the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Sensitivity of the Lagrangian temperature anomaly decomposition to model choice: Lessons from the 2021 Pacific Northwest heatwave
Abstract. The Lagrangian temperature anomaly decomposition has emerged as a powerful tool for quantifying the relative importance of adiabatic, advective and diabatic processes during heatwaves. However, its sensitivity to the choice of Lagrangian model, whether pure-trajectory or dispersion-based, remains poorly understood. Using seven different trajectory sets, we apply this decomposition to the June 2021 Pacific Northwest heatwave to examine discrepancies in process attribution across model classes. Pure-trajectory models consistently identify diabatic heating as the dominant contributor, whereas dispersion models attribute the largest fraction to adiabatic warming. A trajectory cluster analysis and parcel position diagnostics reveal that this divergence does not stem from different geographic origins or the near-surface vertical distribution over the target region during the heatwave, which are broadly similar across trajectory sets, but from contrasting vertical histories. While dispersion-model parcels reside at higher altitudes before arrival, exposing them to subsidence warming, pure-trajectory parcels remain near the surface where land–atmosphere feedbacks and antecedent dry soils amplify diabatic heating. These findings demonstrate that this Lagrangian framework is fundamentally sensitive to model choice, particularly to the representation of turbulent motion, which induce parcel vertical dispersion absent in the resolved wind fields. While this study does not establish which Lagrangian model class is most suitable, it represents a first step toward understanding these discrepancies and cautions that heatwave attribution studies relying on a single Lagrangian model should interpret inferred process dominance carefully, as it may reflect methodological choices rather than the underlying physics alone.
- Preprint
(3137 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 20 Oct 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5144', Andreas Stohl, 29 Sep 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Albenis Pérez-Alarcón, 30 Sep 2026
reply
Please find our response to your comments in the attached file
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Andreas Stohl, 30 Sep 2026
reply
Dear authors,
do you expect a reviewer who had serious concerns about the originality of your work, to take a response published within 24 hours serious? I think it confirms my impression that the goal of this submission is to maximize paper output in terms of number, without proper attention to quality.
I would appreciate if you could try to publish less but more original work. Trying to publish every little tiny result, or just shifting the domain of study without any change of methodology, etc., just puts pressure on the publishing system (editors, reviewers), which is anyway under stress by AI and the sheer number of paper submissions.
As a reviewer, I have to say that I feel abused if I have to review papers that do not present any substantial scientific progress.
Regards,
Andreas Stohl
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5144-RC2 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC2', Luis Gimeno, 30 Sep 2026
reply
Dear Andreas,
Thank you for your message. I am sorry that the rapid response gave you the impression that we did not take your review seriously. This was certainly not our intention.
We read your comments very carefully and discussed them among the authors before preparing our response. The fact that we were able to respond quickly should not be interpreted as a lack of consideration of the scientific issues you raised. In fact, we found several of your comments particularly valuable, especially your interpretation concerning free-tropospheric entrainment into the boundary layer, which we believe can substantially improve the physical interpretation of our results.
I fully respect that you may remain unconvinced about the originality or significance of the study. However, there is one point that we consider particularly important. Pure-trajectory and dispersion approaches are increasingly being used to investigate the physical drivers of heatwaves, and our results show that they can lead to substantially different attribution of the underlying processes. We therefore believe that it is important for the scientific community to be aware of these discrepancies and of the potential sensitivity of the resulting physical interpretation to the Lagrangian framework used.
We also agree that identifying the precise physical causes of these discrepancies requires further investigation. Your suggestion regarding free-tropospheric entrainment is, in our view, an important hypothesis that deserves to be examined much more thoroughly, together with other aspects of boundary-layer dynamics and turbulent transport. Our present study should therefore be regarded as identifying and documenting a methodological issue and providing a starting point for a more complete physical investigation, rather than as providing the final answer. Such further work does not necessarily need to be carried out by our group, on the contrary, we would be very pleased if these results stimulated a broader investigation of the issue by the community.
For us, the important issue is therefore not whether these results ultimately appear as a full research article, a shorter contribution, an Ideas/Comment-type paper, or another format that the editor and the journal consider more appropriate. What we consider scientifically important is that this methodological sensitivity and its implications are communicated clearly to the community. We would be entirely open to the editor's view regarding the most appropriate format for doing so.
Our intention in submitting this work was certainly not to maximise publication output, but to draw attention to what we believe is an important methodological issue that can affect the physical interpretation of heatwave studies. We may of course disagree about whether that contribution is sufficiently substantial for publication in its present form, and we fully respect your scientific assessment.
Best regards,
Luis
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5144-CC1 -
RC3: 'Reply on CC1', Andreas Stohl, 30 Sep 2026
reply
Dear Luis,
I realize my comment was a bit harsh and probably not all too polite either. However, there are simply so many papers in the literature that present little, if any, progress, and therefore I am not very sympathetic to seeing more such articles. I simply think that we should strive NOT to publish every result but instead publish more substantial advances in scientific understanding. But, to be honest, I also don't see that you have actually made a serious attempt at improving the paper in that respect, beyond adding a few sentences and adding entrainment as a possible explanation for your results. A serious attempt would definitely require additional analyses which cannot (and should not!) be done within 24 hours.
If you see differences between models, you should really explain them, not only document them, especially since the reason is - in my opinion - pretty obvious, namely that the simple trajectory models lack a process that is extremely important in the boundary layer. I am not sure why such models are used at all in a region (the boundary layer) that is beyond their design. So I don't really see the point in the comparison, since the reason for the difference should be obvious. But if you still want to compare, you should at least identify and document which process is behind and quantify its effect. At least in the model world, that should be absolutely straightforward.
How right or how wrong the different models are in comparison to reality is, of course, a much more difficult question, and I am not expecting this to be fully answered.
Anyway, I am glad you found at least my original review helpful.
Regards,
Andreas
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5144-RC3 -
CC2: 'Reply on RC3', Luis Gimeno, 30 Sep 2026
reply
Dear Andreas,
Thank you for your clarification. I think we now understand your main concern much better, and I agree that simply adding entrainment as a possible explanation would not be sufficient.
I also agree with your distinction between documenting the differences between the modelling approaches and actually identifying and quantifying the physical processes responsible for them. The latter clearly requires additional analysis and deserves more careful investigation than we were able to provide in our initial response.
One possibility that seems particularly worth exploring is whether this mechanism can be isolated and quantified within FLEXPART itself, by comparing simulations with and without the representation of turbulence, without necessarily involving the other trajectory models in this specific process-oriented analysis. This could provide a cleaner way of testing whether turbulent transport and the associated boundary-layer exchange are indeed responsible for the differences we observe. However, we first need to examine carefully what can be robustly diagnosed with the simulations and data available.
We will therefore take some time to assess what additional analyses are feasible before deciding how best to revise the manuscript. I also appreciate your point that establishing which approach is closer to reality is a separate and considerably more difficult question, and not necessarily one that needs to be resolved in this study.
Thank you again for clarifying your concerns and for the constructive suggestions. T
Best regards,
LuisCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5144-CC2
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC3', Luis Gimeno, 30 Sep 2026
reply
-
RC3: 'Reply on CC1', Andreas Stohl, 30 Sep 2026
reply
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC2', Luis Gimeno, 30 Sep 2026
reply
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Andreas Stohl, 30 Sep 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Albenis Pérez-Alarcón, 30 Sep 2026
reply
-
RC4: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5144', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Oct 2026
reply
Please find my comments in the attachment.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 303 | 121 | 55 | 479 | 45 | 38 |
- HTML: 303
- PDF: 121
- XML: 55
- Total: 479
- BibTeX: 45
- EndNote: 38
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This study compares different Lagrangian models in their capability to decompose different terms in the heat budget, at the example of a specific event. I have several concerns regarding this paper, which prevent me from recommending it for publication.
Most importantly, it is a “mechanical” intercomparison exercise that does not offer any physical interpretation. Differences are found but they are not explained. A scientific paper should go beyond simply comparing and should also offer explanations. In fact, I am wondering why this study is needed at all. It is clear that trajectory models do not account for turbulence. However, all trajectories end up in the boundary layer, where turbulence is extremely important and where trajectory models fail in capturing the real transport history of an air mass. So, in my opinion, they are simply not fit for the purpose, and I would avoid using them, unless you are driving them with the output of a large eddy simulation, where turbulent motions are captured in the input wind fields.
For the particular problem studied in this paper, the difference between trajectory models and dispersion models seems largely a result of the neglect of entrainment of free-tropospheric air into the boundary layer in the trajectory models (which is related to the lack of turbulence in the trajectory models). Warming of air in the boundary layer is the result of diabatic warming at the surface but, equally or even more importantly, entrainment of warm free tropospheric air at the boundary-layer top. Since the trajectory models do not capture the entrainment, it is not surprising that they attribute a larger fraction of the warming to diabatic processes, whereas FLEXPART attributes more to adiabatic warming (i.e., entrainment of descending free tropospheric air into the boundary layer). I am very surprised that entrainment is not even mentioned in the paper, although it seems like a logical explanation that should be explored specifically. It seems also plausible that trajectory models ignoring turbulence will result in a wrong process attribution. For dispersion models, their reliability will be controlled to a large extent by how realistically they capture boundary layer dynamics, in particular it will depend on the daily cycle of boundary-layer depth.
Another problem of the paper is the rather random choice of models. While different trajectory models are compared, all dispersion model calculations are based only on different versions of FLEXPART. Why did you add all these different versions of FLEXPART? What do you learn from this? The discussion of the results only focusses on the differences between trajectory models (as a group) and the FLEXPART ensemble. Differences between the trajectory models are not discussed at all, so why do you even need them all? To make the points the paper wants to make, it would have been completely sufficient to compare FLEXPART with and without parameterizations. I can’t see any discussions/conclusions that go beyond that, and what the different models (and model versions) used do add.
I have a few other specific points:
Lines 135-158: The domain-filling FLEXPART runs all use too few particles to obtain statistically robust results. This is mentioned for the LARA data set on line 200 but I think this is true for all data sets. The global domain-filling set-up (e.g. LARA) has been developed for climatologies but it is definitely not ideal (or even suitable) for case studies, unless you use hundreds of millions of particles. A better option here would be to run the model backward in time from the target domain, such that all particles contribute to the results.
Equation (1): The most interesting term is the last one (diabatic term). However, without splitting it further up into the different processes, it is not extremely useful, since you then don’t know which process is actually responsible (e.g., latent versus sensible heat flux, radiation).
Figure 1: The last column (Budget) is pretty useless, as it cannot be distinguished from the first column. Showing the differences would be much more meaningful.
Figure 4: I don’t think the cluster analysis provides any further insight. To me, it is not clear what it is supposed to show.
Lines 385-390: I do not understand the comments about closed boundaries with respect to turbulent exchanges. Of course, diabatic surface heating is only happening at the surface. That’s exactly how it should be!