Engineering topics

Haywood, A. M.

Publications and source records attributed to Haywood, A. M..

6 records

NASA NTRS2018

Pliocene and Eocene Provide Best Analogs for Near-Future Climates

As the world warms due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, the Earth system moves toward climate states without societal precedent, challenging adaptation. Past Earth system states offer possible model systems for the warming world of the coming decades. These include the climate states of the Early Eocene (ca. 50 Ma), the Mid-Pliocene (3.3–3.0 Ma), the Last Interglacial (129–116 ka), the Mid-Holocene (6 ka), preindustrial (ca. 1850 CE), and the 20th century. Here, we quantitatively assess the similarity of future projected climate states to these six geohistorical benchmarks using simulations from the Hadley Centre Coupled Model Version 3 (HadCM3), the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Model E2-R (GISS), and the Community Climate System Model, Versions 3 and 4 (CCSM) Earth system models. Under the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) emission scenario, by 2030 CE, future climates most closely resemble Mid-Pliocene climates, and by 2150 CE, they most closely resemble Eocene climates. Under RCP4.5, climate stabilizes at Pliocene-like conditions by 2040 CE. Pliocene-like and Eocene-like climates emerge first in continental interiors and then expand outward. Geologically novel climates are uncommon in RCP4.5 (<1%) but reach 8.7% of the globe under RCP8.5, characterized by high temperatures and precipitation. Hence, RCP4.5 is roughly equivalent to stabilizing at Pliocene-like climates, while unmitigated emission trajectories, such as RCP8.5, are similar to reversing millions of years of long-term cooling on the scale of a few human generations. Both the emergence of geologically novel climates and the rapid reversion to Eocene-like climates may be outside the range of evolutionary adaptive capacity.

climate change↗

NASA NTRS2015

Pliocene Model Intercomparison (PlioMIP) Phase 2: Scientific Objectives and Experimental Design

The Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project (PlioMIP) is a co-ordinated international climate modelling initiative to study and understand climate and environments of the Late Pliocene, and their potential relevance in the context of future climate change. PlioMIP operates under the umbrella of the Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP), which examines multiple intervals in Earth history, the consistency of model predictions in simulating these intervals and their ability to reproduce climate signals preserved in geological climate archives. This paper provides a thorough model intercomparison project description, and documents the experimental design in a detailed way. Specifically, this paper describes the experimental design and boundary conditions that will be utilized for the experiments in Phase 2 of PlioMIP.

climate change↗

NASA NTRS2014

Evaluating the Dominant Components of Warming in Pliocene Climate Simulations

The Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project (PlioMIP) is the first coordinated climate model comparison for a warmer palaeoclimate with atmospheric CO2 significantly higher than pre-industrial concentrations. The simulations of the mid-Pliocene warm period show global warming of between 1.8 and 3.6 C above pre-industrial surface air temperatures, with significant polar amplification. Here we perform energy balance calculations on all eight of the coupled ocean-atmosphere simulations within PlioMIP Experiment 2 to evaluate the causes of the increased temperatures and differences between the models. In the tropics simulated warming is dominated by greenhouse gas increases, with the cloud component of planetary albedo enhancing the warming in most of the models, but by widely varying amounts. The responses to mid-Pliocene climate forcing in the Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes are substantially different between the climate models, with the only consistent response being a warming due to increased greenhouse gases. In the high latitudes all the energy balance components become important, but the dominant warming influence comes from the clear sky albedo, only partially offset by the increases in the cooling impact of cloud albedo. This demonstrates the importance of specified ice sheet and high latitude vegetation boundary conditions and simulated sea ice and snow albedo feedbacks. The largest components in the overall uncertainty are associated with clouds in the tropics and polar clear sky albedo, particularly in sea ice regions. These simulations show that albedo feedbacks, particularly those of sea ice and ice sheets, provide the most significant enhancements to high latitude warming in the Pliocene.

climate models↗

NASA NTRS2013

Mid-Pliocene Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation Not Unlike Modern

In the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project (PlioMIP), eight state-of-the-art coupled climate models have simulated the mid-Pliocene warm period (mPWP, 3.264 to 3.025 Ma). Here, we compare the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), northward ocean heat transport and ocean stratification simulated with these models. None of the models participating in PlioMIP simulates a strong mid-Pliocene AMOC as suggested by earlier proxy studies. Rather, there is no consistent increase in AMOC maximum among the PlioMIP models. The only consistent change in AMOC is a shoaling of the overturning cell in the Atlantic, and a reduced influence of North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) at depth in the basin. Furthermore, the simulated mid-Pliocene Atlantic northward heat transport is similar to the pre-industrial. These simulations demonstrate that the reconstructed high-latitude mid-Pliocene warming can not be explained as a direct response to an intensification of AMOC and concomitant increase in northward ocean heat transport by the Atlantic.

Heat transfer↗

NASA NTRS2013

Large-Scale Features of Pliocene Climate: Results from the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project

Climate and environments of the mid-Pliocene warm period (3.264 to 3.025 Ma) have been extensively studied.Whilst numerical models have shed light on the nature of climate at the time, uncertainties in their predictions have not been systematically examined. The Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project quantifies uncertainties in model outputs through a coordinated multi-model and multi-mode data intercomparison. Whilst commonalities in model outputs for the Pliocene are clearly evident, we show substantial variation in the sensitivity of models to the implementation of Pliocene boundary conditions. Models appear able to reproduce many regional changes in temperature reconstructed from geological proxies. However, data model comparison highlights that models potentially underestimate polar amplification. To assert this conclusion with greater confidence, limitations in the time-averaged proxy data currently available must be addressed. Furthermore, sensitivity tests exploring the known unknowns in modelling Pliocene climate specifically relevant to the high latitudes are essential (e.g. palaeogeography, gateways, orbital forcing and trace gasses). Estimates of longer-term sensitivity to CO2 (also known as Earth System Sensitivity; ESS), support previous work suggesting that ESS is greater than Climate Sensitivity (CS), and suggest that the ratio of ESS to CS is between 1 and 2, with a "best" estimate of 1.5.

mathematical models↗

NASA NTRS2011

Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project (PlioMIP): Experimental Design and Boundary Conditions (Experiment 2)

The Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project has expanded to include a model intercomparison for the mid-Pliocene warm period (3.29 to 2.97 million yr ago). This project is referred to as PlioMIP (the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project). Two experiments have been agreed upon and together compose the initial phase of PlioMIP. The first (Experiment 1) is being performed with atmosphere only climate models. The second (Experiment 2) utilizes fully coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models. Following on from the publication of the experimental design and boundary conditions for Experiment 1 in Geoscientific Model Development, this paper provides the necessary description of differences and/or additions to the experimental design for Experiment 2.

Haywood, A. M.↗