ALBERT

Description: The early Eocene (~55 to 50 Ma) is a time period which has been explored in a large number of modelling and data studies. Here, using an ensemble of previously published model results, making up "EoMIP" – the Eocene Modelling Intercomparison Project, and syntheses of early Eocene terrestrial and SST temperature data, we present a self-consistent inter-model and model-data comparison. This shows that the previous modelling studies exhibit a very wide inter-model variability, but that at high CO2, there is good agreement between models and data for this period, particularly if possible seasonal biases in some of the proxies are considered. An energy balance analysis explores the reasons for the differences between the model results, and suggests that differences in surface albedo feedbacks, water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks, and prescribed aerosol loading are the dominant cause for the different results seen in the models, rather than inconsistencies in other prescribed boundary conditions or differences in cloud feedbacks. The CO2 level which would give optimal early Eocene model-data agreement, based on those models which have carried out simulations with more than one CO2 level, is in the range 2000 ppmv to 6500 ppmv. Given the spread of model results, tighter bounds on proxy estimates of atmospheric CO2 during this time period will allow a quantitative assessment of the skill of the models at simulating warm climates, which could be used as a metric for weighting future climate predictions.

Description: The early Eocene (~55 to 50 Ma) is a time period which has been explored in a large number of modelling and data studies. Here, using an ensemble of previously published model results, making up "EoMIP" – the Eocene Modelling Intercomparison Project – and syntheses of early Eocene terrestrial and sea surface temperature data, we present a self-consistent inter-model and model–data comparison. This shows that the previous modelling studies exhibit a very wide inter-model variability, but that at high CO2, there is good agreement between models and data for this period, particularly if possible seasonal biases in some of the proxies are considered. An energy balance analysis explores the reasons for the differences between the model results, and suggests that differences in surface albedo feedbacks, water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks, and prescribed aerosol loading are the dominant cause for the different results seen in the models, rather than inconsistencies in other prescribed boundary conditions or differences in cloud feedbacks. The CO2 level which would give optimal early Eocene model–data agreement, based on those models which have carried out simulations with more than one CO2 level, is in the range of 2500 ppmv to 6500 ppmv. Given the spread of model results, tighter bounds on proxy estimates of atmospheric CO2 and temperature during this time period will allow a quantitative assessment of the skill of the models at simulating warm climates. If it is the case that a model which gives a good simulation of the Eocene will also give a good simulation of the future, then such an assessment could be used to produce metrics for weighting future climate predictions.

Description: Recent studies, utilising a range of proxies, indicate that a significant perturbation to global hydrology occurred at the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM; ~56 Ma). An enhanced hydrological cycle for the warm early Eocene is also suggested to have played a key role in maintaining high-latitude warmth during this interval. However, comparisons of proxy data to General Circulation Model (GCM) simulated hydrology are limited and inter-model variability remains poorly characterised, despite significant differences in simulated surface temperatures. In this work, we undertake an intercomparison of GCM-derived precipitation and P-E distributions within the EoMIP ensemble (Lunt et al., 2012), which includes previously-published early Eocene simulations performed using five GCMs differing in boundary conditions, model structure and precipitation relevant parameterisation schemes. We show that an intensified hydrological cycle, manifested in enhanced global precipitation and evaporation rates, is simulated for all Eocene simulations relative to preindustrial. This is primarily due to elevated atmospheric paleo-CO2, although the effects of differences in paleogeography/ice sheets are also of importance in some models. For a given CO2 level, globally-averaged precipitation rates vary widely between models, largely arising from different simulated surface air temperatures. Models with a similar global sensitivity of precipitation rate to temperature (dP/dT) display different regional precipitation responses for a given temperature change. Regions that are particularly sensitive to model choice include the South Pacific, tropical Africa and the Peri-Tethys, which may represent targets for future proxy acquisition. A comparison of early and middle Eocene leaf-fossil-derived precipitation estimates with the GCM output illustrates that a number of GCMs underestimate precipitation rates at high latitudes. Models which warm these regions, either via elevated CO2 or by varying poorly constrained model parameter values, are most successful in simulating a match with geologic data. Further data from low-latitude regions and better constraints on early Eocene CO2 are now required to discriminate between these model simulations given the large error bars on paleoprecipitation estimates. Given the clear differences apparent between simulated precipitation distributions within the ensemble, our results suggest that paleohydrological data offer an independent means by which to evaluate model skill for warm climates.