the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Past and future evolution of cut-off-low-associated extreme precipitation in Europe
Abstract. Extreme precipitation events are projected to become more frequent and intense in Europe under climate change. In recent decades, cut-off lows (COLs) – cold-core, upper-level low-pressure systems originating from polar regions – have caused severe impacts across several European countries, leading to unprecedented rainfall totals. Understanding how the influence of COLs on extreme precipitation may evolve in a warming climate is therefore a key scientific challenge. To address this issue, we develop an objective detection algorithm based on 500 hPa geopotential height (Z500) fields to identify COLs.
Using the ERA5 reanalysis for both daily precipitation and Z500 fields, we construct a climatology of COLs affecting Europe over the period 1940–2024. We first show that the total number of COLs exhibits no significant long-term trend. We then attribute daily precipitation events to potential COL influence. Our results indicate that approximately 49% of the most extreme European precipitation events are associated with a COL. Furthermore, we find that the statistical significance of trends in the annual number of COLs associated with precipitation extremes depends on both the precipitation threshold used to define extremes and the season considered.
In a second step, the same detection algorithm is applied to Z500 fields from six Earth System Models (ESMs) participating in the CMIP6 experiments recommended for EURO-CORDEX downscaling. We show that these state-of-the-art ESMs exhibit a negative bias in the simulated number of COLs over the historical period (1981–2014), which is particularly pronounced over the Mediterranean basin. Using bias-adjusted precipitation fields, precipitation events in each ESM are then attributed to COLs under the SSP5-8.5 scenario. As in the reanalysis, trends in the number of COL-associated events depend on the precipitation threshold.
Overall, this study provides new insights into the past and future synoptic-scale impacts of COLs over Europe and supports the interpretation that observed trends in extreme precipitation are primarily thermodynamically driven rather than dynamically. Because the proposed algorithm relies solely on Z500 fields – an accessible and widely available dataset – it can be readily applied to other reanalysis products or climate model outputs, offering a practical tool for assessing model performance in representing COL occurrence over specific regions.
- Preprint
(34583 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2315', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Jun 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-2315/egusphere-2026-2315-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-2315-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2315', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jul 2026
Review of “Past and future evolution of cut-off low associated extreme precipitation in Europe” By Brajkovic et al
Summary
This study seeks to under historical and future trends of COL pressure systems in Europe using ERA 5 data and six CMIP 6 models. The study shows that COLs vary per season and the lowest number of events are observed in DJF, the boreal winter. The authors show that there is are no significant trends in COLs in ERA 5, clear increasing trends are seen when higher precipitation thresholds are used, showing that the most extreme COLs are actually on the increase. The study future considers data from CMIP6 models under the SSP5-8.5 scenario. Whilst most models do not show a continued increase of the most extreme COLs into the future, at least one model does.
Because of the significance of these systems at the present moment and their role in contributing to weather and climate extreme events, this study warrants consideration by the WCD. However, as a reviewer I feel that the manuscript requires significant or major improvement before it can be accepted for publication. Broadly speaking, also given the focus of WCD, the manuscript lacks dynamical analysis to explain the results shown. So, I invite the authors to consider this. As it may require additional calculations, and perhaps even the use of approaches like composite analysis to draw out some of the dynamics issues, this suggestion constitutes major review.
One other point to make that applies right through the manuscript, is the use of the words “attribution”. This gives the impression that this is a climate change attribution study and it does not really seem to be the case. So please consider another way of characterized what you have done in this work; it is not attribution.
- Introduction
Lines 25 – 70: There are a number of papers on NH COLs that the review has not considered, e.g. Nieto et al 2005 is one, and other climatological studies such as Wernli and Sprenger (2007) and Portmann et al (2021) and others that looked at the same topic from a PV cut-off perspective. Broadly speaking the literature review is rather thin. Novelty of the work is not clearly defined. What is this study contributing what other studies on the natural variability of NH COLs have not done? It is not sufficient to speak of an opportunity using a consistent “attribution” (as noted previously, not appropriate) framework.
Also please mention the data used in studies only when it is material to the discussion, such when you want to point out discrepancies between studies and the reanalyses products are likely the source of them.
Line 30: The correct reference here is Palmen (1949) and Palmen and Newton (1949).
Line 31 to 32: Should the consideration not be temperature advection at the surface, instead of strong temperature gradients? Unless the authors mean to invoke the thermal wind relation to talk about the jet streaks that have been observed during COL evolution.
Line 45: If the authors appropriately reference Barnes et al (2023)’s work on slow-moving PV anomalies, then naturally Wernli and Sprenger is also relevant, as well as where these anomalies come from. What causes them?
Line 53: Even though ERA5 is very well what known, please write out the full-name when using syncronyms for the first time.
- Methods and materials
Is there any particular reason that the authors started with the methodology. I suggest that you rearranged this section and start with the domain that you discussed, then the data and then the methods. That is the norm and besides who to you refer to the ERA 5 data that you use in line 75 before explaining what it is. At this point of the paper, we don’t even know what resolution did you choose and why. On line 73 you talk about 500 hPa GPH, but from which dataset did you extract these. This section requires major revision.
The numbering of the subsections is inconsistent. Sometimes the authors use numbering in other cases, no numbering. Please correct this cosmetic issue.
Lines 106 – 106 In my opinion this might exclude important events from the analysis because it is entirely plausible you may find COLs with rainfall occurring outside the closed circulation region. Please test of this is ever the case so that you do not exclude important events. One way to combat this problem is to use vertical motion combined with moisture convergence to identify where rainfall might be occurring for the COLs.
Caption of Figure 3: Which Isohypse does the closed magenta contour represent? Is it the largest?
Lines 169- 177: Please show these moisture flux diagnostics you are referring to.
Lines 189 – 191: For a journal focusing on atmospheric dynamics, the authors should be expected to offer an explanation (or at the very least a plausible one) for the anomalous behaviour during the 1970s. This is actually quite critical. What happened in the background flow that couls have led to more waves breaking etc.
Lines 201 – 202: This statement needs to be unpacked analytically, in fact. It seems to this reader that MAM to SON contribute the most to the 70s anomaly.
Again, in my opinion, it is not sufficient to merely describe the statistics, an explanation should be offered.
Why do we see such a large jump from DJF to MAM?
Lines 211 – 214: COLs during the winter months, though occurring less frequently, can in actual fact, lead to very extreme precipitation. So without showing that this is note the case, this statement is not, supported. Please consider this.
Lines 224 – 225 and 230 – 236: Is it enough to use rainfall as a measure of COL intensity?
Why are the most intense (or extreme) COLs increase over time? This really needs to be explained in detail, please!
Line 238: The world “been” is missing in the first sentence
Lines 276 – 279: What exactly is causing the bias in the simulations? This is yet another area that would have benefited from the dynamical understanding of COLs in the study.
Fig 7 and associated discussion should have the equivalent of or a similar plot to Fig 8 for the period 1981 – 2014 (perhaps extended to 2025, if that is possible), defined here as the current climate in the simulations and the comparison with ERA5 should be a standalone item rather than embedded on Figure 8, it is very difficult to determine who the models are doing in capturing the variability in current climate.
Lines 308 – 309: Again why?
As reviewer, I would suggest that Section 4.2 and 4.3 do not add value to the paper. I suggest, again, that the authors undertake a proper dynamical analysis to explain the trends they observe here and also use dynamics to explain the differences between ERA 5 results and models. For instance, only one mode shows consistency with the ERA5 data. I think that there is a dynamical reason for this but it has not been offered.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2315-RC2 -
EC1: 'Editorial Comment', Heini Wernli, 10 Jul 2026
Dear Josip Brajkovic and co-authors
As you have seen, both reviewers are rather critical about your paper and they both rate the scientific quality of your originally submitted manuscript as "poor", which indicates that very major revisions would be required to make your paper suitable for publication in WCD. The reviewers mentions several important points (more complete literature review, methodological issues, need for more dynamical analyses, etc.). In any case, please submit your final author comments within the next few weeks, where you can respond to the reviewers' comments and indicate how you plan to further improve your study. At the same time you may reflect whether you will be able to do the revisions within about 2 months or whether you prefer to have more time to prepare a substantially improved manuscript. In the latter case, there is also the option to withdraw your current paper, and resubmit any time later a revised version, which would be treated as a new paper in the WCD system.
Please let me know if further advice would be welcome.
With best regards,
Heini Wernli
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2315-EC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 140 | 74 | 12 | 226 | 8 | 9 |
- HTML: 140
- PDF: 74
- XML: 12
- Total: 226
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1