| 22 Jan 2026
Multi-season evaluation of temperature and wind in the marine boundary layer along the United States northeast coast in the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh model
Abstract. The High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) model is run operationally by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide high-resolution short-range forecasts for the continental United States. The evaluation of the HRRR model off of the U.S. coasts has been challenged by the lack of suitable continuous profile observations in the marine boundary layer in the past. State-of-the art remote sensing instruments were recently deployed along the coast of New England in the northeastern United States for the multi-year Third Wind Forecast Improvement Project and provide a unique opportunity for the evaluation of temperature and wind in the marine boundary layer in the HRRR model. We used 1 year of data at three sites, two of which were on islands, to document the seasonal characteristics of the marine boundary layer and its representation in the HRRR model for different forecast hours. Overall, the HRRR model captured the seasonal and diurnal evolution of temperature and wind very well. However, low-level horizontal wind shear and static stability were too weak in the model, especially during the warmer months, which might be partly linked to errors in sea surface temperature. Low-level jets (LLJs) occurred in approximately 20 % of the hourly profiles with a maximum frequency during spring and summer. Up to 60 % of the LLJ profiles during peak seasons were correctly predicted, using the critical success index as a measure. Systematic model errors in wind and temperature were found during LLJs, when the HRRR model frequently underestimated wind speed at nose height and shear below nose height, often accompanied by static stability that was too weak. These errors resulted in low-level Bulk Richardson numbers that were consistently too large at all three sites, indicating an overestimation of dynamic stability in the boundary layer in the model. Such systematic errors in low-level wind shear and stability were largely absent during correct rejections, that is, when an LLJ was neither observed nor simulated, indicating that LLJs were responsible for a large part of the model errors.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Geoscientific Model Development.
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.
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code on sites that we can not accept such as Docke or GitHub. They are not suitable repositories for scientific publication. In addition, you have archived the data used and produced in your work in sites that do not comply neither, such as AWS or the Wind Data Hub. These sites do not fulfil GMD’s requirements for a persistent data archive because:
  - They do not appear to have a published policy for data preservation over many years or decades (some flexibility exists over the precise length of preservation, but the policy must exist).
  - They do not appear to have a published mechanism for preventing authors from unilaterally removing material. Archives must have a policy which makes removal of materials only possible in exceptional circumstances and subject to an independent curatorial decision,
If we have missed a published policy which does in fact address this matter satisfactorily, please post a response linking to it. If you have any questions about this issue, please post them in a reply.
The GMD review and publication process depends on reviewers and community commentators being able to access, during the discussion phase, the code and data on which a manuscript depends, and on ensuring the provenance of replicability of the published papers for years after their publication. Please, therefore, publish your code and data in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible. We cannot have manuscripts under discussion that do not comply with our policy. Â
The 'Code and Data Availability’ section must also be modified to cite the new repository locations, and corresponding references added to the bibliography.Â
I must note that if you do not fix this problem, we cannot continue with the peer-review process or accept your manuscript for publication in GMD.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor