Land-use induced changes in extreme temperature predominantly influenced by downward longwave radiation

ABSTRACT Land use is key in regulating surface temperature, yet these relationships are often obscured by long-term mean responses. Here we employed numerical multi-model results to

investigate the response of the surface temperature to land use change, especially its lower tails corresponding to boreal winter. The surface temperature decrease in the lower tails can

exhibit up to ten times greater than the mean response to land use change over both the historical and future periods. Downward longwave radiation has emerged as the most remarkable

contributing factor in controlling surface temperature change in mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Land use change can modify surface energy balance through land-atmosphere

firstly, thereby regulate spatial patterns of water vapor and cloud cover in the Northern Hemisphere through teleconnection. The unity of local and remote effects influences the levels of

downward longwave radiation and altering surface temperature at mid-high latitudes in extreme cold seasons. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS DRIVERS OF ACCELERATED WARMING IN

MEDITERRANEAN CLIMATE-TYPE REGIONS Article Open access 20 July 2023 DIFFERENT RESPONSES OF EXTREME AND MEAN PRECIPITATION TO LAND USE AND LAND COVER CHANGES Article Open access 08 May 2025

ACCELERATION OF DAILY LAND TEMPERATURE EXTREMES AND CORRELATIONS WITH SURFACE ENERGY FLUXES Article Open access 04 April 2024 INTRODUCTION Anthropogenic land use and land cover change

(LULCC) is widely recognized as one of the most direct human-induced alterations to the natural environment1. Prominent LULCC has been observed in more than 50% of ice-free land regions

worldwide during the past three centuries2. Anticipated future LULCC will also lead to noticeable changes due to the increasing demands of a growing population for food, fiber, and other

essential resources2. This widespread LULCC has attracted increased attention from the scientific community and the general public due to its remarkable climate impacts both in the

historical period and in the future3,4,5,6,7. LULCC modifies near-surface geophysical and geochemical properties, thereby altering the exchange of water, energy, and momentum exchange

between the land and atmosphere. Consequently, it results in shifts in local convection and large-scale atmospheric circulation, leading to changes in surface temperature, particularly in

regions experiencing intense LULCC, as well as neighboring and remote areas affected by these changes8,9,10. The surface temperature serves as a critical variable for measuring and

monitoring the Earth’s surface climate11. It is influenced by land-atmosphere feedback mechanisms and can effectively represent perturbations in the surface energy balance intuitively and

sensitively12,13,14. Previous studies have indicated that surface albedo is the dominant factor in modulating mid- to high-latitude surface temperature. This is because taller, darker, and

denser forests can absorb more solar radiation than adjacent open lands, particularly during winter when there is seasonal snow cover15,16. In tropical regions, however, surface energy loss

primarily occurs through evapotranspiration, making latent heat flux the crucial factor in surface temperature responses to LULCC17. In other regions, different factors may also come into

play as well. For example, turbulent energy dissipation, radiation absorption, and sensible heat flux can be more influential in water-limited dryland environments18. Previous studies have

mostly focused on the long-term mean surface temperature responses to LULCC rather than when surface temperature responses are different from the long-term mean. Furthermore, less attention

has been given to the relative importance of radiative (shortwave and longwave radiation) and non-radiative (latent and sensible heat flux) factors when surface temperature responses are

stronger than the long-term mean. The long-term mean can effectively filter out unwanted signals; however, it may inadvertently obscure valuable information if the upper and lower tails are

averaged together. The primary objective of this study is to enhance the understanding of why in some months, surface temperature responds much more strongly to LULCC than to the long-term

mean responses and what factors contribute to those extreme responses. Extreme surface temperature responses to LULCC can aggregate high-impact extreme events, especially when combined with

other internal and/or external forcing factors. Furthermore, quantifying the contributions of the individual factors to the extreme surface temperature responses can improve the mechanistic

understanding of both radiative and non-radiative effects associated with LULCC. Here, we provide insights from a state-of-the-art multi-model ensemble from Coupled Model Intercomparison

Project Phase 6 (CMIP6)-Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) to investigate changes in surface temperature induced by LULCC over two time periods: the historical period from 1995

to 2014 and the future period from 2080 to 2099. During the historical period, the climatic effects of LULCC are defined as differences between model simulation based on historical land use

and simulation with land use fixed at 1850. During the future period, the LULCC impacts are differences between SSP1-2.6 (afforestation scenario) and SSP3-7.0 (deforestation scenario) (see

Methods). We present results obtained through the surface energy budget to provide a comprehensive understanding of the magnitude of surface temperature change, the relative importance of

radiative and non-radiative contributions, and potential mechanisms under both average surface temperature responses and extreme surface temperature responses13,19,20. Our findings build

upon previous knowledge gained from CMIP5-LUCID (Land-Use and Climate, IDentification of robust impacts) and LUCAS (Land Use and Climate Across Scales) intercomparison projects regarding

LULCC impacts on surface temperature21,22. RESULTS MAGNITUDES OF CHANGES IN LAND SURFACE TEMPERATURE AND CONTRIBUTING FACTORS The widespread forest and natural non-forest vegetation in North

America, South America, Central Asia, and the coastal regions of Australia have declined during the historical period (Fig. 1a, b). Future deforestation is projected to be more prevalent in

tropical Africa (Fig. 1c, d). In both the Northern Hemisphere at mid-high latitudes and in the tropics, the dominant type of LULCC is to transform forest and natural non-forest vegetation

into grazing land and cropland (Fig. 1e, f). This land use/cover transformation has resulted in a decrease of 0.2–0.6 °C in the average surface temperature across a wide land area of

mid-high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. In contrast, there are also tropical regions that experienced some increase (~0.2–0.4 °C) in surface temperature during the historical period

(Fig. 2a), and in the future (Supplementary Fig. 1a). The latitudes separating the negative surface temperature from the positive surface temperature responses due to LULCC (i.e. zero effect

line) are generally located between 20°N and 30°N23. As anthropogenic LULCC activities in tropical regions (mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere), primarily through deforestation

since the Industrial Revolution, tend to cause warming (cooling) effects on surface temperature16,24, climate responses in the tropical (20°N–20°S) and mid-high latitudes of the Northern

Hemisphere (30°N–90°N) should be analyzed separately. When averaged across the historical period, the magnitudes of five individual contributions (due to changes in surface albedo, downward

shortwave radiation, downward longwave radiation, latent heat flux, and sensible heat flux) were all within 1 °C (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Fig. 2). Downward longwave radiation accounted for

0.2–0.4 °C in the widespread Northern Hemisphere mid- to high-latitude regions (Fig. 2b), as supported by more than 2/3 of the models (Fig. 2c). In most of the mid- to high-latitude

regions, downward longwave radiation emerged as the primary contributing factor instead of surface albedo. The remaining areas in mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (mainly North

America) were influenced by surface albedo and downward shortwave radiation. The latent heat flux was found to be the dominant contributing factor in most tropical regions with an increase

of up to 0.4 °C (Fig. 2c). This advantage of latent heat flux can be attributed to the higher evaporation rates in forests than in grazing land or cropland following deforestation. The

spatial pattern and magnitude of both factors remained similar during the future period as compared to those during the historical period; however, there was a greater increase in the

intensity of latent heat flux within tropical deforestation regions in the future, which also expanded northward. Correspondingly, regions with downward longwave radiation as the dominant

contributor contracted toward Siberia (Supplementary Fig. 1b, c, and Supplementary Fig. 3). Considering the seasonal response of surface temperature change to LULCC during the historical

period, the changes in June–July–August (JJA) in the Northern Hemisphere mid- to high-latitude regions were slight and heterogeneous (Fig. 2d). The contribution of downward longwave

radiation was within \(\pm\)0.2 °C, and the first factor became the latent heat and downward shortwave radiation in the mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 2e, f, and

Supplementary Fig. 4). In contrast, widespread consistent decreasing regions with a maximum of more than 1 °C of cooling in the surface temperature can be seen in December–January–February

(DJF). The spatial pattern of the observed surface temperature change in DJF was similar to that of the mean state, but the magnitude reached up to five times that of the average change

(Fig. 2g). Downward longwave radiation dominated the mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, and its dominant regions (the first factor) were larger than those of the mean state (Fig.

 2h, i). There were fewer other contributing factors than downward longwave radiation in the mid- to high-latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere (Supplementary Fig. 5). The differences

among JJA, DJF, and the mean spatial patterns of surface temperature changes during the future period are projected to be much smaller than those over the historical period. However, the

primary contributing factor regions belong to downward longwave radiation are projected to be similar to those of the historical period (Supplementary Fig. 1d–i, Supplementary Fig. 6, and

Supplementary Fig. 7). The largest surface temperature decrease response to LULCC in the boreal cold season is of great interest to the public because of its potentially high impacts (Fig. 

3a and Supplementary Fig. 8a). A contribution ranging from 100% to 150% of the downward longwave radiation can be seen in the mid- to high-latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 

3b and Supplementary Fig. 8b). Downward longwave radiation was the first contributing factor and was much greater than the other contributing factors when the average surface temperature

change was in the bottom 5% (Bot5%, see Methods) (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Fig. 8c). The spatial pattern of the surface temperature changes and the contributions of downward longwave

radiation are similar to those in DJF, but the magnitude of these changes has increased by more than three times in Bot5% (Fig. 3d, e, Supplementary Fig. 8d, e). The effects of other

contributing factors are much lower than those of downward longwave radiation in the mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (Supplementary Fig. 9 and Supplementary Fig. 10). The

dominant regions of downward longwave radiation have expanded southward and encompassed almost the entire Northern Hemisphere over both historical and future periods. There was a remarkable

reduction in the area dominated by latent heat flux contributions. The remaining tropical and near tropical areas are governed by downward shortwave radiation (Fig. 3f and Supplementary Fig.

 8f). The temperature change ranges of the surface temperature exhibited shifts from negative (minimum of −1.5 °C) to positive values (maximum of 1 °C) in the regional average for the

mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere during the historical period. The effects of LULCC are closely related to the background climate (e.g., atmospheric circulation and seasonal

snow cover), with positive and negative offsets due to changes in contributing factors at different spatial and temporal scales. The asymmetry between LULCC cooling and warming effects led

to final cooling in the mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere during the historical period. Downward longwave radiation can explain most of the surface temperature change in Bot5%

and further extends to Q20 (Fig. 4a). In the tropics, the range of surface temperature change was limited to approximately \(\pm\)1 °C, which is lower than that simulated in the mid- to

high-latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere. The asymmetry of LULCC cooling and warming effects also existed but with final warming effects. Downward longwave radiation also dominated

the surface temperature response to LULCC in the lower and upper tails (Q99 and the largest surface temperature increase (maximum)). However, it may be destabilized because only a few months

were included (Fig. 4b). In the future, the magnitude of change in the mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere is projected to be lower than that of the historical period. The

advantage of downward longwave radiation in Bot5% is also smaller (Supplementary Fig. 11a). In the tropics, downward longwave radiation will extend its dominant percentiles, which suggests

that downward longwave radiation should receive much attention in the future (Supplementary Fig. 11b). POSSIBLE MECHANISM UNDERLYING CHANGES IN DOWNWARD LONGWAVE RADIATION LULCC can affect

surface temperature changes in the mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere through the effects of surface temperature itself, atmospheric temperatures, water vapor, and clouds. LULCC

starts its initial influence on surface albedo, then alters the surface energy budget reflected in net radiation, surface temperature, and surface air pressure25. Longwave radiation emitted

from the surface is proportional to the fourth power of the surface temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which can ultimately affect the downward longwave radiation.

Atmospheric temperatures would be corresponding change and can alter the downward longwave radiation by the atmosphere. Meanwhile, these surface/near surface changes in energy and pressure

are transmitted to the upper air and affect atmospheric circulation by altering the geopotential height, which in turn changes the amount of water vapor transported from the ocean and lower

latitudes to the mid-high latitudes. As an important greenhouse gas, water vapor absorbs and traps a portion of the longwave radiation released from the Earth’s surface, while heating the

surface through downward longwave radiation26. Changes in water vapor content and cloud fraction directly affect the amount of downward longwave radiation, which is reflected in changes in

the surface temperature27,28. Averaged over the historical period, we show the LULCC slightly increased the surface albedo in some LULCC-intensive regions in mid-high latitudes of the North

Hemisphere (Fig. 5a). There would be a corresponding decrease of net radiation in these mid-high latitude regions (Fig. 5c). The surface temperature would also decrease (0.2–0.6 °C) due to

the net radiation reduction in the mid-high latitudes (Fig. 2a). The decrease of net radiation and surface temperature would increase the density of the near-surface atmosphere, thereby the

surface air pressure would increase (Fig. 5e). The above feedback which start from land-surface/near-surface would amplify when surface temperature change is Bot5% (Fig. 3d, Fig. 5b, d, f).

The near-surface air temperature changes were in line with those of surface temperature in most regions, indicating the non-negligible role of atmospheric temperatures in regulating downward

longwave radiation (Fig. 6). LULCC-induced surface thermal and pressure anomalies can change the geopotential height field and adjust atmospheric circulation. The mid-high latitudes in the

Northern Hemisphere were controlled by westerly airflow when averaged in DJF across the historical period (Fig. 7a). The LULCC results in an anomaly with a “north increase and south

decrease” in the 500 hPa geopotential height (Fig. 7b). This anomaly at the 500 hPa geopotential height in Bot5% was similar to the result in DJF, but of greater magnitude (approximately 4

times greater) (Fig. 7c). The spatial pattern of geopotential height at 850 hPa was similar to that at 500 hPa (Fig. 7d). The water vapor source in the inner regions of the mid-high

latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere was the ocean, and the water vapor content was lower than that in the surrounding areas (Fig. 7e). These geopotential height anomalies brought stronger

easterly winds to the northwest, weakening the background westerly airflow and inducing low values of water vapor in that region (Fig. 7f). The contribution of downward longwave radiation

was greater in Bot5% than in DJF due to the corresponding greater geopotential height anomaly (Fig. 7g). The cloud cover can also contribute to the decrease in downward longwave radiation,

as it decreased largely in Eastern Europe and northern Siberia (Fig. 7h). In the future period, the surface/near surface changes in energy and pressure averaged over the whole period and in

the lower tails (Bot5%) are projected to be similar to those over the historical period, but with smaller magnitude (Supplementary Fig. 12). This smaller magnitude might be due to the LULCC

is projected to be weaker at mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere in the future period than in the historical period, resulting in corresponding weaker local effects. Therefore, the

surface temperature change in mid-high latitudes will largely rely on LULCC non-local effects (e.g., LULCC teleconnection effects from the tropics) in the future period. These similar

surface energy and pressure changes result in the corresponding similar small differences between the surface temperature and near-surface air temperature in the mid-high latitudes

(Supplementary Fig. 13). There will also be similar spatial patterns of the geopotential height during the future period compared with those over the historical period, but with lower

magnitudes of change (Supplementary Fig. 14a–d). This lower change magnitude in geopotential height will cause a corresponding lower decrease in wind and water vapor (Supplementary Fig. 

14e–g). The cloud cover change in the mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere is not projected to be obvious in most intensive areas of surface temperature decrease except Central

Asia, suggesting that water vapor may be a major factor influencing the contribution of downward longwave radiation in mid-high latitude regions with marked changes (Supplementary Fig. 14h).

DISCUSSION Previous studies have primarily focused on investigating prominent radiative and non-radiative factors at the mean state using in-situ and/or satellite observations29,30. The

outputs from model simulations are typically derived from idealized-world experiments31,32,33. In contrast, our study contributes to the existing knowledge by utilizing realistic model

simulations to examine the climatic impacts of LULCC. Our findings suggest that downward longwave radiation is the primary contributing factor in the mid-high latitudes of the Northern

Hemisphere over both historical and future periods, particularly under lower/upper tails of surface temperature changes. Surface albedo only dominates certain regions with intense LULCC in

North America, rather than being the first factor at mid-high latitudes. Note that the reduced downward longwave radiation would not be the initial reason for the surface temperature

decrease. The initial disturbance due to LULCC would firstly affect surface albedo, inducing changes in energy budget and surface temperature. The contribution of downward longwave radiation

can intensify this initial surface temperature change and become the dominating factor through complex ocean–land–atmosphere interactions. In the mid- to high-latitude regions of the

Northern Hemisphere, surface albedo has been primarily identified as playing an important role in previous studies. However, it is important to note that these studies may underestimate the

impact of downward longwave radiation on surface temperature due to the water vapor content may not be accurately measured34. Our findings confirm that under lower/upper tails of surface

temperature changes, water vapor change exhibits greater magnitudes and consequently contributes more greatly to changes in downward longwave radiation. Cloud cover is associated with the

atmospheric moisture content, and can exert influence on surface temperature change by regulating radiation35. We show that the cloud cover would decrease corresponding to water vapor

reduction in some intensive areas of decreasing surface temperature in mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. There should be a synergistic effect of water vapor and cloud cover

changes modulating downward longwave radiation. Since the cloud cover change in adjacent areas is not as remarkable as water vapor change, it can be inferred that water vapor change may be

more important for surface temperature change relative to cloud cover. In addition to water vapor and clouds, downward longwave radiation change is also affected by the atmospheric and

surface temperatures36. The downward longwave radiation of the atmosphere is closely related to the near-surface air temperature. Surface temperature change indirectly affects the downward

longwave radiation by influencing the upward longwave radiation. The lower the surface temperature, the less upward longwave radiation, resulting in less absorption of water vapor and other

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and, ultimately, less corresponding emission downward. Moreover, the decrease in atmospheric temperature would correspond to a decrease in the atmospheric

water holding capacity. The final downward longwave radiation change would be the combined effects of water vapor, clouds, and atmospheric and surface temperatures. The dominant factor

driving climate change in most of the tropics has traditionally been attributed to latent heat flux, as indicated by previous studies37. The downward shortwave radiation is the first

contributing factor to surface temperature change in other regions of the tropics. This dominance of downward shortwave radiation in those regions are also largely affected by changes in

water vapor and cloud cover. Ongoing deforestation and expansion of cropland in this region have consistently reduced evapotranspiration rates and contributed to the overall warming of the

climate system. This warming effect induced by an increase in Bowen ratio and downward shortwave radiation surpasses the cooling influences exerted by changes in surface albedo and downward

longwave radiation under average conditions. Our findings extend these observations to extreme surface temperature change conditions and reveal that downward longwave radiation has emerged

as a primary driver in certain tropical areas. Our findings indicate that LULCC can influence climate in distant areas through atmospheric circulation and teleconnections9,10. We show

agreement between most individual models and the multi-model ensemble results in this study. Teleconnections are not obvious in a few models, possibly due to different sensitivity of model

responses to land-use change and lack of refinement of subgrids LULCC38,39,40. This study specifically focused on the biogeophysical impacts of realistic anthropogenic LULCC on surface

temperature change without differentiating between individual land use types41. We agree that analyzing specific land use/cover conversions in detail can help isolate climate impacts

associated with LULCC23. For instance, investigating adjoining areas of forests and open land based on observations is important42. Although these individual effects are largely

hypothetical, they warrant further investigation. Combining both approaches can effectively enhance the accuracy and persuasiveness of research in the field of the impacts of LULCC on

climate. Future LULCC is increasingly acknowledged as a potentially effective strategy for mitigating climate change in human society43. The Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change explicitly promotes afforestation and sustainable forest management to reap mitigation and adaptation benefits in the face of a warming future. However, not all

land use/land management activities contribute to cooling the climate system or mitigating losses associated with climate disasters44. Therefore, accurate assessment and prediction of

potential climate and environmental impacts are crucial before implementing large-scale anthropogenic LULCC activities15. This study highlights the dominant role of downward longwave

radiation under both historical and future conditions, particularly during extreme events. We anticipate that our findings will enhance the understanding of interactions between land

use/cover, radiation, and atmospheric circulation while providing a scientific basis for targeted measures to adaptively modify the land surface environment. METHODS DATASETS AND

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The latest iteration of CMIP, CMIP6, upholds the defining characteristics of its predecessors and serves as a valuable tool for global climate simulation45. In addition

to the fundamental experiments conducted in all CMIPs, CMIP6 introduces specialized experiments known as MIPs that cater to the interests of the scientific community. LUMIP is one such

CMIP6-Endorsed MIP initiated by the scientific community to quantify past and future climate impacts, interactions, and feedback resulting from LULCC, while also evaluating the potential of

land management for mitigating climate change effects45,46. Detailed information about the seven models employed and the two-pair experiments can be found in Supplementary Table 1. All

models that included the required outputs were used to enhance the credibility of our results. The “Hist” and “SSP126” experiments correspond to the means of the CMIP6 historical runs and

SSP1-2.6 scenario, respectively. The experiment named “Hist-noLu” is identical to “Hist”, except that land use/cover is held constant at the 1850 level. Similarly, the experiment named

“SSP126-SSP370Lu” refers to the same scenario as “SSP126”, but land use/cover is consistent with SSP3-7.0. Consequently, we refer to the “SSP126” experiment as the afforestation scenario and

the “SSP126-SSP370Lu” experiment as the deforestation scenario. In this study, LULCC climate impacts were calculated by comparing differences between the “Hist” and “Hist-noLu” experiments

during the historical period and between the “SSP126-SSP370Lu” and “SSP126” experiments during the future period. The biogeophysical impact of LULCC can be distinguished by comparing the

results obtained from two pairs of sensitivity experiments. It should be noted that the biogeochemical effect of LULCC is excluded because carbon dioxide concentrations are annually set to

actual values47. In the variant label, letters represent the realization (r), initialization (i) schemes, physics (p), and forcing (f) schemes, respectively48. To prevent overweighting a

single model, multi-model ensemble means are calculated by averaging intra-model results for individual models with more than one running member, followed by averaging across ensemble

means49. The first-order conservative remapping scheme was employed to standardize the spatial resolution of the models to 1.25o\(\times\)1.875o latitude-longitude for improved calculation

and comparison purposes50. For more detailed information regarding the LUMIP experiments, please refer to Lawrence et al. 46. The land-use harmonization 2 (LUH2) data, utilized for the Earth

system models participating in the CMIP6 program, were employed as the fundamental land use/cover dataset2. This choice ensures consistency with the land use dataset used by CMIP6 model

simulations. The LUH2 data possess several advantages, including reliable historical period reconstruction data, high spatial resolution (0.25° × 0.25°), and long time series spanning from

850 to 2100 years. To simplify the classification, the original twelve land use types were consolidated into five categories: forest, non-forest, grazing land, cropland, and urban land46.

The new forest and non-forest types encompass both primary and secondary forest as well as non-forest areas. The grazing land type combines natural pasture and management pasture51. The

cropland type is an aggregation of five crop-related functional types52. while the urban land type remains unchanged. Detailed information regarding land use data characteristics and

processing can be found in Hurtt et al.2. THE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION OF SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE The calculation processes of the rank of surface temperature change (minimum, Q1, Q5,

Q10,…, Q90, Q95, Q99, maximum) caused by LULCC were as follows53. First, the monthly multi-model ensemble mean surface temperature change data can be obtained via the subtraction between the

“Hist” and “Hist-noLu” experiments over the historical period or between the “SSP126” and “SSP126-SSP370Lu” experiments over the future period. The surface temperature change data included

12 (months per year) multiplied by 20 (years), which is equal to 240 months of data values. These surface temperature change data were spatially averaged in the specific analyzed regions

using the latitude-weighted method. Then, these surface temperature change data were sorted in increasing order from negative to positive values (e.g., approximately −1.5 °C to 1 °C in the

mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere over the historical period, Fig. 4a). The Bot5% of the surface temperature change represents the lower tail month caused by LULCC, which is the

average of 240 × 5% = 12 values at the beginning of the sorted surface temperature change data. Most of these data are from the boreal cold season. SURFACE ENERGY BUDGET EQUATION The

dominant energy redistribution based on the surface energy budget equation is the primary mechanism through which LULCC biogeophysical processes exert their climatic effects13,54. The

surface energy budget equation decomposes land‒atmosphere interactions into surface albedo, downward shortwave radiation, downward longwave radiation, latent heat flux, and sensible heat

flux to account for a relatively long period of surface energy balance. The surface energy budget equation begins with the land surface energy balance, expressed as

$${{{\rm{SW}}}}_{u}-{{{\rm{SW}}}}_{d}+{{{\rm{LW}}}}_{u}-{{{\rm{LW}}}}_{d}+{{{\rm{LH+SH}}}}+G\approx 0$$ (1) Where \({{{\rm{SW}}}}_{u}\) and \({{{\rm{SW}}}}_{d}\) are the upward shortwave

radiation and downward shortwave radiation, respectively; \({{{\rm{LW}}}}_{u}\) and \({{{\rm{LW}}}}_{d}\) are the upward longwave radiation and downward longwave radiation, respectively;

\({{{\rm{LH}}}}\) represents the latent heat flux, \({{{\rm{SH}}}}\) represents the sensible heat flux; and \(G\) is the ground heat flux which can be ignored when considering long-term

periods13,16. All of the above terms are in units of \({{{\rm{W\cdot {m}}}^{-2}}}\). According to the Stefan–Boltzmann law, \({T}_{s}\) represents the surface temperature is proportional to

the fourth power of upward longwave radiation, expressed as $${{{\rm{LW}}}}_{u}=\varepsilon \sigma {T}_{s}^{4}$$ (2) \(\varepsilon\) and \(\sigma\) are the surface emissivity (approximately

0.97, dimensionless) and the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (approximately \(5.67\times 1{0}^{-8}\,{{{\rm{W\cdot {m}}}^{-2}\cdot {K}^{-4}}}\)), respectively. Combining Eqs. (1) and (2), the

formula can be rewritten as $$\varepsilon \sigma {T}_{s}^{4}={{{\rm{SW}}}}_{d}+{{{\rm{LW}}}}_{d}-{{{\rm{SW}}}}_{u}-{{{\rm{LH}}}}-{{{\rm{SH}}}}$$ (3) Commonly, we use the surface albedo

(\(\alpha\)) to replace \({{{\rm{SW}}}}_{u}\). Hence, the final formula form is shown as (4). $$\varepsilon \sigma {T}_{s}^{4}=(1-\alpha

){{{\rm{SW}}}}_{d}+{{{\rm{LW}}}}_{d}-{{{\rm{LH}}}}-{{{\rm{SH}}}}$$ (4) The change between the sensitivity and control experiments (denoted as \(\delta\)) is calculated by taking the

derivative of the equation. We employed the first-order Taylor series expansion for solving \(\delta {T}_{s}\)12. $$\delta {T}_{s}= \frac{1}{4\varepsilon \sigma

{T}_{s,{{{\rm{CTL}}}}}^{3}}\left[-{{{\rm{SW}}}}_{d,{{{\rm{CTL}}}}}\delta \alpha +(1-{\alpha }_{{{\rm{CTL}}}})\delta {{{\rm{SW}}}}_{d}+\delta {{{\rm{LW}}}}_{d}-\delta {{{\rm{LH}}}}-\delta

{{{\rm{SH}}}}\right]\\ {{\rm{I}}} \qquad\qquad\qquad{{\rm{II}}} \qquad\qquad\quad{{\rm{III}}}\qquad\;\; {{\rm{IV}}}\qquad {{\rm{V}}}\quad$$ (5) Formula (5) is employed as a metric to

quantify the contributions of five meteorological factors (I–V) to the change in surface temperature. It should be noted that a previous study has already demonstrated the adequacy of

utilizing the first-order Taylor series expansion, although disregarding higher-order terms inevitably introduces errors55. Furthermore, the surface energy budget equation method implicitly

assumes independence among the contributions to changes in surface temperature from different factors56. The results confirm that cross-order terms containing non-linear effects are

negligible within \(\pm\)0.1 °C under mean state surface temperature change conditions. Despite some residual values under extreme surface temperature change conditions at mid-high latitudes

in the Northern Hemisphere, our findings remain valid (Supplementary Fig. 15 and Supplementary Fig. 16). DATA AVAILABILITY All datasets used in this study are available for public download,

and the website links are provided below. CMIP6 model outputs are available from esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/cmip6. LUH2 can be downloaded from https://luh.umd.edu/data.shtml. Source data for

figures in our paper are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14197577. CODE AVAILABILITY The publicly available software NCAR Command Language (NCL, version 6.6.2) was used to

analyze the data. The NCL codes are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14197577. REFERENCES * IPCC. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change,

desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. (2019). * Hurtt, G. C. et al. Harmonization of global land

use change and management for the period 850-2100 (LUH2) for CMIP6. _Geosci. Model Dev._ 13, 5425–5464 (2020). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Lejeune, Q., Seneviratne, S. I. & Davin,

E. L. Historical land-cover change impacts on climate: Comparative assessment of LUCID and CMIP5 multimodel experiments. _J. Clim._ 30, 1439–1459 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Lawrence,

D. & Vandecar, K. Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. _Nat. Clim. Change_ 5, 27–36 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change:

forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. _Science_ 320, 1444–1449 (2008). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Chen, L. & Dirmeyer, P. A. Reconciling the disagreement between

observed and simulated temperature responses to deforestation. _Nat. Commun._ 11, 202 (2020). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Luo, X. et al. The biophysical impacts of deforestation on

precipitation: results from the CMIP6 model intercomparison. _J. Clim._ 35, 3293–3311 (2022). Article  Google Scholar  * Huang, H. L. et al. Assessing global and regional effects of

reconstructed land-use and land-cover change on climate since 1950 using a coupled land-atmosphere-ocean model. _J. Clim._ 33, 8997–9013 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Portmann, R. et

al. Global forestation and deforestation affect remote climate via adjusted atmosphere and ocean circulation. _Nat. Commun._ 13, 5569 (2022). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Winckler, J.,

Lejeune, Q., Reick, C. H. & Pongratz, J. Nonlocal effects dominate the global mean surface temperature response to the biogeophysical effects of deforestation. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 46,

745–755 (2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Monteith, J. & Unsworth, M. _Principles of Environmental Physics_. (Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2007). * Hirsch, A. L. et al. Biogeophysical

impacts of land-use change on climate extremes in low-emission scenarios: results from HAPPI-Land. _Earths Future_ 6, 396–409 (2018). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Juang, J. Y., Katul, G.,

Siqueira, M., Stoy, P. & Novick, K. Separating the effects of albedo from eco-physiological changes on surface temperature along a successional chronosequence in the southeastern United

States. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 34, L21408 (2007). Article  Google Scholar  * Mahmood, R. et al. Land cover changes and their biogeophysical effects on climate. _Int. J. Climatol._ 34,

929–953 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Feddema, J. J. et al. The importance of land-cover change in simulating future climates. _Science_ 310, 1674–1678 (2005). Article  CAS  Google

Scholar  * Lee, X. et al. Observed increase in local cooling effect of deforestation at higher latitudes. _Nature_ 479, 384–387 (2011). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Abera, T. A.,

Heiskanen, J., Pellikka, P. K. E., Adhikari, H. & Maeda, E. E. Climatic impacts of bushland to cropland conversion in Eastern Africa. _Sci. Total Environ._ 717, 137255 (2020). Article 

CAS  Google Scholar  * Feldman, A. F. et al. Tropical surface temperature response to vegetation cover changes and the role of drylands. _Global Change Biol._ 29, 110–125 (2022). Article 

Google Scholar  * Bright, R. M. et al. Local temperature response to land cover and management change driven by non-radiative processes. _Nat. Clim. Change_ 7, 296–302 (2017). Article 

Google Scholar  * Chen, L. & Dirmeyer, P. A. Adapting observationally based metrics of biogeophysical feedbacks from land cover/land use change to climate modeling. _Environ. Res. Lett._

11, 034002 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Pitman, A. J. et al. Uncertainties in climate responses to past land cover change: first results from the LUCID intercomparison study.

_Geophys. Res. Lett._ 36, L14814 (2009). Article  Google Scholar  * Davin, E. L. et al. Biogeophysical impacts of forestation in Europe: first results from the LUCAS (Land Use and Climate

Across Scales) regional climate model intercomparison. _Earth Syst. Dynam._ 11, 183–200 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Yu, L. F. & Leng, G. Y. Global effects of different types of

land use and land cover changes on near-surface air temperature. _Agric. For. Meteorol._ 327, 109232 (2022). Article  Google Scholar  * Li, Y. et al. Local cooling and warming effects of

forests based on satellite observations. _Nat. Commun._ 6, 6603 (2015). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Tang, S. C. et al. Regional and tele-connected impacts of the Tibetan Plateau surface

darkening. _Nat. Commun._ 14, 32 (2023). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Christy, J. R., Norris, W. B., Redmond, K. & Gallo, K. P. Methodology and results of calculating central

California surface temperature trends: evidence of human-induced climate change? _J. Clim._ 19, 548–563 (2006). Article  Google Scholar  * Devaraju, N., Bala, G. & Modak, A. Effects of

large-scale deforestation on precipitation in the monsoon regions: Remote versus local effects. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 112, 3257–3262 (2015). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Lague, M.

M. & Swann, A. L. S. Progressive midlatitude afforestation: impacts on clouds, global energy transport, and precipitation. _J. Clim._ 29, 5561–5573 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  *

Duveiller, G., Hooker, J. & Cescatti, A. The mark of vegetation change on Earth’s surface energy balance. _Nat. Commun._ 9, 679 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Liao, W., Rigden, A. J.

& Li, D. Attribution of local temperature response to deforestation. _J. Geophys. Res._ 123, 1572–1587 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Arora, V. K. & Montenegro, A. Small

temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts. _Nat. Geosci._ 4, 514–518 (2011). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Bala, G. et al. Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects

of large-scale deforestation. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 104, 6550–6555 (2007). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Li, Y. et al. The role of spatial scale and background climate in the

latitudinal temperature response to deforestation. _Earth Syst. Dyn._ 7, 167–181 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Vanden Broucke, S., Luyssaert, S., Davin, E. L., Janssens, I. & van

Lipzig, N. New insights in the capability of climate models to simulate the impact of LUC based on temperature decomposition of paired site observations. _J. Geophys. Res._ 120, 5417–5436

(2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Breil, M., Schneider, V. K. M. & Pinto, J. G. The effect of forest cover changes on the regional climate conditions in Europe during the period

1986–2015. _Biogeosciences_ 21, 811–824 (2024). Article  Google Scholar  * Breil, M., Krawczyk, F. & Pinto, J. G. The response of the regional longwave radiation balance and climate

system in Europe to an idealized afforestation experiment. _Earth Syst. Dynam._ 14, 243–253 (2023). Article  Google Scholar  * Lawrence, P. J. & Chase, T. N. Investigating the climate

impacts of global land cover change in the community climate system model. _Int. J. Climatol._ 30, 2066–2087 (2010). Article  Google Scholar  * Findell, K. L., Knutson, T. R. & Milly, P.

C. D. Weak simulated extratropical responses to complete tropical deforestation. _J. Clim._ 19, 2835–2850 (2006). Article  Google Scholar  * Admasu, L. M., Grant, L. & Thiery, W.

Exploring global climate model downscaling based on tile-level output. _J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim._ 62, 171–190 (2023). Article  Google Scholar  * Tang, T. et al. Biophysical impact of

land-use and land-cover change on subgrid temperature in CMIP6 models. _J. Hydrometeorol._ 24, 373–388 (2023). Article  Google Scholar  * Zhang, Y. Z. & Liang, S. L. Impacts of land

cover transitions on surface temperature in China based on satellite observations. _Environ. Res. Lett._ 13, 024010 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Wang, H. H., Yue, C. & Luyssaert,

S. Reconciling different approaches to quantifying land surface temperature impacts of afforestation using satellite. _Biogeosciences_ 20, 75–92 (2023). Article  Google Scholar  *

Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Climate extremes, land–climate feedbacks and land-use forcing at 1.5oC. _Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A_ 376, 20160450 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Naudts, K. et

al. Europe’s forest management did not mitigate climate warming. _Science_ 351, 597–600 (2016). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model

Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. _Geosci. Model Dev._ 9, 1937–1958 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Lawrence, D. M. et al. The Land Use Model

Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design. _Geosci. Model Dev._ 9, 2973–2998 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Liu, S. et al. Contrasting

influences of biogeophysical and biogeochemical impacts of historical land use on global economic inequality. _Nat. Commun._ 13, 2479 (2022). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Papalexiou, S.

M., Rajulapati, C. R., Clark, M. P. & Lehner, F. Robustness of CMIP6 historical global mean temperature simulations: trends, long-term persistence, autocorrelation, and distributional

shape. _Earths Future_ 8, e2020EF001667 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Sen Gupta, A., Jourdain, N. C., Brown, J. N. & Monselesan, D. Climate drift in the CMIP5 models. _J. Clim_ 26,

8597–8615 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Jones, P. W. First- and second-order conservative remapping schemes for grids in spherical coordinates. _Mon. Weather Rev._ 127, 2204–2210

(1999). Article  Google Scholar  * Goldewijk, K. K., Beusen, A., Van Drecht, G. & De Vos, M. The HYDE 3.1 spatially explicit database of human-induced global land-use change over the

past 12,000 years. _Global Ecol. Biogeogr._ 20, 73–86 (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of

crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. _Global Biogeochem. Cycles_ 22, GB1022 (2008). Article  Google Scholar  * Hirsch, A. L., Wilhelm, M.,

Davin, E. L., Thiery, W. & Seneviratne, S. I. Can climate-effective land management reduce regional warming? _J. Geophys. Res._ 122, 2269–2288 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  *

Luyssaert, S. et al. Land management and land-cover change have impacts of similar magnitude on surface temperature. _Nat. Clim. Change_ 4, 389–393 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Chen,

C., Wang, L., Myneni, R. B. & Li, D. Attribution of land-use/land-cover change induced surface temperature anomaly: how accurate is the first-order Taylor series expansion? _J. Geophys.

Res._ 125, e2020JG005787 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Rigden, A. J. & Li, D. Attribution of surface temperature anomalies induced by land use and land cover changes. _Geophys. Res.

Lett._ 44, 6814–6822 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was jointly supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2023YFF0805501) and

the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41925021, 42475153). The support of the Shanghai Oriental Talents Project leading talent plan is appreciated. The authors acknowledge the

ESGF website for providing the CMIP6-LUMIP project datasets and the LUH2 project for providing the land use/cover datasets. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Department of

Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China Meng Zhang, Yanhong Gao & Guoyin Wang * Shanghai Frontiers Science Center of

Atmosphere-Ocean Interaction, Shanghai, China Yanhong Gao * Shanghai Key Laboratory of Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Boundary Dynamics and Climate Change, Shanghai, China Yanhong Gao * Columbia

Climate School, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Mingfang Ting * Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing, China Yan Yu *

Laboratory for Climate and Ocean-Atmosphere Studies, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing, China Yan Yu Authors * Meng Zhang View

author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Yanhong Gao View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Mingfang

Ting View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Yan Yu View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar *

Guoyin Wang View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS Conceptualization, methodology: M.Z. and Y.G.; Formal analysis and

investigation: M.Z. and Y.G.; Writing original draft preparation: M.Z.; Writing review and editing: M.Z., Y.G., M.T., Y.Y., and G.W.; Funding acquisition: Y.G.; Resources: Y.G.; Supervision:

Y.G. All authors read and approved the final paper. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Yanhong Gao. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests.

PEER REVIEW PEER REVIEW INFORMATION _Communications Earth & Environment_ thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors:

Seung-Ki Min and Alireza Bahadori. A peer review file is available ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published

maps and institutional affiliations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TRANSPARENT PEER REVIEW FILE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as

long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not

have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s

Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not

permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Zhang, M., Gao, Y., Ting, M. _et al._ Land-use induced changes in extreme

temperature predominantly influenced by downward longwave radiation. _Commun Earth Environ_ 5, 758 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01936-0 Download citation * Received: 01 July

2024 * Accepted: 27 November 2024 * Published: 05 December 2024 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01936-0 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to

read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing

initiative