Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2022

Presentation information

[J] Oral

M (Multidisciplinary and Interdisciplinary) » M-IS Intersection

[M-IS18] Paleoclimatology and paleoceanography

Thu. May 26, 2022 3:30 PM - 5:00 PM 304 (International Conference Hall, Makuhari Messe)

convener:Hitoshi Hasegawa(Faculty of Science and Technology, Kochi University), convener:Yusuke Okazaki(Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Graduate School of Science, Kyushu University), Akitomo Yamamoto(Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyAtmosphere and Ocean Research Institute), convener:Atsuko Yamazaki(Faculty of Science, Kyushu University), Chairperson:Akitomo Yamamoto(Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyAtmosphere and Ocean Research Institute)

4:00 PM - 4:15 PM

[MIS18-07] Transient simulations of the last two deglaciations and abrupt climate changes related to different Northern ice sheet discharge and insolation

*Takashi Obase1, Ayako Abe-Ouchi1, Fuyuki SAITO2 (1.Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, the University of Tokyo, 2.Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology)

There were significant differences between the last two deglaciations, particularly in Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and Antarctic warming in the deglaciations and the following interglacials. Here, we present transient simulations of deglaciation using a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model for the last two deglaciations focusing on the impact of ice sheet discharge on climate changes associated with the AMOC in the first part, and the sensitivity studies using a Northern Hemisphere ice sheet model in the second part. We show that a set of abrupt climate changes of the last deglaciation, including Bolling–Allerod warming, the Younger Dryas, and onset of the Holocene were simulated with gradual changes of both ice sheet discharge and radiative forcing. On the other hand, penultimate deglaciation, with the abrupt climate change only at the beginning of the last interglacial was simulated when the ice sheet discharge was greater than in the last deglaciation by a factor of 1.5. One additional deglaciation experiments using realistic T2 orbital and GHG forcing indicate that a weak AMOC during the middle and later stages of the deglaciation was sufficient for the Antarctic warmth of T2, which can be explained by the fact that the typical response time of Antarctic warming to the AMOC. These results, together with Northern Hemisphere ice sheet model experiments suggest the importance of the transient climate and AMOC responses to the different orbital forcing conditions of the last two deglaciations, through the mechanisms of mass loss of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheet and meltwater influx to the ocean.