MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3000871246 · doi:10.5194/cp-2019-169

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

2020· article· en· W3000871246 on OpenAlexaff
Masa Kageyama, Sandy P. Harrison, Marie‐Luise Kapsch, Marcus Löfverström, Juan M. Lora, Uwe Mikolajewicz, Sam Sherriff‐Tadano, Tristan Vadsaria, Ayako Abe‐Ouchi, Nathaëlle Bouttes, Deepak Chandan, Allegra N. LeGrande, Fanny Lhardy, Gerrit Lohmann, Polina Morozova, Rumi Ohgaito, W. R. Peltier, Aurélien Quiquet, Didier M. Roche, Xiaoxu Shi, Andreas Schmittner, Jessica E. Tierney, E. M. Volodin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungHeising-Simons FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsClimatologyCoupled model intercomparison projectPrecipitationLast Glacial MaximumEnvironmental scienceClimate modelPaleoclimatologyNorthern HemisphereGeneral Circulation ModelClimate changeGlacial periodGeologyMeteorologyOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research→French-language works237,207→