the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
DeepMIP-Eocene-p2: Experimental design for Phase 2 of the early Eocene component of the the CMIP7/PMIP7 Deep-time Model Intercomparison Project (DeepMIP-Eocene)
Abstract. Warm, high-CO2 climates of Earth's past provide an opportunity to evaluate climate models under extreme forcing, and to explore mechanisms that lead to such warmth. One such time period is the early Eocene, when global mean surface temperatures were 10–17 °C higher than preindustrial, and CO2 concentrations were ~1500 ppmv. In this paper we present the experimental design for Phase 2 of the Eocene component of the Deep-time Model Intercomparison project (DeepMIP-Eocene-p2). The aim is to provide a framework for modelling groups to carry out a common set of simulations, thereby facilitating exploration of inter-model dependencies. The focus is on the early Eocene Climatic Optimum (EECO, ~53.3–49.1 million years ago). Relative to Phase 1 of DeepMIP-Eocene, we provide a new paleogeography (topography, bathymetry) derived from several recent independent reconstructions that focused on different regions, a new vegetation derived by merging paleobotanical data with vegetation model simulations, and a new CO2 specification derived from recent reevaluations of proxy data. The core set of simulations consists of a preindustrial control, an abrupt increase to 4x preindustrial CO2 concentrations from this preindustrial control, a standard control EECO simulation at 5x preindustrial CO2 concentrations, and an EECO simulation with preindustrial CO2 concentrations. In addition to these core simulations, we suggest a suite of optional sensitivity studies, which allow the impact of various factors to be explored, such as topography/bathymetry, greenhouse gases, land-surface parameters, astronomical and solar forcings, and internal model parameters. The updated boundary conditions and guidance on initialisation and spinup in Phase 2 will allow more robust model-data comparisons, more accurate insights into mechanisms influencing early Eocene climate, and increased relevance for informing future climate change projections.
- Preprint
(3621 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 Mar 2026)
-
RC1: 'Review of egusphere-2025-6135 by Chris Brierley', Chris Brierley, 17 Feb 2026
reply
The authors present a very nice experimental protocol that is well-justified. I look forward to its publication, but have I couple of suggestions.Paleogeography - I am generally happy with both the field and your explanation of it. However, I note that there appears both an isolated very high peak as well as a 'lake' at the join between Greenland and (what I think is) Scandavia. This feels unrealistic to me. Can you either smooth them out if that's the case, or explicitly discuss the geological evidence for them?Figure 4. Can you please harmonise the shape and color between the panels? It is the ice cover that switches with savannah that is most confusing.ESGF. On L386 you state that participants should upload their simulation to the DeepMIP archive. Is there a reason you do not also allow the possibility of uploading data created using CMIP7 models onto the ESGF? [Now is the time to establish the relevant controlled vocabulary, and you are within the CMIP7 special issue]. This would have the advantage of combining the Eocene with the other PMIP experiments.Experiment name: Are you sure that you have selected the most helpful experiment names?
- The precedent from the wider PMIP and CMIP efforts does not include phase numbering. Bear in mind that all phase 2 data is stored within a specific directory (L391).
- No period is included in the name. This is especially pertinent, as I understood the Miocene is also included in DeepMIP. Since you focus only on the EECO, why not choose either 'eocene' or 'EECO' instead of deepmip
- I find the inclusion of 'stand' to be unhelpful. I can understand defining subsidiary experiments, with a 'sens' flag. Surely this implicitly assumes that other than the named feature being changed, everything else is as set as standard - inconsistent with the requirement of a 'stand' flag.
- If you do choose to allow ESGF inclusion, your main experiment name will be the longest around (and will not make sense to people not involved in deepMIP).
Please be aware that equilibrium-4xCO2 could be exactly the simulation (but at a different point) as abrupt-4xCO2. How is CMIP7 DECK treating this possibility?Sect 3. You state this section includes 'plans for analysis', but it doesn't really. Either expand on this a little, or perhaps just removed them from the section title.Sect 2.3.4: Can you please shout out to the relevant sensitivity experiments listed in Table 1L148: can you please move 'red' to before 'line'? This would fit the same structure as description of the other lines in the figure.L154: can you clarify the word 'records'? I believe that you mean that two compilations ingest multiple of the same individual readings. But it could mean that the error bars on the two timeseries overlap.e.g. L178, L255: there are a couple of instances of the wrong \cite command, leaving the bracket in the after, rather than before the authors.L239: Consider removing `field of'L241: I appreciate you stating that Herold et al provide river routing. Can you comment of this fields relevance, given the different topography?L263: add CO2 after 6xPIL294: "in, that" -> "in and that"Sect 2.4: I am happy with the explanation of all the various methods. Can you please reiterate that whatever approach is selected should be documented in the simulation publication?L402: Can you please spell out that 'std' stands for 'standard deviation'L402 and L404: 'timeseries' seems to be doubly defined, and I don't understand the distinction.L407: You ask for temperatures at 3500m depth. Can you clarify if you just want the layer containing 3500m, or to vertically interpolating the full profile to get the value at 3500m for intercomparison?ReplyCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6135-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 291 | 142 | 17 | 450 | 11 | 16 |
- HTML: 291
- PDF: 142
- XML: 17
- Total: 450
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1