Northeastern Pacific Canadian Ocean Ecosystem Model (NEP36-CanOE) Climate Projections

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.

Datasets available for download

Additional Info

Field	Value
Last Updated	October 20, 2025, 02:58 (UTC)
Created	October 20, 2025, 02:58 (UTC)
Domain / Topic Domain or topic of the dataset being cataloged.	Climatology Meteorology Atmosphere, Environment, Oceans
Title Title for the Dataset.	Northeastern Pacific Canadian Ocean Ecosystem Model (NEP36-CanOE) Climate Projections
Description A description of the dataset.	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.
Tags / Keywords Keywords/tags categorizing the dataset.	Climate Modelling Nature and Environment Science and Technology
Format (CSV, XLS, TXT, PDF, etc) File format of the dataset.
Dataset Size Dataset size in megabytes.
Metadata Identifier Metadata identifier – can be used as the unique identifier for catalogue entry
Published Date Published date of the dataset.	2021-03-02
Time Period Data Span (start date) Start date of the data in the dataset.
Time Period Data Span (end date) End date of time data in the dataset.
GeoSpatial Area Data Span A spatial region or named place the dataset covers.

Field	Value
Access category Type of access granted for the dataset (open, closed, service, etc).
License License used to access the dataset.	Open Government Licence - Canada
Limits on use Limits on use of data.
Location Location of the dataset.	https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/a203a06d-9c1f-4bb1-a908-fc52912ff658
Data Service Data service for accessing a dataset.
Owner Owner of the dataset.	Fisheries and Oceans Canada \| Pêches et Océans Canada
Contact Point Who to contact regarding access?	Government of Canada; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Ecosystems and Ocean Science/Pacific Science/Ocean Science Division, Government of Canada; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Ecosystems and Ocean Science/Pacific Science/Ocean Science Division, 1 (236) 464-5231, (250) 686-6081, [email protected], [email protected]
Contact Point Email The email to contact regarding access?
Publisher Publisher of the dataset.
Publisher Email Email of the publisher.	[email protected]
Author Author of the dataset.
Author Email Email of the author.
Accessed At Date the data and metadata was accessed.

Field	Value
Identifier Unique identifier for the dataset.
Language Language(s) of the dataset
Link to dataset description A URL to an external document describing the dataset.
Persistent Identifier Data is identified by a persistent identifier.
Globally Unique Identifier Data is identified by a persistent and globally unique identifier.
Contains data about individuals Does the data hold data about individuals?
Contains data about identifiable individuals Does the data hold identifiable data about individual?
Contains Indigenous Data Does the data hold data about Indigenous communities?
Portal Type Platform type of the source portal.

Field	Value
Version Version of the datatset	None
Source Source of the dataset.	None
Version notes Version notes about the dataset.
Is version of another dataset Link to dataset that it is a version of.
Other versions Link to datasets that are versions of it.
Provenance Text Provenance Text of the data.
Provenance URL Provenance URL of the data.
Temporal resolution Describes how granular the date/time data in the dataset is.
GeoSpatial resolution in meters Describes how granular (in meters) geospatial data is in the dataset.
GeoSpatial resolution (in regions) Describes how granular (in regions) geospatial data is in the dataset.

Field	Value
Indigenous Community Permission Who holds the Indigenous Community Permission. Who to contact regarding access to a dataset that has data about Indigenous communities.
Community Permission Community permission (who gave permission).
The Indigenous communities the dataset is about Indigenous communities from which data is derived.

Field	Value
Number of data rows If tabular dataset, total number of rows.
Number of data columns If tabular dataset, total number of unique columns.
Number of data cells If tabular dataset, total number of cells with data.
Number of data relations If RDF dataset, total number of triples.
Number of entities If RDF dataset, total number of entities.
Number of data properties If RDF dataset, total number of unique properties used by the triples.
Data quality Describes the quality of the data in the dataset.
Metric for data quality A metric used to measure the quality of the data, such as missing values or invalid formats.

Northeastern Pacific Canadian Ocean Ecosystem Model (NEP36-CanOE) Climate Projections

Datasets available for download

Additional Info

0 Comments

Please login or register to comment.