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.The data available here are the outputs of NEP36-CanOE_RCP 8.5; a projection of the 2046-2065 climate for the no mitigation scenario RCP 8.5.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 conditionsData Sources:Model outputUncertainties: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.

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 conditionsData Sources:Model outputUncertainties: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 and 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.

Multi-model ensembles for a suite of variables based on projections from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) global climate models (GCMs) are available for 1850-2100 on a common 1x1 degree global grid. Climate projections vary across GCMs due to differences in the representation and approximation of earth systems and processes, and natural variability and uncertainty regarding future climate drivers. Thus, there is no single best climate model. Rather, using results from an ensemble of models (e.g., taking the average) is best practice, as an ensemble takes model uncertainty into account and provides more reliable climate projections.Provided on Canadian Climate Data and Scenarios (CCDS) are four types of products based on the CMIP6 multi-model ensembles: time series datasets and plots, maps and associated datasets, tabular datasets, and global gridded datasets. Monthly, seasonal, and annual ensembles are available for up to six Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) (SSP1-1.9, SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, SSP4-6.0, and SSP5-8.5), four future periods (near-term (2021-2040), mid-term (2041-2060 and 2061-2080), end of century (2081-2100)), and up to five percentiles (5th, 25th, 50th (median), 75th, and 95th) of the CMIP6 ensemble distribution. The number of models in each ensemble differs according to model availability for each SSP and variable, see the model list resource for details on the models included in each ensemble. The majority of products show projected changes expressed as anomalies according to a historical reference period of 1995-2014. The products provided include global, national, and provincial/territorial datasets and graphics. For more information on the CMIP6 multi-model ensembles, see the technical documentation resource.

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.The data available here are the outputs of NEP36-CanOE_RCP 4.5; a projection of the 2046-2065 climate for the moderate mitigation scenario RCP 4.5.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 conditionsData Sources:Model outputUncertainties: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.

Description:This dataset consists of monthly mean simulation results from Canada's three Oceans: the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic from 2015 to 2017.Abstract from the report:A numerical ocean model with biogeochemistry has been developed for a domain that spans Canada's three oceans: the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic. The domain extends to 26°N in the Atlantic and 44°N in the Pacific, and spans the full width of each basin as well as the whole of the Arctic Ocean. The resolution is moderate to high (≈0.25°, 75 levels). A series of simulations was conducted to assess the best choices for biogeochemical model parameters across the diverse regions, using a variety of validation data sets including satellite ocean colour (surface chlorophyll and particulate organic carbon, integrated primary production), surface underway pCO2, and depth profiles of oxygen and nitrate concentration from ships and Argo floats. In addition to parameter values, processes examined include interactive sediments, fluvial nutrients, light attenuation by fluvial coloured dissolved organic matter (CDOM), and iron limitation. The results indicate that the optimal parameter set is one that limits phytoplankton losses to grazing and other processes so as to ensure strong biological drawdown of dissolved inorganic carbon and nutrients in spring and summer; among the parameter sets tested both insufficient and excessive drawdown were observed. Sensitivity to other processes such as interactive sediments, fluvial nutrients or CDOM attenuation was weak in most regions. In some regions, attenuation by CDOM or sequestration of nutrients in the sediment can substantially reduce primary production and zooplankton biomass, and fluvial nutrients can cause localized reduction of pCO2 by as much as 60 μatm. Iron limitation has an effect on the model solution in regions generally considered iron-replete; building a model that successfully spans iron-limited and non-iron-limited domains will require complete and accurate specification of iron sources and sinks.

CaLDAS-NSRPS was installed as an experimental system within the National Surface and River Prediction System (NSRPS) at Environment and Climate Change Canada's (ECCC) Canadian Centre for Meteorological and Environmental Prediction (CCMEP) in July 2019. CaLDAS-NSRPS is a continuous offline land-surface assimilation system, which provides analyses of the land surface every 3 h over the domain of the High-Resolution Deterministic Prediction System (HRDPS) at a 2.5 km grid spacing. The emphasis in CaLDAS-NSRPS is to focus upon the assimilation of satellite based remote sensing observations to provide the optimal initial conditions for the predictive components of the NSRPS, the High Resolution Deterministic/Ensemble Land Surface Prediction System (HRDLPS/HRELPS) and the Deterministic/Ensemble Hydrological Prediction Systems (DHPS/EHPS). CaLDAS-NSRPS is launched 4 times per day, at 0000, 0600, 1200, and 1800 UTC.

The Coastal Ice Ocean Prediction System (CIOPS) provides a 48 hour ocean and ice forecast over different domains (East, West, Salish Sea) four times a day at 1/36° resolution. A pseudo-analysis component is forced at the ocean boundaries by the Regional Ice Ocean Prediction System (RIOPS) forecasts and spectrally nudged to the RIOPS solution in the deep ocean. Fields from the pseudo-analysis are used to initialize the 00Z forecast, whilst the 06, 12 and 18Z forecasts use a restart files saved at hour 6 from the previous forecast. The atmospheric fluxes for both the pseudo-analysis and forecast components are provided by the High Resolution Deterministic Prediction System (HRDPS) blended both spatially and temporally with either the Global Deterministic Prediction System (GDPS) (for CIOPS-East) or an uncoupled component of the Global Deterministic Prediction System (GDPS) at 10km horizontal resolution (for CIOPS-West) for areas not covered by the HRDPS.

The Regional Ice Ocean Prediction System (RIOPS) provides ice and ocean forecasts up to 84 hours, four times per day on a 1/12° resolution grid (3-8 km). RIOPS is initialized using analyses from the Global Ice-Ocean Prediction System (GIOPS). Atmospheric fluxes up to 84 hours forecasts are calculated using fields from a component of the Global Deterministic Prediction System (GDPS) at 10km horizontal resolution

Environment and Climate Change Canada’s (ECCC) Climate Research Division (CRD) and the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC) previously produced statistically downscaled climate scenarios based on simulations from climate models that participated in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) in 2015. ECCC and PCIC have now updated the CMIP5-based downscaled scenarios with two new sets of downscaled scenarios based on the next generation of climate projections from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6). The scenarios are named Canadian Downscaled Climate Scenarios–Univariate method from CMIP6 (CanDCS-U6) and Canadian Downscaled Climate Scenarios–Multivariate method from CMIP6 (CanDCS-M6).CMIP6 climate projections are based on both updated global climate models and new emissions scenarios called “Shared Socioeconomic Pathways” (SSPs). Statistically downscaled datasets have been produced from 26 CMIP6 global climate models (GCMs) under three different emission scenarios (i.e., SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, and SSP5-8.5), with PCIC later adding SSP3-7.0 to the CanDCS-M6 dataset. The CanDCS-U6 was downscaled using the Bias Correction/Constructed Analogues with Quantile mapping version 2 (BCCAQv2) procedure, and CanDCS-M6 was downscaled using the N-dimensional Multivariate Bias Correction (MBCn) method. The CanDCS-U6 dataset was produced using the same downscaling target data (NRCANmet) as the CMIP5-based downscaled scenarios, while the CanDCS-M6 dataset implements a new target dataset (ANUSPLIN and PNWNAmet blended dataset).Statistically downscaled individual model output and ensembles are available for download. Downscaled climate indices are available across Canada at 10km grid spatial resolution for the 1950-2014 historical period and for the 2015-2100 period following each of the three emission scenarios.Note: projected future changes by statistically downscaled products are not necessarily more credible than those by the underlying climate model outputs. In many cases, especially for absolute threshold-based indices, projections based on downscaled data have a smaller spread because of the removal of model biases. However, this is not the case for all indices. Downscaling from GCM resolution to the fine resolution needed for impacts assessment increases the level of spatial detail and temporal variability to better match observations. Since these adjustments are GCM dependent, the resulting indices could have a wider spread when computed from downscaled data as compared to those directly computed from GCM output. In the latter case, it is not the downscaling procedure that makes future projection more uncertain; rather, it is indicative of higher variability associated with finer spatial scale.Individual model datasets and all related derived products are subject to the terms of use (https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/CMIP6/TermsOfUse/TermsOfUse6-1.html) of the source organization.

The Coastal Ice Ocean Prediction System (CIOPS) provides a 48 hour ocean and ice forecast over different domains (East, West, Salish Sea) four times a day at 1/36° resolution. A pseudo-analysis component is forced at the ocean boundaries by the Regional Ice Ocean Prediction System (RIOPS) forecasts and spectrally nudged to the RIOPS solution in the deep ocean. Fields from the pseudo-analysis are used to initialize the 00Z forecast, whilst the 06, 12 and 18Z forecasts use a restart files saved at hour 6 from the previous forecast. The atmospheric fluxes for both the pseudo-analysis and forecast components are provided by the High Resolution Deterministic Prediction System (HRDPS) blended both spatially and temporally with either the Global Deterministic Prediction System (GDPS) (for CIOPS-East) or an uncoupled component of the Global Deterministic Prediction System (GDPS) at 10km horizontal resolution (for CIOPS-West) for areas not covered by the HRDPS.