Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5”

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.

At least 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Better Constraining Supercooled Clouds Could Reduce Projected Warming Spread

The increase of climate sensitivity to rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 (CMIP6) Earth system models (ESMs) compared to CMIP5 ESMs is primarily attributed to a larger extratropical cloud response to climate change, referred to as cloud feedback. The ratio of supercooled liquid cloud water relative to all cloud water, termed liquid phase ratio (LPR), which has also notably increased in many recent ESMs, is thought to be a primary driver of the extratropical cloud feedback increase. Unlike the preponderance of previous studies that compare native model LPR directly with observations, here we evaluate LPR over three ESM generations against Cloud–Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (CALIPSO) using an instrument simulator approach, which mimics instrument limitations and uses consistent cloud definitions and resolutions. We find that current coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP) ESMs collectively simulate greater LPR than previous CMIP generations and overestimate LPR compared to observations, contrary to previous findings, likely driven by past inconsistent comparisons of ESM outputs with CALIPSO observations. We further show that greater LPR in ESM present-day climate is unexpectedly correlated with a smaller extratropical cloud feedback, attributable to a decrease of cloud amount exceeding the increase of cloud optical depth. Finally, our results suggest that improving constraints on model LPR using our evaluation framework would likely reduce the spread in CMIP6 climate sensitivities, owing to its effect on extratropical cloud feedback from supercooled clouds.

greenhouse gas concentrations↗
DOE OSTI2020

Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models

Results from the fully and biogeochemically coupled simulations in which CO 2 increases at a rate of 1 % yr –1 (1pctCO2) from its preindustrial value are analyzed to quantify the magnitude of carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedback parameters which measure the response of ocean and terrestrial carbon pools to changes in atmospheric CO 2 concentration and the resulting change in global climate, respectively. The results are based on 11 comprehensive Earth system models from the most recent (sixth) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and compared with eight models from the fifth CMIP (CMIP5). The strength of the carbon–concentration feedback is of comparable magnitudes over land (mean ± standard deviation = 0.97 ± 0.40 PgC ppm –1 ) and ocean (0.79 ± 0.07 PgC ppm –1 ), while the carbon–climate feedback over land (–45.1 ± 50.6 PgC °C –1 ) is about 3 times larger than over ocean (–17.2 ± 5.0 PgC °C –1 ). The strength of both feedbacks is an order of magnitude more uncertain over land than over ocean as has been seen in existing studies. These values and their spread from 11 CMIP6 models have not changed significantly compared to CMIP5 models. The absolute values of feedback parameters are lower for land with models that include a representation of nitrogen cycle. The transient climate response to cumulative emissions (TCRE) from the 11 CMIP6 models considered here is 1.77 ± 0.37 °C EgC –1 and is similar to that found in CMIP5 models (1.63 ± 0.48 °C EgC –1 ) but with somewhat reduced model spread. The expressions for feedback parameters based on the fully and biogeochemically coupled configurations of the 1pctCO2 simulation are simplified when the small temperature change in the biogeochemically coupled simulation is ignored. Decomposition of the terms of these simplified expressions for the feedback parameters is used to gain insight into the reasons for differing responses among ocean and land carbon cycle models.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Future sea level change under CMIP5 and CMIP6 scenarios from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets

Projections of the sea level contribution from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets rely on atmospheric and oceanic drivers obtained from climate models. The Earth System Models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) generally project greater future warming compared with the previous CMIP5 effort. Here we use four CMIP6 models and a selection of CMIP5 models to force multiple ice sheet models as part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). We find that the projected sea level contribution at 2100 from the ice sheet model ensemble under the CMIP6 scenarios falls within the CMIP5 range for the Antarctic ice sheet but is significantly increased for Greenland. Warmer atmosphere in CMIP6 models results in higher Greenland mass loss due to surface melt. For Antarctica, CMIP6 forcing is similar to CMIP5 and mass gain from increased snowfall counteracts increased loss due to ocean warming.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

An inconsistency in aviation emissions between CMIP5 and CMIP6 and the implications for short-lived species and their radiative forcing

We report on an inconsistency in the latitudinal distribution of aviation emissions between the data products of phases 5 and 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Emissions in the CMIP6 data occur at higher latitudes than in the CMIP5 data for all scenarios, years, and emitted species. A comparative simulation with the chemistry–climate model ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry (EMAC) reveals that the difference in nitrogen oxide emission distribution leads to reduced overall ozone changes due to aviation in the CMIP6 scenarios because in those scenarios the distribution of emissions is partly shifted towards the chemically less active higher latitudes. The radiative forcing associated with aviation ozone is 7.6 % higher, and the decrease in methane lifetime is 5.7 % larger for the year 2015 when using the CMIP5 latitudinal distribution of emissions compared to when using the CMIP6 distribution. We do not find a statistically significant difference in the radiative forcing associated with aviation aerosol emissions. In total, future studies investigating the effects of aviation emissions on ozone and climate should consider the inconsistency reported here.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Blocking Simulations in GFDL GCMs for CMIP5 and CMIP6

Abstract The frequency of atmospheric blocking has been largely underestimated by general circulation models (GCMs) participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Errors in the onset, persistence, barotropicity, geographical preference, seasonality, intensity, and moving speed of global blocking were diagnosed in 10 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) GCMs for recent CMIP5 and CMIP6 using a detection approach that combines zonal eddies and the reversal of zonal winds. The blocking frequency, similar at 500 and 250 hPa, is underestimated by 50% in the Atlantic–Europe region during December–February but is overestimated by 60% in the Pacific–North America region during that season and by 70% in the southwest Pacific during July–August. These blocking biases at 500 hPa were investigated in the five CMIP6 models that showed improvements over the CMIP5 versions. The Atlantic–Europe underestimate corresponds to lower instantaneous blocking rates, lower persistent blocking rates, and higher persistent stationary ridge rates; the number of blocks with a duration of 4–5 days is only 40%–65% of that in observations. In contrast, the overestimate consists of excessive blocks with a duration longer than 12 days in the Pacific–North America and up to twice as many 4–6-day events in the southwest Pacific. Simulated December–February blocks up to 12 days in the Pacific–North America region tend to be stronger and to move more slowly than those in observations. Diagnostic sensitivity tests indicated that the zonal mean and zonal eddy components of the mean state play a key role, as replacing each with that of observations substantially reduced many of the outstanding biases in these GCMs.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

The interpretation of temperature and salinity variables in numerical ocean model output and the calculation of heat fluxes and heat content

Abstract. The international Thermodynamic Equation of Seawater 2010 (TEOS-10) defined the enthalpy and entropy of seawater, thus enabling the global ocean heat content to be calculated as the volume integral of the product of in situ density, ρ, and potential enthalpy, h0 (with reference sea pressure of 0 dbar). In terms of Conservative Temperature, Θ, ocean heat content is the volume integral of ρcp0Θ, where cp0 is a constant “isobaric heat capacity”. However, many ocean models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) as well as all models that contributed to earlier phases, such as CMIP5, CMIP3, CMIP2, and CMIP1, used EOS-80 (Equation of State – 1980) rather than the updated TEOS-10, so the question arises of how the salinity and temperature variables in these models should be physically interpreted, with a particular focus on comparison to TEOS-10-compliant observations. In this article we address how heat content, surface heat fluxes, and the meridional heat transport are best calculated using output from these models and how these quantities should be compared with those calculated from corresponding observations. We conclude that even though a model uses the EOS-80, which expects potential temperature as its input temperature, the most appropriate interpretation of the model's temperature variable is actually Conservative Temperature. This perhaps unexpected interpretation is needed to ensure that the air–sea heat flux that leaves and arrives in atmosphere and sea ice models is the same as that which arrives in and leaves the ocean model. We also show that the salinity variable carried by present TEOS-10-based models is Preformed Salinity, while the salinity variable of EOS-80-based models is also proportional to Preformed Salinity. These interpretations of the salinity and temperature variables in ocean models are an update on the comprehensive Griffies et al. (2016) paper that discusses the interpretation of many aspects of coupled Earth system models.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Climate Model Output Rewriter

The Climate Model Output Rewriter (CMOR) software was first developed by LLNL’s PCMDI program in early 2000s and was formally released with v1.0 (July 2006), v2.0 (January 2011), and v3.1(June 2016). CMOR is used to produce Climate and Forecast Convention (http://cfconventions.org/) CF-compliant netCDF files, in the standard format required to satisfy the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). The software has been used across multiple phases of the Earth System Modeling (ESM) project CMIP (CMIP3, CMIP5, CMIP6, and planned use in CMIP7) along with numerous parallel projects focused on preparation observations for use in model evaluation (obs4MIPs) and forcing datasets (input4MIPs) to guide ESM simulations to meet strict experimental protocols. More information can be obtained from the CMOR website and code repositories: https://cmor.llnl.gov/; https://github.com/pcmdi/cmor; https://github.com/PCMDI/cmor3_documentation The ESM variable definitions used as input for CMOR can also be viewed in code repositories: https://github.com/PCMDI/cmip3-cmor-tables/; https://github.com/PCMDI/cmip5-cmor-tables/; https://github.com/PCMDI/cmip6-cmor-tables/

Mauzey, ChristopherF↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Midlatitude cyclone processes as a key to understanding climate sensitivity

Global climate models (GCMs) differ greatly in their shortwave cloud feedback. One feature that is consistent across GCMs is a positive shortwave cloud feedback in the subtropics, and a negative shortwave cloud feedback across the midlatitudes. Confidence has grown in the mechanisms that lead to, and the strength of, the subtropical shortwave cloud feedback, but the midlatitude negative shortwave cloud feedback is not well-constrained or well-understood. It is critical to reduce uncertainty in midlatitude shortwave cloud feedback. A more positive midlatitude shortwave cloud feedback in the sixth coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP6) has been found to be one of the primary causes of the increased climate sensitivity of CMIP6 models relative to CMIP5. We show that changes in midlatitude cyclones in future climates are the primary cause of the negative shortwave cloud feedback and are thus key to understanding the high climate sensitivity in the most recent GCMs. Warming-induced changes in cloud liquid water path in midlatitude cyclones can almost entirely be explained by Clausius-Clapeyron increasing moisture convergence into cyclones. One concern with simulating midlatitude cyclones is the lack of predictive skill at low resolution. A more realistic relationship between moisture flux and cyclone liquid content is found at high horizontal resolution (∆x<25km), but the cloud feedback within cyclones can be explained by increased moisture convergence across low- and high-resolution models. Observations and models agree that the extratropical shortwave cloud feedback is moderated by precipitation processes in cyclones. This rules out a large contribution from ice-to-liquid transitions, as has been hypothesized in previous studies. Understanding and constraining these precipitation processes is crucial to constraining the response of midlatitude cyclones to warming and by extension climate sensitivity.

Cyclones↗
NASA NTRS2020

The HadGEM3-GA7.1 radiative kernel: the importance of a well-resolved stratosphere

We present top-of-atmosphere and surface radiative kernels based on the atmospheric component (GA7.1) of the HadGEM3 general circulation model developed by the UK Met Office. We show that the utility of radiative kernels for forcing adjustments in idealised CO2 perturbation experiments is greatest where there is sufficiently high resolution in the stratosphere in both the target climate model and the radiative kernel. This is because stratospheric cooling to a CO2 perturbation continues to increase with height, and low-resolution or low-top kernels or climate model output are unable to fully resolve the full stratospheric temperature adjustment. In the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), standard atmospheric model data are available up to 1 hPa on 19 pressure levels, which is a substantial advantage compared to CMIP5. We show in the IPSL-CM6A-LR model where a full set of climate diagnostics are available that the HadGEM3-GA7.1 kernel exhibits linear behaviour and the residual error term is small, as well as from a survey of kernels available in the literature that in general low-top radiative kernels underestimate the stratospheric temperature response. The HadGEM3-GA7.1 radiative kernels are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3594673 (Smith, 2019).

radiative kernels↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-29139-DND

The Arctic has been warming at a rate outpacing globally-averaged warming by 2-3 times, a phenomenon known as "Arctic Amplification" (AA). AA is evident in observations of Arctic surface temperature over the last century as well as in model predictions. The accuracy of model predictions is crucial to determine our response to climate change, as Arctic changes have consequences for the atmospheric circulation, sea level rise, and the carbon cycle. Unfortunately, models show a wide range of possible futures and intermodel spread in projections of Arctic temperature is larger than for any other region: a 2°C global temperature increase- the limit set by the Paris Climate Agreement- would lead to an Arctic temperature change between 3-7°C according to Coupled Model Intercomparison 5 (CMIP5) models. This intermodel spread represents a key deficiency in the understanding of Arctic feedback processes and how changes in various physical parameters (e.g. sea ice cover, clouds, heat transport and surface fluxes) affect the temperature response. Using a process-oriented decomposition of the simulate Arctic surface energy budget, we attribute the largest contribution to the CMIP5 intermodel spead in projected Arctic warming to the Barents-Kara Sea region. Our results reveal that the increasing seasonal fluxing of ocean heat content is a significant part of the intermodel spread in AA and relates strongly to change in surface turbulent fluxes. Our results indicate that if we are to significantly reduce the intermodel spread in projected AA we must focus on understanding the behavior and physical processes that drive surface energy flows in the B-K sea region.

Patrick Taylor↗
DOE OSTI2020

The Global‐Mean Precipitation Response to CO 2 ‐Induced Warming in CMIP6 Models

Abstract We examine the response of globally averaged precipitation to global warming—the hydrologic sensitivity (HS)—in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) multi‐model ensemble. Multi‐model mean HS is 2.5% K −1 (ranging from 2.1–3.1% K −1 across models), a modest decrease compared to CMIP5 (where it was 2.6% K −1 ). This new set of simulations is used as an out‐of‐sample test for observational constraints on HS proposed based on CMIP5. The constraint based on clear‐sky shortwave absorption sensitivity to water vapor has weakened, and it is argued that a proposed constraint based on surface low cloud longwave radiative effects does not apply to HS. Finally, while a previously proposed mechanism connecting HS and climate sensitivity via low clouds is present in the CMIP6 ensemble, it is not an important factor for variations in HS. This explains why HS is uncorrelated with climate sensitivity across the CMIP5 and CMIP6 ensembles.

Pendergrass, A. G.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Evaluating precipitation distributions at regional scales: a benchmarking framework and application to CMIP5 and 6 models

Abstract. As the resolution of global Earth system models increases, regional-scale evaluations are becoming ever more important. This study presents a framework for quantifying precipitation distributions at regional scales and applies it to evaluate Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) 5 and 6 models. We employ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sixth assessment report (AR6) climate reference regions over land and propose refinements to the oceanic regions based on the homogeneity of precipitation distribution characteristics. The homogeneous regions are identified as heavy-, moderate-, and light-precipitating areas by K-means clustering of Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) version 6 final run product (IMERG) precipitation frequency and amount distributions. With the global domain partitioned into 62 regions, including 46 land and 16 ocean regions, we apply 10 established precipitation distribution metrics. The collection includes metrics focused on the maximum peak, lower 10th percentile, and upper 90th percentile in precipitation amount and frequency distributions; the similarity between observed and modeled frequency distributions; an unevenness measure based on cumulative amount; average total intensity on all days with precipitation; and number of precipitating days each year. We apply our framework to 25 CMIP5 and 41 CMIP6 models, as well as six observation-based products of daily precipitation. Our results indicate that many CMIP5 and 6 models substantially overestimate the observed light-precipitation amount and frequency, as well as the number of precipitating days, especially over midlatitude regions outside of some land regions in the Americas and Eurasia. Improvement from CMIP5 to 6 is shown in some regions, especially in midlatitude regions, but it is not evident globally, and over the tropics most metrics point toward degradation.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

CMIP5 model selection for ISMIP6 ice sheet model forcing: Greenland and Antarctica

Abstract. The ice sheet model intercomparison project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6) effort brings together the ice sheet and climate modeling communities to gain understanding of the ice sheet contribution to sea level rise. ISMIP6 conducts stand-alone ice sheet experiments that use space- and time-varying forcing derived from atmosphere–ocean coupled global climate models (AOGCMs) to reflect plausible trajectories for climate projections. The goal of this study is to recommend a subset of CMIP5 AOGCMs (three core and three targeted) to produce forcing for ISMIP6 stand-alone ice sheet simulations, based on (i) their representation of current climate near Antarctica and Greenland relative to observations and (ii) their ability to sample a diversity of projected atmosphere and ocean changes over the 21st century. The selection is performed separately for Greenland and Antarctica. Model evaluation over the historical period focuses on variables used to generate ice sheet forcing. For stage (i), we combine metrics of atmosphere and surface ocean state (annual- and seasonal-mean variables over large spatial domains) with metrics of time-mean subsurface ocean temperature biases averaged over sectors of the continental shelf. For stage (ii), we maximize the diversity of climate projections among the best-performing models. Model selection is also constrained by technical limitations, such as availability of required data from RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 projections. The selected top three CMIP5 climate models are CCSM4, MIROC-ESM-CHEM, and NorESM1-M for Antarctica and HadGEM2-ES, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M for Greenland. This model selection was designed specifically for ISMIP6 but can be adapted for other applications.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2021

Improved Representation of Atmospheric Dynamics in CMIP6 Models Removes Climate Sensitivity Dependence on Hadley Cell Climatological Extent

The persistent inter-model spread in the response of global mean surface temperature to increased CO. (known as the “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity”, or “ECS”) is a crucial problem across model generations. This work examines the influence of the models’ present-day atmospheric circulation climatologies, and the accompanying climatological cloud radiative effects, in explaining that spread. We analyze the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) models and _nd that they simulate a more poleward, and thus more realistic, edge of the Hadley Circulation (HC) in the SouthernHemisphere than the CMIP5 models, although the climatological shortwave cloud radiative effects are similar in the two generations of models. A few CMIP5 models with extreme equatorward biases in the HC edge exhibited high ECS due to strong Southern midlatitude shortwave cloud radiative warming in response to climate change, suggesting an ECS dependence on HC position. We find that such constraint no longer holds for the CMIP6 models, due to absence of models with extreme HC climatologies. In spite of this, however, the CMIP6 models show an increased spread in ECS, with more models in the high ECS range. Additionally, an improved representation of the climatological jet dynamics does not lead to a new emergent constraint in the CMIP6 models either.

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity↗
NASA NTRS2013

Stationarity of the Tropical Pacific Teleconnection to North America in CMIP5 PMIP3 Model Simulations

The temporal stationarity of the teleconnection between the tropical Pacific Ocean and North America (NA) is analyzed in atmosphere-only, and coupled last-millennium, historical, and control runs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 data archive. The teleconnection, defined as the correlation between December-January-February (DJF) tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and DJF 200 mb geopotential height, is found to be nonstationary on multidecadal timescales. There are significant changes in the spatial features of the teleconnection over NA in continuous 56-year segments of the last millennium and control simulations. Analysis of atmosphere-only simulations forced with observed SSTs indicates that atmospheric noise cannot account for the temporal variability of the teleconnection, which instead is likely explained by the strength of, and multidecadal changes in, tropical Pacific Ocean variability. These results have implications for teleconnection-based analyses of model fidelity in simulating precipitation, as well as any reconstruction and forecasting efforts that assume stationarity of the observed teleconnection.

histories↗
NASA NTRS2022

Extratropical Shortwave Cloud Feedbacks in the Context of the Global Circulation and Hydrological Cycle

Shortwave (SW) cloud feedback (SW FB ) is the primary driver of uncertainty in the effective climate sensitivity (ECS) predicted by global climate models (GCMs). ECS for several GCMs in the Sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) exceed 5K, above the fifth assessment report (AR5) ‘likely’ maximum (4.5K) due to extratropical SW FB ’s that are more positive than those simulated in previous generation CMIP5 GCMs. Here we show that across 57 GCMs Southern Ocean SW FB can be predicted from the sensitivity of column-integrated liquid water mass LWP) to moisture convergence and to surface temperature. The response of LWP to moisture convergence and the response of albedo to LWP anti-correlate across GCMs. This is because GCMs that simulate a larger response of LWP to moisture convergence tend to have higher mean-state LWPs, which reduces the impact of additional LWP on albedo. Observational constraints suggest a modestly negative Southern Ocean SW FB — inconsistent with extreme ECS.

extratropical cloud response↗
DOE OSTI2022

Increased Variability of Biomass Burning Emissions in CMIP6 Amplifies Hydrologic Cycle in the CESM2 Large Ensemble

Abstract Historical simulations performed for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 used biomass burning emissions between 1997 and 2014 containing higher spatial and temporal variability compared to emission inventories specified for earlier years, and compared to emissions used in previous (e.g., CMIP5) simulation intercomparisons. Using the Community Earth System Model version 2 Large Ensemble, we show this increased biomass burning emissions variability leads to amplification of the hydrologic cycle poleward of 40°N. Notably, the high variability of biomass burning emissions leads to increased latent heat fluxes, column‐integrated precipitable water, and precipitation. Greater ocean heat uptake, weaker meridional energy transport from the tropics, greater atmospheric shortwave and longwave absorption, and lower relative humidity act to moderate this hydrologic cycle amplification. Our results suggest it is not only the secular changes (on multidecadal timescales) in biomass burning emissions that impact the hydrologic cycle, but also the shorter timescale variability in emissions.

Heyblom, Kyle B.↗
NASA NTRS2021

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

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 has been used to generate LGM simulations as part of the Paleoclimate 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, most of which are PMIP4-CMIP6) and compare them with the previous generation of simulations (PMIP3, most of which are PMIP3-CMIP5). We show that the global averages of the PMIP4 simulations span a larger range in terms of mean annual surface air temperature and mean annual precipitation compared to the PMIP3-CMIP5 simulations, with some PMIP4 simulations reaching a globally colder and drier state. However, the multi-model global cooling average is similar for the PMIP4 and PMIP3 ensembles, while the multi-model PMIP4 mean annual precipitation average is drier than the PMIP3 one. There are important differences in both atmospheric and oceanic circulations 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. Therefore, 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 paleoclimate reconstructions. Nevertheless, regional climate changes are less well simulated: the models underestimate extratropical cooling, particularly in winter, and precipitation changes. These results point to the utility of using paleoclimate simulations to understand the mechanisms of climate change and evaluate model performance.

Last Glacial Maximum↗