Search

Our study is the first to demonstrate a high-temporal-resolution record of mineral composition in a Greenland ice core over the past 100 years. To reconstruct past variations in the sources and transportation processes of mineral dust in northwestern Greenland, we analysed the morphology and mineralogical composition of dust in the SIGMA-D ice core from 1915 to 2013 using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). The results revealed that the ice core dust consisted mainly of silicate minerals and that the composition varied substantially on multi-decadal and inter-decadal scales, suggesting that the ice core minerals originated from different geological sources in different periods during the past 100 years. The multi-decadal variation trend differed among mineral types. Kaolinite, which generally formed in warm and humid climatic zones, was abundant in colder periods (1950–2004), whereas mica, chlorite, feldspars, mafic minerals, and quartz, which formed in arid, high-latitude, and local areas, were abundant in warmer periods (1915–1949 and 2005–2013). Comparison to Greenland surface temperature records indicates that multi-decadal variation in the relative abundance of these minerals was likely affected by local temperature changes in Greenland. Trajectory analysis shows that the minerals were transported mainly from the western coast of Greenland in the two warming periods, which was likely due to an increase in dust sourced from local ice-free areas as a result of shorter snow/ice cover duration in the Greenland coastal region during the melt season caused by recent warming. Meanwhile, ancient deposits in northern Canada, which were formed in past warmer climates, seem to be the best candidate during the colder period (1950–2004). Our results suggest that SEM–EDS analysis can detect variations in ice core dust sources during recent periods of low dust concentration.

We present a new framework for global ocean–sea-ice model simulations based on phase 2 of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP-2), making use of the surface dataset based on the Japanese 55-year atmospheric reanalysis for driving ocean–sea-ice models (JRA55-do). We motivate the use of OMIP-2 over the framework for the first phase of OMIP (OMIP-1), previously referred to as the Coordinated Ocean–ice Reference Experiments (COREs), via the evaluation of OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations from 11 state-of-the-science global ocean–sea-ice models. In the present evaluation, multi-model ensemble means and spreads are calculated separately for the OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations and overall performance is assessed considering metrics commonly used by ocean modelers. Both OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 multi-model ensemble ranges capture observations in more than 80 % of the time and region for most metrics, with the multi-model ensemble spread greatly exceeding the difference between the means of the two datasets. Many features, including some climatologically relevant ocean circulation indices, are very similar between OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations, and yet we could also identify key qualitative improvements in transitioning from OMIP-1 to OMIP-2. For example, the sea surface temperatures of the OMIP-2 simulations reproduce the observed global warming during the 1980s and 1990s, as well as the warming slowdown in the 2000s and the more recent accelerated warming, which were absent in OMIP-1, noting that the last feature is part of the design of OMIP-2 because OMIP-1 forcing stopped in 2009. A negative bias in the sea-ice concentration in summer of both hemispheres in OMIP-1 is significantly reduced in OMIP-2. The overall reproducibility of both seasonal and interannual variations in sea surface temperature and sea surface height (dynamic sea level) is improved in OMIP-2. These improvements represent a new capability of the OMIP-2 framework for evaluating process-level responses using simulation results. Regarding the sensitivity of individual models to the change in forcing, the models show well-ordered responses for the metrics that are directly forced, while they show less organized responses for those that require complex model adjustments. Many of the remaining common model biases may be attributed either to errors in representing important processes in ocean–sea-ice models, some of which are expected to be reduced by using finer horizontal and/or vertical resolutions, or to shared biases and limitations in the atmospheric forcing. In particular, further efforts are warranted to resolve remaining issues in OMIP-2 such as the warm bias in the upper layer, the mismatch between the observed and simulated variability of heat content and thermosteric sea level before 1990s, and the erroneous representation of deep and bottom water formations and circulations. We suggest that such problems can be resolved through collaboration between those developing models (including parameterizations) and forcing datasets. Overall, the present assessment justifies our recommendation that future model development and analysis studies use the OMIP-2 framework.

The sixth version of the Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate (MIROC), called MIROC6, was cooperatively developed by a Japanese modeling community. In the present paper, simulated mean climate, internal climate variability, and climate sensitivity in MIROC6 are evaluated and briefly summarized in comparison with the previous version of our climate model (MIROC5) and observations. The results show that the overall reproducibility of mean climate and internal climate variability in MIROC6 is better than that in MIROC5. The tropical climate systems (e.g., summertime precipitation in the western Pacific and the eastward-propagating Madden–Julian oscillation) and the midlatitude atmospheric circulation (e.g., the westerlies, the polar night jet, and troposphere–stratosphere interactions) are significantly improved in MIROC6. These improvements can be attributed to the newly implemented parameterization for shallow convective processes and to the inclusion of the stratosphere. While there are significant differences in climates and variabilities between the two models, the effective climate sensitivity of 2.6 K remains the same because the differences in radiative forcing and climate feedback tend to offset each other. With an aim towards contributing to the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, designated simulations tackling a wide range of climate science issues, as well as seasonal to decadal climate predictions and future climate projections, are currently ongoing using MIROC6.

To assess the skill of seasonal to inter-annual predictions of the detrended sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean (SIEAO) and to clarify the underlying physical processes, we conducted ensemble hindcasts, started on 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October for each year from 1980 to 2011, for lead times up to three years, using the Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate (MIROC) version 5 initialised with the observed atmosphere and ocean anomalies and sea ice concentration. Significant skill is found for the winter months: the December SIEAO can be predicted up to 11 months ahead (anomaly correlation coefficient is 0.42). This skill might be attributed to the subsurface ocean heat content originating in the North Atlantic. A plausible mechanism is as follows: the subsurface water flows into the Barents Sea from spring to fall and emerges at the surface in winter by vertical mixing, and eventually affects the sea ice variability there. Meanwhile, the September SIEAO predictions are skillful for lead times of up to two months, due to the persistence of sea ice in the Beaufort, Chukchi, and East Siberian seas initialised in July, as suggested by previous studies.

The Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP) is an endorsed project in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). OMIP addresses CMIP6 science questions, investigating the origins and consequences of systematic model biases. It does so by providing a framework for evaluating (including assessment of systematic biases), understanding, and improving ocean, sea-ice, tracer, and biogeochemical components of climate and earth system models contributing to CMIP6. Among the WCRP Grand Challenges in climate science (GCs), OMIP primarily contributes to the regional sea level change and near-term (climate/decadal) prediction GCs.OMIP provides (a) an experimental protocol for global ocean/sea-ice models run with a prescribed atmospheric forcing; and (b) a protocol for ocean diagnostics to be saved as part of CMIP6. We focus here on the physical component of OMIP, with a companion paper (Orr et al., 2016) detailing methods for the inert chemistry and interactive biogeochemistry. The physical portion of the OMIP experimental protocol follows the interannual Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments (CORE-II). Since 2009, CORE-I (Normal Year Forcing) and CORE-II (Interannual Forcing) have become the standard methods to evaluate global ocean/sea-ice simulations and to examine mechanisms for forced ocean climate variability. The OMIP diagnostic protocol is relevant for any ocean model component of CMIP6, including the DECK (Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima experiments), historical simulations, FAFMIP (Flux Anomaly Forced MIP), C4MIP (Coupled Carbon Cycle Climate MIP), DAMIP (Detection and Attribution MIP), DCPP (Decadal Climate Prediction Project), ScenarioMIP, HighResMIP (High Resolution MIP), as well as the ocean/sea-ice OMIP simulations.