@article{fdi:010060875,
  title = {{M}id-{H}olocene and {L}ast {G}lacial {M}aximum climate simulations with the {IPSL} model : part {II} : model-data comparisons},
  author = {{K}ageyama, {M}. and {B}raconnot, {P}. and {B}opp, {L}. and {M}ariotti, {V}. and {R}oy, {T}. and {W}oillez, {M}. {N}. and {C}aubel, {A}. and {F}oujols, {M}. {A}. and {G}uilyardi, {E}. and {K}hodri, {M}yriam and {L}loyd, {J}. and {L}ombard, {F}. and {M}arti, {O}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{T}he climates of the mid-{H}olocene ({MH}, 6,000 years ago) and the {L}ast {G}lacial {M}aximum ({LGM}, 21,000 years ago) have been extensively documented and as such, have become targets for the evaluation of climate models for climate contexts very different from the present. {I}n {P}art 1 of the present work, we have studied the {MH} and {LGM} simulations performed with the last two versions of the {IPSL} model: {IPSL}_{CM}4, run for the {PMIP}2/{CMIP}3 ({C}oupled {M}odel {I}ntercomparion {P}roject) projects and {IPSL}_{CM}5{A}, run for the most recent {PMIP}3/{CMIP}5 projets. {W}e have shown that not only are these models different in their simulations of the {PI} climate, but also in their simulations of the climatic anomalies for the {MH} and {LGM}. {I}n the {P}art 2 of this paper, we first examine whether palaeo-data can help discriminate between the model performances. {T}his is indeed the case for the {A}frican monsoon for the {MH} or for {N}orth {A}merica south of the {L}aurentide ice sheet, the {S}outh {A}tlantic or the southern {I}ndian ocean for the {LGM}. {F}or the {LGM}, off-line vegetation modelling appears to offer good opportunities to distinguish climate model results because glacial vegetation proves to be very sensitive to even small differences in {LGM} climate. {F}or other cases such as the {LGM} {N}orth {A}tlantic or the {LGM} equatorial {P}acific, the large uncertainty on the {SST} reconstructions, prevents model discrimination. {W}e have examined the use of other proxy-data for model evaluation, which has become possible with the inclusion of the biogeochemistry morel {PISCES} in the {IPSL}_{CM}5{A} model. {W}e show a broad agreement of the {LGM}-{PI} export production changes with reconstructions. {T}hese changes are related to the mixed layer depth in most regions and to sea-ice variations in the high latitudes. {W}e have also modelled foraminifer abundances with the {FORAMCLIM} model and shown that the changes in foraminifer abundance in the equatorial {P}acific are mainly forced by changes in {SST}s, hence confirming the {SST}-foraminifer abundance relationship. {Y}et, this is not the case in all regions in the {N}orth {A}tlantic, where food availability can have a strong impact of foraminifer abundances. {F}urther work will be needed to exhaustively examine the role of factors other than climate in piloting changes in palaeo-indicators.},
  keywords = {{IPSL} climate model ; {M}id-{H}olocene ; {L}ast glacial maximum ; {PMIP}/{CMIP} ; {V}egetation model ; {O}cean biogeochemical model ; {F}oraminifer abundance model ; {M}odel-data comparison},
  booktitle = {{P}resentation and analysis of the {IPSL} and {CNRM} climate models used in {CMIP}5},
  journal = {{C}limate {D}ynamics},
  volume = {40},
  numero = {9-10},
  pages = {2469--2495},
  ISSN = {0930-7575},
  year = {2013},
  DOI = {10.1007/s00382-012-1499-5},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010060875},
}