Evaluation of Arctic warming in mid-Pliocene climate simulations

Abstract. Palaeoclimate simulations improve our understanding of the climate, inform us about the performance of climate models in a different climate scenario, and help to identify robust features of the climate system. Here, we analyse Arctic warming in an ensemble of 16 simulations of the mid-Pliocene Warm Period (mPWP), derived from the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2 (PlioMIP2). The PlioMIP2 ensemble simulates Arctic (60–90° N) annual mean surface air temperature (SAT) increases of 3.7 to 11.6 °C compared to the pre-industrial, with a multi-model mean (MMM) increase of 7.2 °C. The Arctic warming amplification ratio relative to global SAT anomalies in the ensemble ranges from 1.8 to 3.1 (MMM is 2.3). Sea ice extent anomalies range from −3.0 to −10.4 × 06 km2 with a MMM anomaly of −5.6 × 106 km2, which constitutes a decrease of 53 % compared to the pre-industrial. The majority (11 out of 16) models simulate summer sea ice-free conditions (≤ 1 × 06 km2) in their mPWP simulation. The ensemble tends to underestimate SAT in the Arctic when compared to available reconstructions. The simulations with the highest Arctic SAT anomalies tend to match the proxy dataset in its current form better. The ensemble shows some agreement with reconstructions of sea ice, particularly with regards to seasonal sea ice. Large uncertainties limit the confidence that can be placed in the findings and the compatibility of the different proxy datasets. We show that, while reducing uncertainties in the reconstructions could decrease the SAT data-model discord substantially, further improvements are likely to be found in enhanced boundary conditions or model physics. Lastly, we compare the Arctic warming in the mPWP to projections of future Arctic warming and find that the PlioMIP2 ensemble simulates greater Arctic amplification, an increase instead of a decrease in AMOC strength compared to pre-industrial, and a lesser strengthening of northern modes of variability than CMIP5 future climate simulations. The results highlight the importance of slow feedbacks in equilibrium climate simulations, and that caution must be taken when using simulations of the mPWP as an analogue for future climate change.