Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “mid-Holocene”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

23 records · Page 2

Using Paleo-climate Comparisons to Constrain Future Projections in CMIP5

We present a description of the theoretical framework and best practice for using the paleo-climate model component of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (Phase 5) (CMIP5) to constrain future projections of climate using the same models. The constraints arise from measures of skill in hindcasting paleo-climate changes from the present over 3 periods: the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) (21 thousand years before present, ka), the mid-Holocene (MH) (6 ka) and the Last Millennium (LM) (8501850 CE). The skill measures may be used to validate robust patterns of climate change across scenarios or to distinguish between models that have differing outcomes in future scenarios. We find that the multi-model ensemble of paleo-simulations is adequate for addressing at least some of these issues. For example, selected benchmarks for the LGM and MH are correlated to the rank of future projections of precipitationtemperature or sea ice extent to indicate that models that produce the best agreement with paleoclimate information give demonstrably different future results than the rest of the models. We also find that some comparisons, for instance associated with model variability, are strongly dependent on uncertain forcing timeseries, or show time dependent behaviour, making direct inferences for the future problematic. Overall, we demonstrate that there is a strong potential for the paleo-climate simulations to help inform the future projections and urge all the modeling groups to complete this subset of the CMIP5 runs.

paleoclimate↗

The PMIP4 Contribution to CMIP6 - Part 1: Overview and Over-Arching Analysis Plan

This paper is the first of a series of four GMD (Geoscientific Model Development) papers on the PMIP4-CMIP6 (Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project - Phase 4 -- Coupled Model Intercomparison Project - Phase 6) experiments. Part 2 (Otto-Bliesner et al., 2017) gives details about the two PMIP4-CMIP6 interglacial experiments, Part 3 (Jungclaus et al., 2017) about the last millennium experiment, and Part 4 (Kageyama et al., 2017) about the Last Glacial Maximum experiment. The mid-Pliocene Warm Period experiment is part of the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project (PlioMIP) - Phase 2, detailed in Haywood et al. (2016). The goal of the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) is to understand the response of the climate system to different climate forcings for documented climatic states very different from the present and historical climates. Through comparison with observations of the environmental impact 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 numerical models simulate climate change. Climate models are usually developed using the present and historical climates as references, but climate projections show that future climates will lie well outside these conditions. Palaeoclimates very different from these reference states therefore provide stringent tests for state-of-the-art models and a way to assess whether their sensitivity to forcings is compatible with palaeoclimatic evidence. Simulations of five different periods have been designed to address the objectives of the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6): the millennium prior to the industrial epoch (CMIP6 name: past1000); the mid-Holocene, 6000 years ago (midHolocene); the Last Glacial Maximum, 21,000 years ago (lgm); the Last Interglacial, 127,000 years ago (lig127k); and the mid-Pliocene Warm Period, 3.2 million years ago (midPliocene-eoi400). These climatic periods are well documented by palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental records, with climate and environmental changes relevant for the study and projection of future climate changes. This paper describes the motivation for the choice of these periods and the design of the numerical experiments and database requests, with a focus on their novel features compared to the experiments performed in previous phases of PMIP and CMIP. It also outlines the analysis plan that takes advantage of the comparisons of the results across periods and across CMIP6 in collaboration with other MIPs.

climate↗

Peat Archives in the Hudson Estuary - Marsh Formation, Carbon Storage and Release, and Resilience

We target deep peat stores (at least 8 meters) of carbon in the lower Hudson Estuary, which formed as the glacial fjord became an estuary with mid-Holocene sea level rise. These deep marshes play an extremely important role in the estuary health and stability in a changing climate. Never before have we faced the threats to coastal marshes that we are facing today, and the resulting sedimentation rates, inorganic/organic component histories, pollen, macrofossil, isotopic, and XRF data reveal critical information about past vegetation and climate change. Long-term shifts in organic/inorganic storage appear to be linked to drought, as watershed erosion results in more sand, silt and clay in the marshes. Climatic shifts often result in regional watershed shifts in vegetation, both locally and regionally. Understanding how these marshes are linked to human impact (disturbance, invasive species, higher nitrogen, heavy metal pollution, dams) over the last four centuries is critical to providing management of these key ecosystems, and their preservation as sea level rises. Quantification of processes that cause carbon degradation and release from these wetlands to the estuary is also key to this investigation. Peat loss would contribute to heavy metal pollution in the estuary as well as carbon loss. Young investigators from secondary schools in New York City participated in much of the fieldwork as part of the NASA/GISS NYC Research Initiative and the LDEO Secondary School Field Research Carbon Team.

Peteet, Dorothy M.↗

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↗

Constraining Clouds and Convective Parameterizations in A Climate Model Using Paleoclimate Data

Cloud and convective parameterizations strongly influence uncertainties in equilibrium climate sensitivity. We provide a proof-of-concept study to constrain these parameterizations in a perturbed parameter ensemble of the atmosphere-only version of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Model E2.1 simulations by evaluating model biases in the present-day runs using multiple satellite climatologies and by comparing simulated δ 18 O of precipitation (δ 18 O p ), known to be sensitive to parameterization schemes, with a global database of speleothem δ 18 O records covering the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), mid-Holocene (MH) and pre-industrial (PI) periods. Relative to modern interannual variability, paleoclimate simulations show greater sensitivity to parameter changes, allowing for an evaluation of model uncertainties over a broader range of climate forcing and the identification of parts of the world that are parameter sensitive. Certain simulations reproduced absolute δ 18 O p values across all time periods, along with LGM and MH δ 18 O p anomalies relative to the PI, better than the default parameterization. No single set of parameterizations worked well in all climate states, likely due to the non-stationarity of cloud feedbacks under varying boundary conditions. Future work that involves varying multiple parameter sets simultaneously with coupled ocean feedbacks will likely provide improved constraints on cloud and convective parameterizations.

cloud and convective parameterization↗