Description

Description: This dataset consists of three simulations from the Northeastern Pacific Canadian Ocean Ecosystem Model (NEP36-CanOE) which is a configuration of the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO) V3.6. The historical simulation is an estimate of the 1986-2005 mean climate. The future simulations project the 2046-2065 mean climate for representative concentration pathways (RCP) 4.5 (moderate mitigation scenario) and 8.5 (no mitigation scenario). Each simulation is forced by a climatology of atmospheric forcing fields calculated over these 20 year periods and the winds are augmented with high frequency variability, which introduces a small amount of interannual variability. Model outputs are averaged over 3 successive years of simulation (the last 3, following an equilibration period); standard deviation among the 3 years is available upon request. For each simulation, the dataset includes the air-sea carbon dioxide flux, monthly 3D fields for potential temperature, salinity, potential density, total alkalinity, dissolved inorganic carbon, nitrate, oxygen, pH, total chlorophyll, aragonite saturation state, total primary production, and monthly maximum and minimum values for oxygen, pH, and potential temperature. The data includes 50 vertical levels at a 1/36 degree spatial resolution and a mask is provided that indicates regions where these data should be used cautiously or not at all. For a more detailed description please refer to Holdsworth et al. 2021. Methods: This study uses a multi-stage downscaling approach to dynamically downscale global climate projections at a 1/36° (1.5 − 2.25 km) resolution. We chose to use the second-generation Canadian Earth System model (CanESM2) because high-resolution downscaled projections of the atmosphere over the region of interest are available from the Canadian Regional Climate Model version 4 (CanRCM4). We used anomalies from CanESM2 with a resolution of about 1° at the open boundaries, and the regional atmospheric model, CanRCM4 (Scinocca et al., 2016) for the surface boundary conditions. CanRCM4 is an atmosphere only model with a 0.22° resolution and was used to downscale climate projections from CanESM2 over North America and its adjacent oceans. The model used is computationally expensive. This is due to the relatively high number of points in the domain (715 × 1,021 × 50) and the relatively complex biogeochemical model (19 tracers). Therefore, rather than carrying out interannual simulations for the historical and future periods, we implemented a new method that uses atmospheric climatologies with augmented winds to force the ocean. We show that augmenting the winds with hourly anomalies allows for a more realistic representation of the surface freshwater distribution than using the climatologies alone. Section 2.1 describes the ocean model that is used to estimate the historical climate and project the ocean state under future climate scenarios. The time periods are somewhat arbitrary; 1986–2005 was chosen because the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) historical simulations end in 2005 as no community-accepted estimates of emissions were available beyond that date (Taylor et al., 2009); 2046–2065 was chosen to be far enough in the future that changes in 20 year mean fields are unambiguously due to changing GHG forcing (as opposed to model internal variability) (e.g., Christian, 2014), but near enough to be considered relevant for management purposes. While it is true that 30 years rather than 20 is the canonical value for averaging over natural variability, in practice the difference between a 20 and a 30 year mean is small (e.g., if we average successive periods of an unforced control run, the variance among 20 year means will be only slightly larger than for 30 year means). Also, there is concern that longer averaging periods are inappropriate in a non-stationary climate (Livezey et al., 2007; Arguez and Vose, 2011). We chose 20 year periods because they are adequate to give a mean annual cycle with little influence from natural variability, while minimizing aliasing of the secular trend into the means. As the midpoints of the two time periods are separated by 60 years, the contribution of natural variability to the differences between the historical and future simulations is negligible e.g., (Hawkins and Sutton, 2009; Frölicher et al., 2016). Section 2.2 describes how climatologies derived from observations were used for the initialization and open boundary conditions for the historical simulations and pseudo-climatologies were used for the future scenarios. The limited availability of observations means that the years used for these climatologies differs somewhat from the historical and future periods. Section 2.3 details the atmospheric forcing fields and the method that we developed to generate winds with realistic high-frequency variability while preserving the daily climatological means from the CanRCM4 data. Section 2.4 shows the equilibration of key modeled variables to the forcing conditions Data Sources: Model output Uncertainties: The historical climatologies were evaluated using observational climatologies generated from stations with a long time series of data over the time period including CTDs, nutrient profiles, lighthouse, satellite SST and buoy data. The model is able to represent the historical conditions with an acceptable bias. The resolution of this model is insufficient to represent the narrow straits and channels of this region so the dataset includes a cautionary mask to exclude these regions. These climate projections are downscaled from a single global climate model (CanESM2/CanRCM4) because the cost of ensembles is presently prohibitive. Our experimental design uses climatological forcing for each time period so the differences between them are almost entirely due to anthropogenic forcing with little effect of natural variability. We caution that our experimental design does not permit analysis of the effects of natural climate variability. We recommend using both of the scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.4) to estimate the scenario uncertainty in these projections.

Resources

Name	Format	Description	Link
	33		https://api-proxy.edh.azure.cloud.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/catalogue/records/a203a06d-9c1f-4bb1-a908-fc52912ff658/attachments/Data_Dictionary_NEP36.pdf
	21		https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/5551969d-f94c-406b-b849-50b49d32290f
	21		https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/33974622-3acf-4f22-86c1-09b92fa91b2d
	21		https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/d35d85c1-ae76-4f83-96f4-1b6d1c7dee60
	21		https://dfogis.azureedge.net/FGP/NEP36-CanOE/SupportingDocuments/Data_dictionary_EN_FR_NEP36-CanOE_Climate_Projections.htm
	21		https://dfogis.azureedge.net/FGP/NEP36-CanOE/SupportingDocuments/References_EN_FR_NEP36-CanOE_Climate_Projections.htm
	21		https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/5551969d-f94c-406b-b849-50b49d32290f
	21		https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/33974622-3acf-4f22-86c1-09b92fa91b2d
	21		https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/d35d85c1-ae76-4f83-96f4-1b6d1c7dee60
	33		https://api-proxy.edh.azure.cloud.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/catalogue/records/a203a06d-9c1f-4bb1-a908-fc52912ff658/attachments/References_NEP36.pdf

Tags

Topics

Categories