the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
CMIP7 Data Request: Impacts and Adaptation Priorities and Opportunities
Abstract. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 7 (CMIP7) undertook an extensive process to gather community input and refine data requests related to impacts and adaptation applications of Earth System Model (ESM) outputs. The Impacts and Adaptation (I&A) Data Request Team worked with CMIP7 leadership to distribute an open solicitation across many communities that use climate model outputs requesting inputs for new and existing variables, the most applicable temporal characteristics, and groupings of variables that together allow for specific application opportunities. This input was then collated and translated into CMIP7 standard templates for inclusion in the broader data request, leading to 13 I&A data request opportunities, 60 variable groups and 539 unique variables sought by vulnerability, impacts, adaptation, and climate services user communities. Here, we describe these opportunities and variable groups, as well as new insights into how ESM groups can prioritize outputs that set off a chain of further analyses, ultimately informing decisions impacting society and natural systems. These include an emphasis on high-resolution outputs to allow further modeling of climate impacts at regional and local scales, improved representation of extreme weather events, enhanced accuracy of downscaling and bias-adjustment techniques, and support for more detailed assessments for decision-making in adaptation and mitigation strategies. There is also broad interest in more extensive provisioning of two-dimensional variables at the Earth’s surface, prioritizing experiments that enhance our understanding of both the recent past and future scenarios, and providing outputs that allow further downscaling and bias adjustment. We emphasize that variable groups are the fundamental level at which to engage with the I&A data request, matching the scale of input and the way output provision enables specific I&A applications. Given resource constraints, we applaud CMIP7 efforts to foster strong engagement and communication between ESM groups and the I&A team to build consensus around prudent compromises in priority variables, temporal resolutions, simulation experiments, time subsets, and ensemble members.
Competing interests: Author ACR is Co-chair of the VIACS Advisory Board and an employee of NASA. Author BT is an employee of HE Space Ltd which delivers the CMIP IPO service to the European Space Agency and is Vice Chair of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers Knowledge Generation Panel Author CT is Co-chair of the VIACS Advisory Board Author CB is the director of the Copernicus Climate Change service at ECMWF Author PLMG is employed by the Met Office, UK Author VH is employed by CSIRO Author SP is employed by EDF Lab, lab of an electricity company Author AW is employed by Riskthinking.AI
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
(1119 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3408', Kristie Ebi, 24 Aug 2025
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3408', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Aug 2025
This paper outlines the process that was used for gathering and refining the data request for CMIP7. For this particular data request version, they surveyed a broader community, including the communities of impacts and adaptation applications that use Earth System Model outputs. This was done to purposely address the disconnect between the ESM’s output and the diverse needs of the impacts community. This is an important consideration and will allow easier use of the data in downstream applications that are used for risk mitigation and adaptation planning and will foster better collaboration and engagement between different communities.
The work described in this paper is essential to communicating the data requirements of this large global effort. And I applaud the authors for considering a larger audience in the use of these important datasets.
There were a couple of sections in this document where it would have been helpful to have some more information. These included:
- pg 6, section 2: I would like to see a little bit more detail on the number of different groups/communities that supplied information into the request and if the impacts community was equally represented on the I & A team (was there equal input into the different Opportunities/Imapacts/Variable Groups)? Did you consider the engagement/outreach successful?
- pg 9: While it was indicated that not all Variable groups are mandatory and some are higher priority, it wasn't clear if it's required to supply all variables within a Variable group. Could extra clarity be added here?
Suggestions for technical corrections:
- Section 4.1.4 was difficult to read, with many sentences having extra information in parentheses. Could this be rewritten to flow more smoothly and match the style of the other similar sections around it?
- Line 31, pg 13: The parentheses before Craig should be removed so the number of parentheses matches. This might be addressed in #1, though.
- Line 360 talks about an idea that was talked about on pg 9. Not sure if it needs to be repeated here. "ESM groups supporting opportunity are not mandated to provide all the requested variable groups. Contributors can focus on the core variable groups and are encouraged to provide as many of the additional groups as they can afford to support the emerging components in regional Earth system modeling"
- Line 413, pg 17: This paragraph again uses several parentheses and is more difficult to read, and doesn't match the writing style of the other sections around it. Could it be rewritten to flow better?
- In sections 4.1.12, 4.1.13, 4.1.14, opportunity ID55, opportunity ID 49: Tables 13, 14, 16, and 17 don't seem to be referenced in the text. Is this on purpose for style or was this an oversight?
- Troposphere is mispelled as "trposphere" on pg 37 (Table row: ID 41)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3408-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3408', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Sep 2025
This is a well-written and well-organized paper. The authors have clearly invested significant effort in preparing a comprehensive and structured study. While some of the recommendations may be challenging for Earth System Model (ESM) groups to execute in full, the work provides an important reference point. It can serve as a target for groups aiming to save additional fields or guide future model development in cases where certain processes are not yet represented in the models. One particularly valuable addition would be the use of metrics (e.g., from CMIP6) to show which Impact & Adaptation (I&A) variables are most widely used. Since ESM groups are often constrained by resources and cannot always write out large, high-resolution datasets, such metrics would help prioritize outputs and make the recommendations more practical. Overall, the manuscript represents a valuable contribution to the community and requires only minor clarification and technical corrections before publication.
Minor comment and technical issues:
1. Line 155: please briefly discuss Mural Board for readers who are not familiar.
2. Figure 2 has a nice chart to show community engagement, somehow it is hard to parser, especially for the outer most ring the different some color of the user groups are not labeled.
3. Line 248: please define ISIMIP when it first appear (which was defined later in the table)
4. Section 4.1.6: please provide brief discussion on empirical statistical downscaling (ESD) and emulator, because later traditional ESD and hybrid emulator are mentioned but is not explained.
5. Line 633: it mentioned 93 variables here, but the number of variables was 539 unique variables (on line 49). Is it a typo?
6 Line 591-592: missing subject in the sentence.
7. Line 858: "...clear documentation of outputs is needed..."
8. Appendix A. Opportunity processing: consider to revise the title of Appendix A to be more descriptive.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3408-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,321 | 60 | 19 | 1,400 | 25 | 32 |
- HTML: 1,321
- PDF: 60
- XML: 19
- Total: 1,400
- BibTeX: 25
- EndNote: 32
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
The authors are to be congratulated on a valuable and inclusive process for obtaining data request opportunities from the impacts and adaptation community.
Two suggestions for accuracy and clarity.
Section 4.1.8: human health. This section does not describe the full health risks of a changing climate. The "indirect" impacts of climate change on health are much more than air pollution and include a wide range of vector borne diseases, food and water safety and security, malnutrition, and the consequences of migration and displacement. It would be helpful to understand the level of engagement across the health sector. This means that Table 9 does not reflect the range of variables used in health projections.
Line 793 includes the recommendation for sharing best practices, tutorials, and guidelines. Do the authors have a recommendation for how that could be accomplished?