Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6217
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6217
19 Jan 2026
 | 19 Jan 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).

The Cold-Air Outbreaks in the Marine Boundary Layer Experiment model-observation intercomparison project (COMBLE-MIP), Part I: Model specification, observational constraints, and preliminary findings

Timothy W. Juliano, Florian Tornow, Ann M. Fridlind, Andrew S. Ackerman, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Bart Geerts, Christian P. Lackner, David Painemal, Israel Silber, Mikhail Ovchinnikov, Gunilla Svensson, Michael Tjernström, Peng Wu, Alejandro Baró Pérez, Peter Bogenschutz, Dmitry Chechin, Kamal Kant Chandrakar, Jan Chylik, Andrey Debolskiy, Rostislav Fadeev, Anu Gupta, Luisa Ickes, Michail Karalis, Martin Köhler, Branko Kosović, Peter Kuma, Weiwei Li, Evgeny Mortikov, Hugh Morrison, Roel A. J. Neggers, Anna Possner, Tomi Raatikainen, Sami Romakkaniemi, Niklas Schnierstein, Shin-ichiro Shima, Nikita Silin, Mikhail Tolstykh, Lulin Xue, Meng Zhang, and Xue Zheng

Abstract. Models are universally challenged to accurately predict the coupled microphysical, turbulent and radiative processes within widespread, long-lived marine cold-air outbreak (CAO) cloud fields, which leads to biases and uncertainties in atmospheric predictions over all time scales. Here we assemble a suite of ground-based and satellite measurements to initialize and constrain large-eddy simulations (LES) of cloud field evolution with distance downwind from the marginal ice zone during a strong, highly supercooled and convective CAO observed during the Cold-Air Outbreaks in the Marine Boundary Layer Experiment (COMBLE). Detailed LES results are compared with large-scale models run in single-column model (SCM) mode, providing an observation-constrained framework for large-scale model evaluation and future improvements. All models reproduce rapid cloud formation off the ice edge, and a monotonic ascent of downwind cloud-top heights that is well correlated with time-integrated surface heat fluxes. LES generally reproduce domain-mean observational targets using a modest test domain (25 x 25 km2), and a larger domain (125 x 125 km2) enables better reproducing the observed growth of convective cell sizes. In realistic mixed-phase LES compared with liquid-only simulations, ice processes lead to thinner, broken cloud decks and substantially reduced cloud radiative effects on top-of-atmosphere longwave fluxes. By contrast, mixed-phase SCM simulations generally underpredict the impact of ice on radiative fluxes, primarily owing to insufficient reduction of cloud cover. Results indicate that cellular cloud structure is qualitatively captured by LES, and thus LES could provide guidance to improvement of large-scale model physics schemes. Follow-on work will extend these results to larger domains, apply objective analysis of mesoscale structure, and include prognostic aerosol properties for droplet and heterogeneous ice formation.

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.
Share
Timothy W. Juliano, Florian Tornow, Ann M. Fridlind, Andrew S. Ackerman, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Bart Geerts, Christian P. Lackner, David Painemal, Israel Silber, Mikhail Ovchinnikov, Gunilla Svensson, Michael Tjernström, Peng Wu, Alejandro Baró Pérez, Peter Bogenschutz, Dmitry Chechin, Kamal Kant Chandrakar, Jan Chylik, Andrey Debolskiy, Rostislav Fadeev, Anu Gupta, Luisa Ickes, Michail Karalis, Martin Köhler, Branko Kosović, Peter Kuma, Weiwei Li, Evgeny Mortikov, Hugh Morrison, Roel A. J. Neggers, Anna Possner, Tomi Raatikainen, Sami Romakkaniemi, Niklas Schnierstein, Shin-ichiro Shima, Nikita Silin, Mikhail Tolstykh, Lulin Xue, Meng Zhang, and Xue Zheng

Status: open (until 16 Mar 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Timothy W. Juliano, Florian Tornow, Ann M. Fridlind, Andrew S. Ackerman, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Bart Geerts, Christian P. Lackner, David Painemal, Israel Silber, Mikhail Ovchinnikov, Gunilla Svensson, Michael Tjernström, Peng Wu, Alejandro Baró Pérez, Peter Bogenschutz, Dmitry Chechin, Kamal Kant Chandrakar, Jan Chylik, Andrey Debolskiy, Rostislav Fadeev, Anu Gupta, Luisa Ickes, Michail Karalis, Martin Köhler, Branko Kosović, Peter Kuma, Weiwei Li, Evgeny Mortikov, Hugh Morrison, Roel A. J. Neggers, Anna Possner, Tomi Raatikainen, Sami Romakkaniemi, Niklas Schnierstein, Shin-ichiro Shima, Nikita Silin, Mikhail Tolstykh, Lulin Xue, Meng Zhang, and Xue Zheng

Data sets

COMBLE Model-Observation Intercomparison Project Cookbook Timothy W. Juliano et al. https://github.com/ARM-Development/comble-mip

Timothy W. Juliano, Florian Tornow, Ann M. Fridlind, Andrew S. Ackerman, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Bart Geerts, Christian P. Lackner, David Painemal, Israel Silber, Mikhail Ovchinnikov, Gunilla Svensson, Michael Tjernström, Peng Wu, Alejandro Baró Pérez, Peter Bogenschutz, Dmitry Chechin, Kamal Kant Chandrakar, Jan Chylik, Andrey Debolskiy, Rostislav Fadeev, Anu Gupta, Luisa Ickes, Michail Karalis, Martin Köhler, Branko Kosović, Peter Kuma, Weiwei Li, Evgeny Mortikov, Hugh Morrison, Roel A. J. Neggers, Anna Possner, Tomi Raatikainen, Sami Romakkaniemi, Niklas Schnierstein, Shin-ichiro Shima, Nikita Silin, Mikhail Tolstykh, Lulin Xue, Meng Zhang, and Xue Zheng
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 19 Jan 2026
Download
Short summary
Models struggle to capture cloud and precipitation processes and their radiative effects in marine cold-air outbreaks. We use a quasi-Lagrangian framework to compare large-eddy simulation (LES) and single-column model (SCM) output with field and satellite observations. With fixed droplet and ice numbers, LES and SCM agree in liquid-only tests. In mixed-phase conditions, LES plausibly capture cloud thinning and breakup, while SCMs largely remain overcast and thereby miss cloud radiative effects.
Share