466
  • PDF: 746
  • XML: 37
  • Total: 2,249
  • BibTeX: 54
  • EndNote: 48
Views and downloads (calculated since 23 Jan 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 23 Jan 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,864 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,853 with geography defined and 11 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1


Latest update: 12 Apr 2021
Short summary
The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, ~ 21,000 years ago) is a major focus for evaluating how well climate models simulate climate changes as large as those expected in the future. Here we compare the latest climate models (CMIP6-PMIP4) to the previous one (CMIP5-PMIP3) and to reconstructions. Large-scale climate features (e.g. land-sea contrast, polar amplification) are well captured by all models, while regional changes (e.g. winter extratropical cooling, precipitations) are still poorly represented.