ORCID Profile
0000-0002-9585-9648
Current Organisation
University of Leeds
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Copernicus GmbH
Date: 17-01-2022
Publisher: Copernicus GmbH
Date: 15-07-2022
DOI: 10.5194/EGUSPHERE-GC10-PLIOCENE-61
Abstract: & & The Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project (PlioMIP) is one of the most successful MIPs in palaeoclimatology. Over two phases since 2008, PlioMIP has co-ordinated the experimental design and publication strategy of the community, which has included an increasing number of climate models and modelling groups from around the world. It has engaged with the palaeo-data community in order to foster new data synthesis, supporting the construction of new model boundary conditions as well as to facilitate new data/model comparisons.& & & & Given the long implementation period for a new phase it is necessary to define the broad parameters of PlioMIP3 now. Here we present different potential components of a new science plan. This incorporates feedback gained from PlioMIP participants following the online PlioMIP2 showcase event in 2021.& & & & PlioMIP3 will continue to have balanced scientific portfolio across both Pliocene for Pliocene and Pliocene for Future agendas. It will continue to carefully consider the competing demands of the overall effort required to complete experiments, and to be a part of the project, versus having the ability to introduce new and existing elements to enhance scientific exploration and understanding of the Pliocene.& & & & We propose the retention of the PlioMIP2 core experiment (Eoi400), but an extension to Core requirements to include either (or both) an experiment focussed on the Early Pliocene, or an alternative Eoi400 simulation. These additions will (a) allow an intercomparison of Early and Late Pliocene warm intervals and help build research connections and synergies with the MioMIP project, and (b) through removal of some of the largest palaeogeographic differences introduced between the PlioMIP2 and 1 (the closure of the Bering Strait and Canadian Archipelago and the exposure of the Sahul and Sunda Shelves), create a time slice simulation for 3.205 Ma (MIS KM5c) with minimal palaeogeographic variations from the modern. This will enhance the palaeo to future scientific connection, and enable an exploration of the significance of palaeogeographic uncertainties on climate simulations.& & & & In addition, we propose a number of optional experiments across 2 tiers of additional activity that incorporate simulations designed to enhance our understanding of Climate Sensitivity, as well as incorporating the radiative forcing potentially stemming from non-CO& sub& & /sub& greenhouse gases. For the first time, we have introduced orbital sensitivity experiments into the science plan examining both Northern Hemisphere minimum and maximum insolation forcing, as well as a specific simulation using dynamic vegetation models. Finally, we have proposed an experiment designed to examine the potential significance of East Antarctic Ice Sheet boundary condition uncertainty, which would help inform a new phase of the Pliocene Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project. & & &
Publisher: Copernicus GmbH
Date: 23-06-2022
Abstract: Abstract. Reconciling palaeodata with model simulations of the Pliocene climate is essential for understanding a world with atmospheric CO2 concentration near 400 ppmv (parts per million by volume). Both models and data indicate an lified warming of the high latitudes during the Pliocene however, terrestrial data suggest that Pliocene northern high-latitude temperatures were much higher than can be simulated by models. We focus on the mid-Pliocene warm period (mPWP) and show that understanding the northern high-latitude terrestrial temperatures is particularly difficult for the coldest months. Here the temperatures obtained from models and different proxies can vary by more than 20 ∘C. We refer to this mismatch as the “warm winter paradox”. Analysis suggests the warm winter paradox could be due to a number of factors including model structural uncertainty, proxy data not being strongly constrained by winter temperatures, uncertainties in data reconstruction methods, and the fact that the Pliocene northern high-latitude climate does not have a modern analogue. Refinements to model boundary conditions or proxy dating are unlikely to contribute significantly to the resolution of the warm winter paradox. For the Pliocene high-latitude terrestrial summer temperatures, models and different proxies are in good agreement. Those factors which cause uncertainty in winter temperatures are shown to be much less important for the summer. Until some of the uncertainties in winter high-latitude Pliocene temperatures can be reduced, we suggest a data–model comparison should focus on the summer. This is expected to give more meaningful and accurate results than a data–model comparison which focuses on the annual mean.
Publisher: Copernicus GmbH
Date: 17-01-2022
DOI: 10.5194/CP-2021-186
Abstract: Abstract. Reconciling palaeodata with model simulations of the Pliocene climate is essential for understanding a world with atmospheric CO2 concentration near 400 parts per million by volume. Both models and data indicate an lified warming of the high latitudes during the Pliocene, however terrestrial data suggests Pliocene high latitude temperatures were much higher than can be simulated by models. Here we show that understanding the Pliocene high latitude terrestrial temperatures is particularly difficult for the coldest months, where the temperatures obtained from models and different proxies can vary by more than 20 °C. We refer to this mismatch as the ‘warm winter paradox’. Analysis suggests the warm winter paradox could be due to a number of factors including: model structural uncertainty, proxy data not being strongly constrained by winter temperatures, uncertainties on data reconstruction methods and also that the Pliocene high latitude climate does not have a modern analogue. Refinements to model boundary conditions or proxy dating are unlikely to contribute significantly to the resolution of the warm winter paradox. For the Pliocene, high latitude, terrestrial, summer temperatures, models and different proxies are in good agreement. Those factors which cause uncertainty on winter temperatures are shown to be much less important for the summer. Until some of the uncertainties on winter, high latitude, Pliocene temperatures can be reduced, we suggest a data-model comparison should focus on the summer. This is expected to give more meaningful and accurate results than a data-model comparison which focuses on the annual mean.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Aisling Dolan.