Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1237
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1237
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
10 Apr 2026
| 10 Apr 2026
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
Abstract. Models struggle to represent the coupled microphysical, turbulent and radiative processes within widespread, long-lived marine cold-air outbreak (CAO) cloud fields, contributing to forecast and climate biases. Here we combine 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). 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, closely linked to 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 radiative impact of ice, 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.
How to cite. Juliano, T. W., Tornow, F., Fridlind, A. M., Ackerman, A. S., Elsaesser, G. S., Geerts, B., Lackner, C. P., Painemal, D., Silber, I., Ovchinnikov, M., Svensson, G., Tjernström, M., Wu, P., Baró Pérez, A., Bogenschutz, P., Chechin, D., Chandrakar, K. K., Chylik, J., Debolskiy, A., Fadeev, R., Gupta, A., Ickes, L., Karalis, M., Köhler, M., Kosovic, B., Kuma, P., Li, W., Mortikov, E., Morrison, H., Neggers, R. A. J., Possner, A., Raatikainen, T., Raillard, L., Romakkaniemi, S., Schnierstein, N., Shima, S., Silin, N., Tolstykh, M., Vignon, É., Xue, L., Zhang, M., and Zheng, X.: 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, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1237, 2026.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. The peer-review process was guided by an independent editor, and the authors also have no other competing interests to declare.
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.Download & links
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(38280 KB)
Download & links
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(38280 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
22 Sep 2026
The Cold-Air Outbreaks in the Marine Boundary Layer Experiment model-observation intercomparison project (COMBLE-MIP) – Part 1: 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, Lea Raillard, Sami Romakkaniemi, Niklas Schnierstein, Shin-ichiro Shima, Nikita Silin, Mikhail Tolstykh, Étienne Vignon, Lulin Xue, Meng Zhang, and Xue Zheng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 13267–13302, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-13267-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-13267-2026, 2026
Short summary
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.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1237', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 May 2026
- RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1237', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 May 2026
- AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1237', Florian Tornow, 08 Jul 2026
Peer review completion
AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload
AR by Florian Tornow on behalf of the Authors (08 Jul 2026)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 Jul 2026) by Zhanqing Li
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (22 Jul 2026)
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (29 Jul 2026)
ED: Publish as is (30 Jul 2026) by Zhanqing Li
AR by Florian Tornow on behalf of the Authors (09 Aug 2026)
Manuscript
Post-review adjustments
AA – Author's adjustment | EA – Editor approval
AA by Florian Tornow on behalf of the Authors (09 Sep 2026)
Author's adjustment
Manuscript
EA: Adjustments approved (12 Sep 2026) by Zhanqing Li
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1237', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 May 2026
My comments are well addressed in the revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1237-RC1 - RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1237', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 May 2026
- AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1237', Florian Tornow, 08 Jul 2026
Peer review completion
AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload
AR by Florian Tornow on behalf of the Authors (08 Jul 2026)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 Jul 2026) by Zhanqing Li
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (22 Jul 2026)
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (29 Jul 2026)
ED: Publish as is (30 Jul 2026) by Zhanqing Li
AR by Florian Tornow on behalf of the Authors (09 Aug 2026)
Manuscript
Post-review adjustments
AA – Author's adjustment | EA – Editor approval
AA by Florian Tornow on behalf of the Authors (09 Sep 2026)
Author's adjustment
Manuscript
EA: Adjustments approved (12 Sep 2026) by Zhanqing Li
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
22 Sep 2026
The Cold-Air Outbreaks in the Marine Boundary Layer Experiment model-observation intercomparison project (COMBLE-MIP) – Part 1: 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, Lea Raillard, Sami Romakkaniemi, Niklas Schnierstein, Shin-ichiro Shima, Nikita Silin, Mikhail Tolstykh, Étienne Vignon, Lulin Xue, Meng Zhang, and Xue Zheng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 13267–13302, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-13267-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-13267-2026, 2026
Short summary
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.
Data sets
COMBLE Model-Observation Intercomparison Project Cookbook Juliano et al. https://github.com/ARM-Development/comble-mip/
Viewed
Total article views: 1,334 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 10 Apr 2026)
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 693 | 553 | 88 | 1,334 | 78 | 71 |
- HTML: 693
- PDF: 553
- XML: 88
- Total: 1,334
- BibTeX: 78
- EndNote: 71
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 1,293 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 1,293 with geography defined
and 0 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Latest update: 09 Oct 2026
Timothy W. Juliano
U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, CO, USA
Florian Tornow
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, NY, USA
Ann M. Fridlind
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, NY, USA
Andrew S. Ackerman
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, NY, USA
Gregory S. Elsaesser
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, NY, USA
Bart Geerts
University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA
Christian P. Lackner
University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA
David Painemal
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA
Science Systems and Applications, Inc., Hampton, VA, USA
Israel Silber
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, USA
Mikhail Ovchinnikov
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, USA
Gunilla Svensson
Department of Meteorology and Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Michael Tjernström
Department of Meteorology and Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, USA
Alejandro Baró Pérez
Chalmers Technical University, Gothenburg, Sweden
Peter Bogenschutz
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA, USA
Dmitry Chechin
Obukhov Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP), Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), Moscow, Russia
Kamal Kant Chandrakar
U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, CO, USA
Jan Chylik
University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Andrey Debolskiy
Research Computing Center, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Moscow Center of Fundamental and Applied Mathematics, Moscow, Russia
Rostislav Fadeev
Institute of Numerical Mathematics (INM), RAS, and Hydrometcentre of Russia, Moscow, Russia
Anu Gupta
Graduate School of Information Science, University of Hyogo, Kobe, Japan
Luisa Ickes
Chalmers Technical University, Gothenburg, Sweden
Michail Karalis
Department of Meteorology and Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Martin Köhler
Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), Offenbach am Main, Germany
Branko Kosovic
Ralph O’Connor Sustainable Energy Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Peter Kuma
Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
Weiwei Li
U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, CO, USA
Evgeny Mortikov
Research Computing Center, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Moscow Center of Fundamental and Applied Mathematics, Moscow, Russia
Hugh Morrison
U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, CO, USA
Roel A. J. Neggers
University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Anna Possner
Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
Tomi Raatikainen
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Lea Raillard
Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique-IPSL, Sorbonne Université/CNRS/Ecole Normale Supérieure-PSL Université/Ecole Polytechnique-Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Paris, France
Sami Romakkaniemi
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Niklas Schnierstein
University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Shin-ichiro Shima
Graduate School of Information Science, University of Hyogo, Kobe, Japan
Nikita Silin
Research Computing Center, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Mikhail Tolstykh
Institute of Numerical Mathematics (INM), RAS, and Hydrometcentre of Russia, Moscow, Russia
Étienne Vignon
Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique-IPSL, Sorbonne Université/CNRS/Ecole Normale Supérieure-PSL Université/Ecole Polytechnique-Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Paris, France
Lulin Xue
U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, CO, USA
Meng Zhang
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA, USA
Xue Zheng
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA, USA
Download
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(38280 KB) - Metadata XML
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.
Models struggle to capture cloud and precipitation processes and their radiative effects in...
My comments are well addressed in the revised manuscript.