the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Towards Better Simulations of Liquid Water Path during Stratocumulus-to-Cumulus Transition: Insights from Gaussian Process Emulator, XGBoost and MAGIC Observations
Abstract. Simulating Liquid Water Path (LWP) during stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition (SCT) remains challenging for storm-resolving models, with biases varying across cloud regimes. We use the storm-resolving DP-EAMxx model and a perturbed-parameter ensemble of three warm-rain microphysical parameters to investigate LWP biases during an SCT event observed in the MAGIC field campaign. Gaussian process emulators trained on observation-derived metrics of mean LWP bias and LWP decorrelation timescale bias are used to identify low-bias parameter combinations within the explored parameter space. While similar parameter constraints are obtained for the stratocumulus (Sc) and transition (Tr) phases, the low-bias parameter combinations for the cumulus (Cu) phase differ substantially, indicating requirement of a stronger reduction in autoconversion and accretion rates for a given prescribed droplet number concentration. Using an overlapping low-bias parameter set from the Sc and Tr phases, the mean LWP bias improves from −31 and −22 g m−2 to −1 and 3 g m−2 in the Sc and Tr phases, respectively, but degrades in the Cu phase. An independent XGBoost model with SHAP attribution, trained using DP-EAMxx-simulated process-level diagnostics and meteorological state, supports the emulator sensitivities: LWP bias in Sc is strongly associated with warm-rain microphysics, whereas dynamical, radiative, and thermodynamic influences become more prominent in Tr and Cu. These results show where a limited set of parameters is effective in improving model performance and where additional sources of uncertainty likely need to be considered across regimes. More broadly, we demonstrate a proof-of-concept observation-constrained framework for the diagnosis of storm-resolving model bias.
- Preprint
(7796 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4694 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3700', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Sep 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3700', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Oct 2026
Ghosh et al. evaluate a PPE run in the 3 km DP-EAMxx model and analyze the three phases of the stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition, finding a significant improvement of LWP bias in the ensemble when it is constrained with MAGIC observations. The analysis also combines XGBoost and Gaussian process emulation models in a novel way. This is a very interesting study and the manuscript is well-written overall. The results are impressive, and the authors nicely draw physical understanding out of the parameter analysis and put the results into context with the literature throughout the manuscript. However, there are several areas where further clarification is needed – particularly for the differences between the XGB and GPE methods – but I would recommend publication once those are resolved.
Main comments:
- Lines 97-101: The description of the transition in the text makes sense to me, but I don’t quite follow the relationship between that description and the figure snapshots. It would be helpful to point out to the reader exactly where to look.
- Lines 102-103: I think a useful visual here (maybe an additional supplementary figure?) would be a snapshot of what the cloud field in DP-SCREAM looks like during this transition, with something like total liquid water path or cloud fraction. This would also help illustrate the high resolution of the simulations and make for an easier qualitative comparison with the MODIS data from Figure 1.
- Line 166: Where did the value of 5 g/m2 come from? If this was arbitrarily chosen based on the lower bound of the higher-frequency observations that seems fine, but it should be clarified.
- Section 4.3 & lines 351-357: Section 4.3 feels insufficient for the methods section since it doesn’t say anything about what this algorithm actually does or how it is used to study clouds/precip/lightning. SHAP is also not discussed at all here despite the subsection title. Although XGB is explained more in section 5.1, it is still unclear how it is different from a GPE emulator that also predicts the simulated LWP biases.
- Line 239: I don’t quite follow this method.
- Lines 266-267: How do we know from Fig. S1 that the SCT event is realistic? I can see qualitatively the clouds breaking in (b) and (d), but I think a bit more explanation is needed here.
- Figure 3/lines 274-275: What amount is “the majority”? This should be ~95% for a valid emulator (see Lee et al. 2011, doi:10.5194/acp-11-12253-2011) but it is not clear to me if that is the case, at least for panel (b). I think this should be stated and commented on as part of the interpretation for Figure 3.
- Lines 328 / 333: Perhaps this is a typo or I am misinterpreting, but how is 4.2 g/m2 a comparable bias to 46.1 g/m2?
- Line 457: What is the size of the entire domain, and why not compare the whole domain average to the 1° CERES instead of the 3 km output?
- Unless I missed it, Figures S4 and S7 are not referenced in the text. They should be discussed somewhere if essential or removed if not.
Some other (very minor) suggestions:
- Line 91: I think GCPI in “ARM GPCI” should be spelled out here. Consider also defining “XGBoost” in the abstract since (I think) this is lesser known.
- Line 66: The authors should specify doubly-periodic storm-resolving model here to differentiate it from a global GSRM.
- Line 122: misplaced comma? “2000, and 0.55 respectively following…” --> “2000 and 0.55, respectively, following…”
- Equation 4: [nit] Is it possible to make the overbar on “LWP” span over the entire acronym?
- Figure 4: Why is the shift in position from Cccn=1.0 to Cccn=2.0 so much greater than the differences between the other Cccn groups?
- Figure 6: It would be helpful if the fit lines were darker so they stand out from the scatters.
- Line 359: is --> are
- Line 379: I think Fig. 9 should be referenced in this paragraph.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3700-RC2
Data sets
Dataset and Code for "Towards Better Simulations of Liquid Water Path during Stratocumulus-to-Cumulus Transition: Insights from Gaussian Process Emulator, XGBoost and MAGIC Observations" Pratapaditya Ghosh https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20804376
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 238 | 159 | 37 | 434 | 93 | 34 | 28 |
- HTML: 238
- PDF: 159
- XML: 37
- Total: 434
- Supplement: 93
- BibTeX: 34
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This is a well-motivated paper that combines observation-constrained machine learning with a perturbed-parameter ensemble (PPE) to diagnose regime-dependent liquid water path (LWP) biases during a stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition (SCT) event. The study uses of Gaussian Process Emulators (GPEs) for parameter-space exploration and XGBoost-SHAP analysis for process attribution. The work is clearly written, uses state-of-the-art storm-resolving modelling, and addresses an important problem for cloud feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The central result, namely that warm-rain microphysics can substantially reduce Sc and transition biases but cannot simultaneously improve the Cu regime, is interesting and physically plausible. I have two general comments regarding caveats, which I believe should be given more prominence. I recommend publication after minor corrections.
GENERAL COMMENTS
- The observations come from a moving ship while the simulations are periodic with spatial averaging, which poses representativeness issue. This concern is particularly relevant during transition and cumulus phases where cloud fields become highly heterogeneous. Although the paper discusses this limitation, I think this caveat needs a higher profile in the last section.
- Several inferred "optimal" parameter combinations may be compensating for unresolved structural errors. This is acknowledged in the manuscript, but I believe this should be highlighted in the last section.
MINOR COMMENTS
- L386-7. "Yamaguchi et al..." That sentence reads weird.