Search

The Miocene (23.03-5.33 Ma) is recognized as a period with close to modern-day paleogeography, yet a much warmer climate. With large uncertainties in future hydroclimate projections, Miocene conditions illustrate a potential future analog for the Earth system. A recent opportunistic Miocene Model Intercomparison Project 1 (MioMIP1) focused on synthesizing published Miocene climate simulations and comparing them with available temperature reconstructions. Here, we build on this effort by analyzing the hydrological cycle response to Miocene forcings across early-to-middle (E2MMIO; 20.03-11.6 Ma) and middle-to-late Miocene (M2LMIO; 11.5-5.33 Ma) simulations with CO2 concentrations ranging from 200 to 850 ppm and providing a model-data comparison against available precipitation reconstructions. We find global precipitation increases by similar to 2.1 and 2.3% per degree of warming for E2MMIO and M2LMIO simulations, respectively. Models generally agree on a wetter than modern-day tropics; mid and high-latitude, however, do not agree on the sign of subtropical precipitation changes with warming. Global monsoon analysis suggests most monsoon regions, except the North American Monsoon, experience higher precipitation rates under warmer conditions. Model-data comparison shows that mean annual precipitation is underestimated by the models regardless of CO2 concentration, particularly in the mid- to high-latitudes. This suggests that the models may not be (a) resolving key processes driving the hydrological cycle response to Miocene boundary conditions and/or (b) other boundary conditions or processes not considered here are critical to reproducing Miocene hydroclimate. This study highlights the challenges in modeling and reconstructing the Miocene hydrological cycle and serves as a baseline for future coordinated MioMIP efforts. This study looks at Earth's hydrological cycle during the Miocene (23-5 million years ago). During this period, the Earth's climate was 3-7 degrees C

The Miocene (23.03–5.33 Ma) is recognized as a period with close to modern-day paleogeography, yet a much warmer climate. With large uncertainties in future hydroclimate projections, Miocene conditions illustrate a potential future analog for the Earth system. A recent opportunistic Miocene Model Intercomparison Project 1 (MioMIP1) focused on synthesizing published Miocene climate simulations and comparing them with available temperature reconstructions. Here, we build on this effort by analyzing the hydrological cycle response to Miocene forcings across early-to-middle (E2MMIO; 20.03–11.6 Ma) and middle-to-late Miocene (M2LMIO; 11.5–5.33 Ma) simulations with CO2 concentrations ranging from 200 to 850 ppm and providing a model-data comparison against available precipitation reconstructions. We find global precipitation increases by ∼2.1 and 2.3% per degree of warming for E2MMIO and M2LMIO simulations, respectively. Models generally agree on a wetter than modern-day tropics; mid and high-latitude, however, do not agree on the sign of subtropical precipitation changes with warming. Global monsoon analysis suggests most monsoon regions, except the North American Monsoon, experience higher precipitation rates under warmer conditions. Model-data comparison shows that mean annual precipitation is underestimated by the models regardless of CO2 concentration, particularly in the mid- to high-latitudes. This suggests that the models may not be (a) resolving key processes driving the hydrological cycle response to Miocene boundary conditions and/or (b) other boundary conditions or processes not considered here are critical to reproducing Miocene hydroclimate. This study highlights the challenges in modeling and reconstructing the Miocene hydrological cycle and serves as a baseline for future coordinated MioMIP efforts.

The Miocene epoch, spanning 23.03–5.33 Ma, was a dynamic climate of sustained, polar amplified warmth. Miocene atmospheric CO2 concentrations are typically reconstructed between 300 and 600 ppm and were potentially higher during the Miocene Climatic Optimum (16.75–14.5 Ma). With surface temperature reconstructions pointing to substantial midlatitude and polar warmth, it is unclear what processes maintained the much weaker-than-modern equator-to-pole temperature difference. Here, we synthesize several Miocene climate modeling efforts together with available terrestrial and ocean surface temperature reconstructions. We evaluate the range of model-data agreement, highlight robust mechanisms operating across Miocene modeling efforts and regions where differences across experiments result in a large spread in warming responses. Prescribed CO2 is the primary factor controlling global warming across the ensemble. On average, elements other than CO2, such as Miocene paleogeography and ice sheets, raise global mean temperature by ∼2°C, with the spread in warming under a given CO2 concentration (due to a combination of the spread in imposed boundary conditions and climate feedback strengths) equivalent to ∼1.2 times a CO2 doubling. This study uses an ensemble of opportunity: models, boundary conditions, and reference data sets represent the state-of-art for the Miocene, but are inhomogeneous and not ideal for a formal intermodel comparison effort. Acknowledging this caveat, this study is nevertheless the first Miocene multi-model, multi-proxy comparison attempted so far. This study serves to take stock of the current progress toward simulating Miocene warmth while isolating remaining challenges that may be well served by community-led efforts to coordinate modeling and data activities within a common analytical framework.

The Miocene epoch (23.03–5.33 Ma) was a time interval of global warmth, relative to today. Continental configurations and mountain topography transitioned toward modern conditions, and many flora and fauna evolved into the same taxa that exist today. Miocene climate was dynamic: long periods of early and late glaciation bracketed a ∼2 Myr greenhouse interval—the Miocene Climatic Optimum (MCO). Floras, faunas, ice sheets, precipitation, pCO2, and ocean and atmospheric circulation mostly (but not ubiquitously) covaried with these large changes in climate. With higher temperatures and moderately higher pCO2 (∼400–600 ppm), the MCO has been suggested as a particularly appropriate analog for future climate scenarios, and for assessing the predictive accuracy of numerical climate models—the same models that are used to simulate future climate. Yet, Miocene conditions have proved difficult to reconcile with models. This implies either missing positive feedbacks in the models, a lack of knowledge of past climate forcings, or the need for re-interpretation of proxies, which might mitigate the model-data discrepancy. Our understanding of Miocene climatic, biogeochemical, and oceanic changes on broad spatial and temporal scales is still developing. New records documenting the physical, chemical, and biotic aspects of the Earth system are emerging, and together provide a more comprehensive understanding of this important time interval. Here, we review the state-of-the-art in Miocene climate, ocean circulation, biogeochemical cycling, ice sheet dynamics, and biotic adaptation research as inferred through proxy observations and modeling studies.

The Miocene epoch (23.03–5.33 Ma) was a time interval of global warmth, relative to today. Continental configurations and mountain topography transitioned toward modern conditions, and many flora and fauna evolved into the same taxa that exist today. Miocene climate was dynamic: long periods of early and late glaciation bracketed a ∼2 Myr greenhouse interval—the Miocene Climatic Optimum (MCO). Floras, faunas, ice sheets, precipitation, pCO2, and ocean and atmospheric circulation mostly (but not ubiquitously) covaried with these large changes in climate. With higher temperatures and moderately higher pCO2 (∼400–600 ppm), the MCO has been suggested as a particularly appropriate analog for future climate scenarios, and for assessing the predictive accuracy of numerical climate models—the same models that are used to simulate future climate. Yet, Miocene conditions have proved difficult to reconcile with models. This implies either missing positive feedbacks in the models, a lack of knowledge of past climate forcings, or the need for re-interpretation of proxies, which might mitigate the model-data discrepancy. Our understanding of Miocene climatic, biogeochemical, and oceanic changes on broad spatial and temporal scales is still developing. New records documenting the physical, chemical, and biotic aspects of the Earth system are emerging, and together provide a more comprehensive understanding of this important time interval. Here, we review the state-of-the-art in Miocene climate, ocean circulation, biogeochemical cycling, ice sheet dynamics, and biotic adaptation research as inferred through proxy observations and modeling studies., The initial workshops that catalyzed this project were supported by The Bolin Center for Climate Research, Stockholm University, and the Swedish Research Council (Conference Grant nr. 2018–06,618 to M. Steinthorsdottir). The authors acknowledge funding from: the Swedish Research Council (VR starting grant nr. NT7-2016 04,905 to M. Steinthorsdottir; VR grants nr. 2016–03,912 to A. M. de Boer and nr. 2016–04,434 to J. Henderiks); the United States National Science Foundation (NSF), through the P2C2 program grant nr. 1602905 to M. Huber, the Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences program grant nr. to N.J.B (who is also supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation as a Research Fellow), and the Global Change, Sedimentary Geology & Paleobiology, and Geobiology and Low-temperature Geochemistry programs grant nrs. 1349749 and1561027 to M. J. Kohn; and the UK Natural Environment Research Council (grant NE/P019102) to C. H. Lear. E. Gasson acknowledges funding from a Royal Society fellowship. Clara Bolton, Peter Bijl, Daniel Breecker, Jeremy Caves Rugenstein, Florence Collioni, Mikael Fortelius, David Lazarus, Eelco Rohling, Francesca Sangiorgi, Maria Seton, Erik Skovbjerg Rasmussen, Appy Sluijs, Lars Werdelin, and Zhongshi Zhang are thanked for their useful comments with respect to Figure 1. M. Huber acknowledges assistance in Miocene work from Nick Herold and Ashley Dicks. No new data were created for this study, and all reviewed data sets are available through the cited original papers. The authors declare no conflict of interest.