Sensitivity of mid-Pliocene climate to changes in orbital forcing and PlioMIP's boundary conditions
We compare results obtained from modeling the mid-Pliocene warm period using the Community Earth System Models (COSMOS, version: COSMOS-landveg r2413, 2009) with the two different modeling methodologies and sets of boundary conditions prescribed for the two phases of the Pliocene Model Intercomparis...
| Published in: | Climate of the Past |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-16-1643-2020 https://doaj.org/article/f45655f3e9b847528aebd13032ea1378 |
| Summary: | We compare results obtained from modeling the mid-Pliocene warm period using the Community Earth System Models (COSMOS, version: COSMOS-landveg r2413, 2009) with the two different modeling methodologies and sets of boundary conditions prescribed for the two phases of the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project (PlioMIP), tagged PlioMIP1 and PlioMIP2. Here, we bridge the gap between our contributions to PlioMIP1 ( Stepanek and Lohmann , 2012 ) and PlioMIP2 ( Stepanek et al. , 2020 ) . We highlight some of the effects that differences in the chosen mid-Pliocene model setup (PlioMIP2 vs. PlioMIP1) have on the climate state as derived with COSMOS, as this information will be valuable in the framework of the model–model and model–data comparison within PlioMIP2. We evaluate the model sensitivity to improved mid-Pliocene boundary conditions using PlioMIP's core mid-Pliocene experiments for PlioMIP1 and PlioMIP2 and present further simulations in which we test model sensitivity to variations in paleogeography, orbit, and the concentration of CO 2 . Firstly, we highlight major changes in boundary conditions from PlioMIP1 to PlioMIP2 and also the challenges recorded from the initial effort. The results derived from our simulations show that COSMOS simulates a mid-Pliocene climate state that is 0.29 ∘ C colder in PlioMIP2 if compared to PlioMIP1 (17.82 ∘ C in PlioMIP1, 17.53 ∘ C in PlioMIP2; values based on simulated surface skin temperature). On the one hand, high-latitude warming, which is supported by proxy evidence of the mid-Pliocene, is underestimated in simulations of both PlioMIP1 and PlioMIP2. On the other hand, spatial variations in surface air temperature (SAT), sea surface temperature (SST), and the distribution of sea ice suggest improvement of simulated SAT and SST in PlioMIP2 if employing the updated paleogeography. Our PlioMIP2 mid-Pliocene simulation produces warmer SSTs in the Arctic and North Atlantic Ocean than those derived from the respective PlioMIP1 climate state. The difference in prescribed CO 2 ... |
|---|