the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 11 Jul 2025
CMIP7 Data Request: Atmosphere Priorities and Opportunities
Abstract. This paper presents a comprehensive overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 7 (CMIP7) request for data unlocking key research avenues in atmospheric science and provides justification for the resources needed to produce this data. Topics within the CMIP7 Atmosphere Theme centre around processes and feedbacks in atmospheric science such as clouds, aerosols and atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric circulation, temperature variability and extremes, radiative forcings, and Earth system model evaluation. These topics are summarised in this paper as scientific ‘opportunities’ which will be realised through CMIP7 experiments and Earth system model outputs. These opportunities were submitted by a thematic group of atmospheric science community representatives combined with an extended consultation process. The production of these variables will close key gaps and uncertainties identified during previous rounds of CMIP, and will be broadly used by scientific, policy, governmental, industry, and other communities that rely on climate model projections for research and decision making, including supporting the 7th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report (AR7). As an author group, we also reflect on the process used to collate this data request and make recommendations to future CMIP governance on implementing a consultation on this scale in the future.
Competing interests: Some authors are members of the editorial board of Geoscientific Model Development.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(2645 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Review of “CMIP7 Data Request: Atmosphere Priorities and Opportunities” by Dingley et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Aug 2025
reply
This paper documents the priorities and opportunities in the CMIP7 Atmosphere theme as a result of the CMIP7 data request process. Eleven opportunities are identified and summarized in individual subsections in section 4 (actually section 3). Overall, the paper is informative and concise. I believe that it is a well-designed, well-executed, and well-documented study that is suitable for publication. I have a few general suggestions (mostly on writing) that are listed below for the authors to consider.
General Suggestions
- Among all eleven opportunities, I think the first subsection “Atmospheric dynamics and variability” is very well-written. The first paragraph conducts a brief literature review to identify the *specific* frontiers and gaps in this topic with supporting papers (more than merely mention that large uncertainty still persists in observations, parameterization, etc.). The second paragraph identifies the overarching questions that need to be addressed in the CMIP7 requested experiments. Next, the variables that are grouped and matched to the specific gaps identified in the first paragraph, and example use of these variables are also supported again by sufficient literatures.
I suggest that all opportunities to be revised to the extent similar to the writing of the first subsection. An ideal writing structure could be: (1) the current, *specific* gaps in this topic; (2) questions to be addressed; (3) traditional methods in analyzing the variables; and (4) recent success in novel methodology that prompts related variables to be included in CMIP7 (e.g., a good example at L327-329); (5) other technical details to add on. These elements can be as short as one sentence, but evidence (literatures) should be presented to support them. I am not asking for the review to touch every single detail, as this is not a hundred-page review paper to summarize all frontiers in atmospheric sciences, but I do believe that they are necessary to justify the opportunities and associated variables.
- The concern about the data volume bloat is stated multiple times throughout the paper. I agree that it is an important consideration when determining the output variables as well as their temporal and spatial resolution. However, I believe that some quantitative analysis could be provided to justify the rigorness of this process. For example, in Table 1 and/or Table A1, the authors could provide an estimate of data volume the variables requested by each opportunity is expected to take. Or, in the methodology, the authors can include some rough estimate of the data volume each 2D/3D monthly/daily/subdaily variables can take. They could be valuable and practical for modeling centers to take into account.
- Some of the citations and references are missing. I detail some of the missing items I found below. Even though the editorial team will check and link all the references in the finalization process, the authors should still carefully check the manuscript to ensure that references are properly added and they are assessed by the reviewers.
Specific Points
L65: “Eyring et al., 2016” missing reference in the reference list
Figure 1: This is only a question. Somehow I don’t see elements about polar climate processes in this schematic diagram. Are they not the focus in the Atmosphere theme?
Table 1: “ID” probably a sentence in the table caption to explain what this ID means and why it is not consecutive.
L159-160: “Error! Reference source not found”
L177: “Annex 2” The actual title of the section is “Appendix B”. I think it is better to keep the term consistent (and note that annex and appendix are slightly different). This applies to all occurrences throughout the manuscript.
L184: ID number is missing in subsection title, given that all other subsections have IDs included in the title.
L194: “Baldwin et al. 2021” missing reference in the reference list
L220: “Abalos et al. 2021” missing reference in the reference list
L221: “Ding et al. 2023” missing reference in the reference list
L306: “attributed” => “attributed to”
L361: “Soden et al. 2008” and “Smith et al. 2020” missing references in the reference list
L388: “Zhang and Boos 2023” missing reference in the reference list
L397: Citation to a website should be formalized as a bibliography entry in the list.
L501: “proess representation and understanding” => “proess representation and understanding of SLCFs”
L518: “Dunne et al., 2025” => “Dunne et al., 2024”
L658: “2022a”. “a” is not necessary as there is only one paper with the same first author and the same year.
L666: “Boucher et al. 2013” there is no corresponding citation in the main text.
L679: “Ceppi et al. 2017” there is no corresponding citation in the main text.
L762: “Griffies et al. 2016” there is no corresponding citation in the main text.
L835: “Mackallah et al. in prep” this reference is in prep and does not have a year. In the main text, however, it is cited as “Mackallah et al. 2025”. In addition, I don’t know whether this publication accepts such reference that has not been peer-reviewed. I just raise this issue here.
L926: “Zelinka et al. 2020” there is no corresponding citation in the main text.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3189-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 916 | 88 | 12 | 1,016 | 13 | 18 |
- HTML: 916
- PDF: 88
- XML: 12
- Total: 1,016
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1