An analysis of the simulated Southern Hemisphere, mid-to-high-latitude climate of the Last Glacial Maximum

Figures & data

Table 1  Configurations of the models used in this study.

Model name (PMIP2 database)	Model name in the text	Atmosphere resolution (levels)	Ocean resolution (levels)	Model reference
CCSM3	CCSM3	T42 (26)	1°×1° (40)	Otto-Bliesner et al. (2006)
FGOALS-g1.0	FGOALS	2.8°×2.8° (26)	1°×1° (33)	Yu et al. (2002, 2004)
HadCM3M2	HadCM3M2	3.75°×2.5° (19)	1.25°×1.25° (20)	Gordon et al. (2000)

Figure 1  The SAO index. A, For NCEP reanalysis data (black solid line) and each of the PMIP2 models' PI (solid lines) runs. B, For the PMIP2 models' PI (solid lines) and LGM runs (dashed lines). The colour key for the models is CCSM3, blue; FGOALS, green; HadCM3M2, red.

Figure 2  The annual (A–C), DJF (D–F), MAM (G–I), JJA (J–L) and SON (M–O) mean change (LGM minus preindustrial) in westerly wind component for CCSM3, FGOALS and HadCM3M2. Figures are labelled with the models and seasons. Solid lines indicate increases in the westerly wind strength and dashed lines indicate decreases (LGM minus preindustrial).

Table 2  The difference (LGM–PI) in DT₅₀₀, annual mean temperature gradient over different latitude spans for CCSM3 and FGOALS.

Latitude span for DT500	Change in DT500 (LGM–PI) in CCSM3 (K)	Change in DT500 (LGM–PI) in FGOALS (K)
50–65°S	1.14	1.03
40–65°S	1.13	1.12
30–65°S	0.72	1.40
20–65°S	0.73	1.81

Figure 3  The leading EOF from the 500hPa geopotential height field for the NCEP reanalysis data from 1979 to 2008. Solid lines indicate positive values and dashed lines indicate negative values.

Figure 4  The leading EOF in the 500 hPa geopotential height field for each of the models used in this study. A–C, The PI control phase. D–F, The LGM phase. The figures are labelled to indicate which model each plot is taken from. Solid lines indicate positive values and dashed lines indicate negative values.

Table 3  The variance explained by the leading EOF in each model and the spatial correlation between the leading EOF in the NCEP reanalysis and each of the PMIP2 models used in this study.

Model	Variance explained in PI	Spatial correlation
NCEP reanalysis	20.6	-
CCSM3	26.3	0.87
FGOALS	21.3	0.68
HadCM3M2	21.8	0.92

Otto-Bliesner , BL , Brady , EC , Clauzet , G , Tomas , R , Levis , S and Kothavala , Z . 2006 . Last Glacial Maximum and Holocene climate in CCSM3 . Journal of Climate , 19 : 2526 – 2544 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yu , YQ , Yu , RC , Zhang , XH and Guo , YF . 2002 . A flexible coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model . Advances in Atmospheric Sciences , 19 : 169 – 190 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yu , YQ , Zhang , XH and Guo , YF . 2004 . Global coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models in Lasg/Iap . Advances in Atmospheric Sciences , 21 : 444 – 455 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gordon , C , Cooper , C , Senior , CA , Banks , H , Gregory , JM , Johns , TC , Mitchell , JFB and Wood , RA . 2000 . The simulation of SST, sea-ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre Model without flux adjustments . Climate Dynamics , 16 : 147 – 168 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar