the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An evolving Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 7 (CMIP7) and Fast Track in support of future climate assessment
Abstract. The vision for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is to coordinate community based efforts to answer key and timely climate science questions and facilitate delivery of relevant multi-model simulations through shared infrastructure for the benefit of the physical understanding, vulnerability, impacts and adaptations analysis, national and international climate assessments, and society at large. From its origins as a punctuated phasing of climate model intercomparison and evaluation, CMIP is now evolving through coordinated and federated planning into a more continuous climate modelling programme. The activity is supported by the design of experimental protocols, an infrastructure that supports data publication and access, and the phased delivery or “fast track” of climate information for national and international climate assessments informing decision making. Key to these CMIP7 efforts are: an expansion of the Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima (DECK) to include historical, effective radiative forcing, and focus on CO2-emissions-driven experiments; sustained support for community MIPs; periodic updating of historical forcings and diagnostics requests; and a collection of experiments drawn from community MIPs to support research towards the 7th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reporting cycle, or “AR7 Fast Track”, and climate services goals across prediction and projection, characterization, attribution and process understanding.
- Preprint
(1328 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3874', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jan 2025
CMIP has been a cornerstone of international Earth system modelling for the past 3 decades, delivering key science support to IPCC Assessments, while advancing the development of Earth system and climate models and their use to understand past and future evolution of the climate system. CMIP has been grappling with the dual demands of delivering science support (mainly future projections) to international climate change assessments, and the growing climate service sector, while also coordinating research-led experiments to advance Earth system models and scientific understanding. This dual set of demands has caused CMIP to grow significantly over its past two iterations (CMIP5 and CMIP6) in terms of MIPs, experiments to be run, and data to be archived, with consequences for contributing modelling groups. All of this has (and is) being done through short-term, uncoordinated (at an international level) funding, supporting the development of forcing data, realization of experiments, and maintenance of the underpinning infrastructure. Such a situation is difficult to maintain, something had to change in the organization of CMIP going forwards. CMIP7, as described in this paper, is a step towards such a change, with a first attempt to separate simulations intended to support international assessments (e.g. IPCC AR7 and the CMIP7 Fast Track) from other experiments intended to advance the science and modelling of the climate system (e.g. CMIP7 community MIPs). This paper is therefore timely and important. From this perspective the paper clearly needs to be published, though not in its present form. Below I outline a number of points that need addressing before the paper is suitable for publication. I hope this will increase its value for the research community and for CMIP more generally.
Major points.
- The paper is very wordy, with lots of long sentences and lists justifying why things have been, or will be, done in a certain way. This makes the paper tedious to read. Addressing this could reduce the length of the paper (easily) by 25% and make it a more enjoyable read! As an example, lines 73 to 122 could be reduced to ~10 lines and still deliver the key messages. Section 3.5 adds very little. While the CMIP IPO is a very good development and is doing a great job supporting the development of CMIP7, I am not convinced much of section 4.1 is really needed in a paper. Section 4.2 is also very wordy and rambling. This is true for a lot of the introduction, which could be reduced in length without losing much.
- There are quite a few examples of repetition. e.g. lines 84-86, lines 93-94, lines135 to 138, 144-145, 440-445. This needs to be reduced throughout the manuscript.
- There are also numerous examples of sentences beginning with long justifications for what is to come based on what has already been said: e.g. Line 93: “In addition to the systematic characterization of climate mechanisms….” or line 110: “Beyond direct contribution to national and international climate assessments…and lots of similar examples. I don’t think these are needed and can be deleted in lots of places.
- The paper has lots of examples explaining how CMIP has (and will) be supported by, aligned with, and deliver to, WCRP. While CMIP is a WCRP-sponsored activity and this is important, it is likely sufficient to say this once (most people know this already) and not have numerous motivations and links to WCRP listed. I suggest reducing these (examples include lines 60-63, 110-120, and others)
- The 4 research questions are all interesting, and important, What the paper lacks is a clear link between these research questions and the experiments proposed (either as part of the Fast Track or within the community MIPs). Will there be new experiments designed to specifically address some of the research questions? How will the existing experiments advance understanding? In some cases this is clear (e.g. CO2-emission driven models will likely expose (and lead to improvement in) carbon-cycle biases and feedbacks more thoroughly than concentration-driven models) but in many instances it isn’t. The connection between the guiding research themes and the experiments planned in CMIP7 needs to be better explained.
- In two places (line 180 and line 645) there is an assertion high ECS models in CMIP6 have been proven to be incorrect and by implication these models are worse than lower ECS models, or just wrong. I don’t agree with this assertion. A high ECS Earth (>5K) is very unlikely, but it has not been conclusively ruled out. If anything, recent increased warming and suggestions of a possible role for changing cloud-radiation processes in this increased warming, may increase the likelihood of a high ECS world. In addition, some of the CMIP6 models with high (increased relative to CMIP5) ECS have been shown to realize this because of improvements in specific cloud feedback processes that were previously (erroneously) balancing other incorrect feedback magnitudes leading to a lower ECS through compensating errors. With removal (improvement) in one aspect of this compensation, ECS has increased. While the higher ECS may not be correct, the underlying processes/feedbacks are likely simulated better. To me this is a model improvement. It would be a pity if CMIP7 discouraged groups from making such important model improvements, even if that risked increasing their model ECS value. I suggest modifying these two assertions.
- The general aspiration for CMIP7 to separate out policy-relevant simulations (e.g. Fast Track for IPCC AR7) and longer-term MIPs aimed at specific research questions, is a good one. The paper could do a better job explaining and motivating this separation, including how modelling groups could best contribute to either or both parts of CMIP7.
- Table 3 is very long and poorly explained. Could it be presented in a more engaging manner? If the main explanations for the different experiments are in the references listed in the table, please let the reader know that. Also, I think there may be some errors in the table. e.g. (i) are piClim-histaer and piClim-histall 30y AMIP or 172y AMIP runs? (ii) For piClim-X and SSPXSST-SLCF I don’t see how feedbacks can be assessed (as suggested in the table) if the models are run in prescribed-SST mode. At least the classical definition of a feedback modifying the SST-response to a given forcing and thus also modifying the forcing itself, cannot be realised in prescribed-SST mode. (iii) for piClimSLCF it is unclear what happens to the non-SLCF emissions. Are these held at PI values? A bit better explanation of this table would help the reader.
Minor Points
- On the “guiding research questions” I don’t understand why these are “ephemeral” (line 155).
- Regarding the Fast Track experiments, it is not clear if groups are recommended to do everything in either emission-mode or concentration-mode. For example, are there plans for DAMIP to support both emission-driven and concentration-driven experiments? This is not made clear in the explanation of table 3.
- Line 494-495: How will DAMIP support analysis of individual forcings in the context of an interactive carbon cycle? Will DAMIP run a coordinated set of experiments for emission-driven ESMs?
- Line 128 talks about the lack of infrastructure for a sustained approach. This is also true with respect to funding of modelling groups to realize such regular simulations. This should also be highlighted.
- Lines 221-223 on high resolutions models contradicts itself. Please make clearer what you mean here.
- In section 2.3 I am surprised that emission-driven ESM (scenarioMIP) projections are not discussed more. This seems an important development on CMIP6.
- Lines 266 to 267: while modelling groups suggest that increase in fire over this century (Allen et al. 2024) seems to be an incomplete sentence.
- For section 2.4 more discussion on potential MIP contributions to addressing this seems appropriate (e.g. TIPMIP, CDRMIP, C4MIP). I am also surprised there isn’t more mention of global warming overshoot scenarios in this section.
- Line 350: coupled carbon-climate ESMs importance in climate stabilization is mentioned. The importance in negative emission scenarios (warming overshoot) is likely even more important to mention.
- Lines 386-388: Will there be a coordinated effort to compare CMIP6 historical and scenario forcings to those in CMIP7? This would be a good thing to do (e.g. a forcing comparison MIP).
- Section 3.2. Will there be any stability/conservation requirements to meet for the piControl or esm_piControl runs?
- Lines 421 to 425: I don’t understand what is being proposed here. Please make it clearer.
- If model X is used in a given science MIP, is it still an entry-card that model-X also runs the CMIP7 DECK? This is not clear.
- Line 628: The REF is mentioned and somewhere else this is defined as a Rapid Evaluation Framework. What the REF is, and what it is intended for, needs to be more clearly explained.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3874-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3874', Chris Jones, 28 Jan 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3874/egusphere-2024-3874-RC2-supplement.pdf
- CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3874', Mark Zelinka, 28 Feb 2025
-
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3874', Cath Senior, 28 Feb 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3874/egusphere-2024-3874-CC2-supplement.pdf
-
CC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3874', Annalisa Cherchi, 01 Mar 2025
Broad and comprehensive article to describe forthcoming CMIP7 effort. Some comments below:
- among the challenging questions, section 2.3 about the water-carbon-climate nexus does not fully exploit water and the importance of the hydrology processes. We know there are still weaknesses and limitation in this (i.e. Douville et al 2021 in last IPCC AR6 and beyond) but there are now more efforts in modelling centres in this direction;
- Fig 1: the term multiverse seems not fully appropriate as what is shown need and depends on coupling and feedbacks between components and processes. Even here the hydrology part is not fully exploited/described. For example, monsoons are missing among the phenomena. The land interaction is expressed mostly in terms of vegetation and carbon cycle but land is also interaction with the atmosphere via moisture and heat exchanges. In the caption of the figure, red and blue are mentioned as colors for atmosphere and ocean, what about land and cryosphere for example? Also related to this, in lines 50-53 model development need to consider and properly represent the coupling between the new components, cryosphere but also improved land-hydrology
- In term of outline of the paper, the key points highlighted in the abstract (lines 33-38) are not fully exploited within the text, either in terms of sectioning and mostly in the summary. In addition the summary (section 5) is not a real summary but mostly contains points of discussion and also new features of this CMIP cycle not described in the sections before, ie. Fresh Eyes on CMIP. Also the concept of emulators would deserve a bit more of clarification/explanation. Eventually these new aspects could be more extensively described in this manuscript, leaving some details of the experiments to forthcoming papers. For example, there are references to details of ScenarioMIP that is not published yet. There is probably no need for those details at this stage as they will described and explained in details once the reference papers will be ready. A description (outline) of the content of the manuscript could be useful at the end of the Introduction.
- Overall there are some repetitions (mostly of concept) that could be avoided to simplify the reading (for example, lines 60-76 contains repetitions in the two paragraph and the text could be rewritten and lightened), there are some typos in section 5 (section numbering).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3874-CC3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,976 | 309 | 17 | 2,302 | 12 | 11 |
- HTML: 1,976
- PDF: 309
- XML: 17
- Total: 2,302
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 567 | 27 |
United Kingdom | 2 | 182 | 8 |
Germany | 3 | 177 | 8 |
France | 4 | 165 | 7 |
China | 5 | 128 | 6 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 567