the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP2.0) for CMIP7
Abstract. An external perturbation to the climate system from anthropogenic or natural activity first impacts the climate by inducing a perturbation to Earth’s energy budget, known as a radiative forcing. The characteristics of the radiative forcing, such as its global-mean magnitude and spatial pattern, determine the subsequent climate response. Therefore, forming accurate projections of climate change first requires diagnosing radiative forcing and evaluating its persistent uncertainty in Global Climate Models. As part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 7 (CMIP7), the second iteration of the Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP2.0) will enable the systematic characterization of effective radiative forcing and its components across state-of-the-art climate models, through a set of fixed-Sea Surface Temperature timeslice and transient experiments. The protocol for RFMIP2.0, introduced here, will in part serve as a continuity and an expansion of core RFMIP experiments first introduced in CMIP6, some of which have now been incorporated into the overarching CMIP7 DECK and FastTrack protocols given their broad utility. This will allow for a consistent estimate for radiative forcing across multiple model generations, which is valuable for model evaluation and future development. RFMIP2.0 also includes new experiments that will address open questions about the definition of radiative forcing, such as its sensitivity to evolving surface conditions, and will further enhance an ever-growing swath of science applications that rely on an understanding of Earth’s energy budget.
- Preprint
(1022 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4378', Mark Zelinka, 16 Oct 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4378', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Dec 2025
In their manuscript “The Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP2.0) for CMIP7”, the authors present the experimental protocol for the proposed RFMIP simulations as part of the CMIP7 project. The manuscript is clear and well written, and the experimental designs are overall well thought out and described, though I think the fixed LST simulations require additional guidance to ensure they provide interpretable, useful information for community analysis. The new RFMIP simulations proposed have excellent synergy with other MIPs, in particular with C4MIP, and demonstrate a refreshing appreciation for the role of the land surface in modulating global climate. I focus my review on the new RFMIP simulations proposed involving fixed LSTs, as that closely aligns with my area of expertise. I recommend the manuscript for acceptance following minor revision to address my comments below.
The fixed LST simulations described here will require "breaking" the surface energy balance; the authors should provide guidance to modelling centres on whether they should prioritize (a) energy conservation, (b) matching LST forcing, or (c) minimizing physically unrealistic turbulent fluxes.
A crude example of these fixed LST simulations potentially going sideways without appropriate guidance is as follows. Suppose the coupled land surface (freely varying T) has 10 units of energy to "get rid of" (to balance the surface energy budget... e.g. 5 coming in from shortwave radiation and 5 coming in from longwave radiation). In the control, freely varying state, perhaps the model puts 1 unit into ground heat storage, 5 into upwards longwave radiation, 2 into evaporation and 2 into sensible heat. Energy is conserved (10 "in", 10 "out"). For reference for the next case, lets also assume that there are only 2 units of water *available* to be evaporated at all.
Now suppose in the fixed LST simulation there is exactly the same energy coming in (probably there won't be, but for the sake of simplicity, let’s just assume that). 10 units of energy coming in. Now suppose the prescribed LST corresponds to an upwards longwave radiation of 11 units of energy. Uh oh. Where do we pull that energy from? Do we just make it up? That is an option. Alternatively, if modellers aren't told NOT to, maybe we try and get some extra energy in to conserve the 11 up from LST, by pulling heat up from the ground, or generating a negative sensible or latent heat flux. But those probably wouldn't be physically plausible with a weirdly hot land surface (which is what this example covers ... wouldn't get dew or downwards sensible heat *onto* something hotter than the air). But, that would conserve energy, if that is the goal. If it isn't the goal, what do we use for sensible heat, latent heat, and ground heat in these cases? Do we calculate them based on the prescribed LST of the last time step? This is what a model would do if it wasn't told not to. In that case, we'll have a really hot surface, so a big possible gradient in surface to air T, so a big possible sensible heat flux (upwards), so now we're *really* not conserving energy because let’s say now we have 4 units of sensible heat going up. Now we have 15 going up and only 10 coming down. Of course, we'd expect the atmosphere to warm up in response to this imbalance and maybe eventually equilibrate, but depending how this was set up it would be equilibrating to a simulation that has unexpected sources/sinks of energy at various times/places over land.
You could also see this causing physical inconsistencies in the latent/sensible heat fluxes, e.g. if the prescribed LST was large (hot land) which then heats the lower atmosphere which then leads to more evaporative demand and then the land runs out of water to evaporate. Then latent heat flux would go to zero and sensible heat flux would be come quite large (again possibly not conserving energy).
It is very common for land models, when doing energy conservation checks at the end of a simulated time step, to chuck any imbalance into the sensible heat flux term. Thus, if the modelling centres are not *explicitly told NOT to*, I think this experimental design is going to get some funky turbulent fluxes. In the example above, with the 11 units of energy up from the prescribed LST (corresponding to a hot land surface, which you’d intuitively expect to have upwards sensible heat flux), what many models would actually do is get to the end of the time step, check for energy conservation, notice it wasn’t conserved, and use sensible heat as a tuning knob to conserve the energy – in this case, by making a downwards flux of sensible heat because that is what is required, even though it isn’t physically realistic.
If the modelling centres *are* told not to adjust SH, we're going to get funky energy sources/sinks and lack of energy conservation. Including an additional variable (possibly variables plural) in these simulations that explicitly tracks energy imbalances could help those trying to make sense of the output understand what they're seeing. E.g. when/where is the land just spouting magic energy / sending it into the void?
I suggest the authors recommend that modelling centres
- a) do/do not aim to conserve energy (authors should weigh pros/cons of each approach)
- b) dump extra energy into sensible heat, or not (but provide a clear recommendation)
- c) include a variable tracking energy imbalances (if conservation is not recommended)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4378-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,172 | 189 | 21 | 1,382 | 19 | 19 |
- HTML: 1,172
- PDF: 189
- XML: 21
- Total: 1,382
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please refer to PDF.