The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP7

Ceppi, Paulo; Bodas-Salcedo, Alejandro; Zelinka, Mark D.; Andrews, Timothy; Brient, Florent; Chadwick, Robin; Dai, An-Zhuo; Gregory, Jonathan M.; Hwang, Yen-Ting; Kang, Sarah M.; Kay, Jennifer E.; Mauritsen, Thorsten; Ogura, Tomoo; Tselioudis, George; Watanabe, Masahiro; Webb, Mark J.; Wing, Allison A.

doi:10.5194/gmd-19-8693-2026

Articles | Volume 19, issue 18

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-8693-2026

© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

CMIP7 scientific objectives, experimental design, and...

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-8693-2026

© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 18

Model experiment description paper

| Highlight paper

|

18 Sep 2026

Model experiment description paper | Highlight paper |

| 18 Sep 2026

The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP7

Paulo Ceppi, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Mark D. Zelinka, Timothy Andrews, Florent Brient, Robin Chadwick, An-Zhuo Dai, Jonathan M. Gregory, Yen-Ting Hwang, Sarah M. Kang, Jennifer E. Kay, Thorsten Mauritsen, Tomoo Ogura, George Tselioudis, Masahiro Watanabe, Mark J. Webb, and Allison A. Wing

Download

Final revised paper (published on 18 Sep 2026)
Preprint (discussion started on 29 Jan 2026)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-398', Chen Zhou, 30 Jan 2026

This paper is very well written, which provides an important framework for understanding the cloud feedback processes. Its contribution to the CMIP7 ensures it will be important for future research and the next generation of climate projections.

Nevertheless, I have a suggestion to address a potentially inaccurate statement in the paper: According to Figure 1, the pattern effect analyzed using amip-piForcing is induced by the evolving spatial patterns of both SST and SIC. Although the SST pattern effect dominates, a relatively smaller SIC pattern effect also exists when analyzing the amip-piForcing experiment according to our previous study. In contrast, the piClim-deltaSST experiment appears to include the SST pattern effect only, excluding the SIC pattern effect. Therefore, I suggest adding a discussion on whether the SIC pattern effect is accounted for in the pattern effect analyses across these different experiments.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-398-CC1
- AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Paulo Ceppi, 24 Apr 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-398/egusphere-2026-398-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-398-AC3
RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-398', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Jan 2026

This paper describes the protocols and reasoning for the experiments requested as part of CFMIP4, which is in turn part of of CMIP7. Given the importance of cloud feedbacks in climate system and their role in the structural diversity across models, this is an important initiative to get right. This paper is timely, given that CMIP7 simulations are now beginning and is publishable with only a few minor revisions.
l.85-90 The variation in ECS between 2xCO2 and 4xCo2 is not that large (except for a few models, like CESM2, which already have too high an ECS), and so I am unsure how important this will turn out to be in the real world. It is worth looking into more (as suggested here). I note that some papers referenced use 8xCO2 runs as well, and I start to get a little nervous since most models are starting to push their basic assumptions at such high forcing levels (high water vapor effects on the equation of state or radiative transfer, mis-match of the ozone layer location and the rising troposphere etc.)
l. 141. The amip-piForcing experiment seems to be basically the same as the amip-sst experiment in CERESMIP in CMIP6Plus. Probably better to have the same name.
l. 141. The choice of SST/SIC driving file is problematic (for reasons acknowledged in the text). It's possible that there will be an update to HadISST2.x relatively soon which would be better - and so maybe leave this ambiguous for now? Or allow for an update?
Table 1. Can the authors ask for simulations up to Dec 2025 for all historical runs? CMIP is endeavoring to update forcing fields by the fall of the following year. So Dec 2025 forcing (not just for SST) should be available by the end of this calendar year. (Hewitt et al, 2025; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000708). Data to the end of 2024 should already be available (though it probably isn't). We should at least be aspiring to keep things as up-to-date as possible.
l. 168. The "true" value of ECS? I think this is a little optimistic. The longer-term model-specific ECS is more achievable!

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-398-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Paulo Ceppi, 24 Apr 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-398/egusphere-2026-398-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-398-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-398', Andrew Gettelman, 26 Feb 2026

Publisher’s note: the content of this comment was removed on 27 February 2026 since the comment was posted by mistake.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-398-RC2
- RC3:
  'Reply on RC2', Andrew Gettelman, 06 Mar 2026
  
  Review of "The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP7
  
  Author(s): Paulo Ceppi"
  This manuscript describes simulations for the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) with the motivation for the different simulations. The simulations are generally well described. Some of the text is a bit hard to follow, so this should be publishable with minor revisions. I like the description of why the experiments are requested. Also, the forcing data needs to have a DOI, and the data request should be attached in some way (supplement likely) to the manuscript.
  Specific comments:
  Page 3, L75: I think this imbalance has since turned around….
  Page 4, L81: What about cloud processes themselves and how they contribute to cloud feedbacks and the spread of cloud feedbacks? There is lots of interesting recent work on this (disclaimer: some of it this reviewer has done): e.g. Gettelman et al 2024, Duffy et al 2023. Relevant for aerosols as well (L80).
  Gettelman, A., T. Eidhammer, M. L. Duffy, D. T. McCoy, C. Song, and D. Watson-Parris. 2024. “The Interaction Between Climate Forcing and Feedbacks.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 129 (18): e2024JD040857. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD040857.
  Duffy, Margaret L., Brian Medeiros, Andrew Gettelman, and Trude Eidhammer. 2023. “Perturbing Parameters to Understand Cloud Contributions to Climate Change.” Journal of Climate. Journal of Climate 37 (1): 213–27. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-23-0250.1.
  
  Page 4, L104: maybe a phrase or sentence on what the AMIP-piForcing experiment is?
  Page 5, L120: Circulation shift research predates 2020….maybe need to cite some earlier work?
  Page 5, L124: again, please describe what these experiments are in a few words: or supply a table.
  Page 7, Table 1: piSST-pxK simulation: do you need to specify where in the 4xCO2 run you want the ∆SST measured from? And how is this different from a4SSTice?
  Page 10, L235: Has anyone ever done AMIP-p4k-turb? Not a big fan of speculative MIP experiments. Especially if someone tried it and it had little impact, why ask everyone to do it? Seems a bit disingenuous to ask model groups to do it.
  In any event, how this experiment could be done needs to be noted if no one has published it before? Or is there detailed documentation somewhere already?
  Page 10, L236: please state the purpose of the piClim-deltaSST experiment. It’s implied (pattern effect?) but could be better stated here. Again, has anyone done this before with a single GCM? If not, I question whether it is useful (especially considering the last attempt doesn’t seem like it was useful.
  Page 11, L259: what is a ‘forcing index’?
  Page 12, L288: when you say monthly and daily Ia assume you mean monthly and daily averages right?
  Page 12, L307: The data request as it stands at time of paper publication probably needs to be put in a static archive. Is this a web page or a document?
  Suggest you make a supplement with the data request and attach it to this manuscript.
  Page 13, L325: probably needs a DOI. Also, the variables need to be attached in some way to this manuscript record (see comment above).
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-398-RC3
  - AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Paulo Ceppi, 24 Apr 2026
    
    The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-398/egusphere-2026-398-AC2-supplement.pdf
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-398-AC2
CEC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-398', Juan Antonio Añel, 11 Mar 2026

Dear authors,
in the Data Availability section of your manuscript, you have included a misleading statement regarding the availability of data for two experiments. The Data Availability section must contain information regarding the data used to produce the work presented. Your manuscript describes an experiment; however, it does not present the results of data or have made use of datasets. Also, you have not include a Code Availability section in the manuscript. Therefore, you should rename the Data Availability section as "Code and Data Availability" and it should read "No code or data has been used or is necessary to replicate the work here presented."
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-398-CEC1
- AC4: 'Reply on CEC1', Paulo Ceppi, 24 Apr 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-398/egusphere-2026-398-AC4-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-398-AC4

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Paulo Ceppi on behalf of the Authors (08 Jul 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (12 Jul 2026) by Xianan Jiang

RR by Bjorn Stevens (14 Jul 2026)

RR by Anonymous Referee #4 (15 Jul 2026)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (19 Jul 2026) by Xianan Jiang

AR by Paulo Ceppi on behalf of the Authors (04 Aug 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (05 Aug 2026) by Xianan Jiang

AR by Paulo Ceppi on behalf of the Authors (02 Sep 2026) Manuscript

Editorial statement

Cloud feedbacks are a critical component of the climate system and key to modelling and understanding the changing climate. This paper presents the cloud feedback modelling component of CMIP7. The paper presents the key questions in cloud feedback modelling in a clear and accessible way, in addition to describing the technical requirements for Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project. It should be read by everyone wishing to understand the role of clouds in climate models.

The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP7

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection