Mid-Holocene and last glacial maximum climate simulations with the IPSL model: Part II: Model-data comparisons

The climates of the mid-Holocene (MH, 6,000 years ago) and the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, 21,000 years ago) have been extensively documented and as such, have become targets for the evaluation of climate models for climate contexts very different from the present. In Part 1 of the present work, we have studied the MH and LGM simulations performed with the last two versions of the IPSL model: IPSL_CM4, run for the PMIP2/CMIP3 (Coupled Model Intercomparion Project) projects and IPSL_CM5A, run for the most recent PMIP3/CMIP5 projets. We have shown that not only are these models different in their simulations of the PI climate, but also in their simulations of the climatic anomalies for the MH and LGM. In the Part 2 of this paper, we first examine whether palaeo-data can help discriminate between the model performances. This is indeed the case for the African monsoon for the MH or for North America south of the Laurentide ice sheet, the South Atlantic or the southern Indian ocean for the LGM. For the LGM, off-line vegetation modelling appears to offer good opportunities to distinguish climate model results because glacial vegetation proves to be very sensitive to even small differences in LGM climate. For other cases such as the LGM North Atlantic or the LGM equatorial Pacific, the large uncertainty on the SST reconstructions, prevents model discrimination. We have examined the use of other proxy-data for model evaluation, which has become possible with the inclusion of the biogeochemistry morel PISCES in the IPSL_CM5A model. We show a broad agreement of the LGM-PI export production changes with reconstructions. These changes are related to the mixed layer depth in most regions and to sea-ice variations in the high latitudes. We have also modelled foraminifer abundances with the FORAMCLIM model and shown that the changes in foraminifer abundance in the equatorial Pacific are mainly forced by changes in SSTs, hence confirming the SST-foraminifer abundance relationship. Yet, this is not the case in all regions in the North Atlantic, where food availability can have a strong impact of foraminifer abundances. Further work will be needed to exhaustively examine the role of factors other than climate in piloting changes in palaeo-indicators.