Understanding the causes of satellite–model discrepancies in aerosol–cloud interactions using near-LES simulations of marine boundary layer clouds

Qiu, Shaoyue; Zheng, Xue; Wu, Peng; Lee, Hsiang-He; Zhou, Xiaoli

doi:10.5194/acp-26-1769-2026

Articles | Volume 26, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-1769-2026

© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-1769-2026

© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 26, issue 3

Research article

|

04 Feb 2026

Research article |

| 04 Feb 2026

Understanding the causes of satellite–model discrepancies in aerosol–cloud interactions using near-LES simulations of marine boundary layer clouds

Shaoyue Qiu, Xue Zheng, Peng Wu, Hsiang-He Lee, and Xiaoli Zhou

Download

Final revised paper (published on 04 Feb 2026)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 29 Jul 2025)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-3465', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Aug 2025

Publisher’s note: this comment was edited on 26 August 2025. The following text is not identical to the original comment, but the adjustments were minor without effect on the scientific meaning.
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3465-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shaoyue Qiu, 19 Nov 2025
  
  Dear Editor and Reviewer,
  Thank you very much for the constructive and thoughtful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all reviewer comments and revised the paper accordingly.
  Attached please find our detailed response letter, in which we provide a point-by-point reply to each comment. The original reviewer comments are shown in blue italic font, and our responses are provided in black font. For clarity, all changes made in the manuscript are quoted in the response letter and referenced by line numbers corresponding to the tracked-changes version of the revised manuscript.
  We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ time and effort in helping us improve the quality and clarity of our work. Please feel free to contact us if any additional information is needed.
  Best regards,
  
  Shaoyue Qiu
  
  (on behalf of all co-authors)
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3465-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-3465', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Sep 2025

The comment is uploaded in the form of a supplement.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3465-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Shaoyue Qiu, 19 Nov 2025
  
  Dear Editor and Reviewer,
  Thank you very much for the constructive and thoughtful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all reviewer comments and revised the paper accordingly.
  Attached please find our detailed response letter, in which we provide a point-by-point reply to each comment. The original reviewer comments are shown in blue italic font, and our responses are provided in black font. For clarity, all changes made in the manuscript are quoted in the response letter and referenced by line numbers corresponding to the tracked-changes version of the revised manuscript.
  We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ time and effort in helping us improve the quality and clarity of our work. Please feel free to contact us if any additional information is needed.
  Best regards,
  
  Shaoyue Qiu
  
  (on behalf of all co-authors)
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3465-AC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Shaoyue Qiu on behalf of the Authors (19 Nov 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (24 Nov 2025) by Minghui Diao

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (06 Dec 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Comments on “Reconciling Satellite–Model Discrepancies in Aerosol–Cloud Interactions Using Near-LES Simulations of Marine Boundary Layer Clouds” by Qiu S, Zheng X, Wu P, et al.

General comments：
The authors have submitted a thorough and thoughtful revision of their manuscript. The added discussions, new figures, and clarifications have significantly strengthened the manuscript's scientific rigor and readability. The core findings regarding the causes of LWP susceptibility discrepancies—particularly the overestimation of precipitation in thick clouds and the role of thermodynamic biases—are now presented with greater clarity and supported by more robust evidence. The study makes a valuable contribution to the field of aerosol-cloud interactions and climate model evaluation. The manuscript is now in a strong state and is nearing publishing.See the three minor comments below.

1. Justification for the Single Microphysics Scheme in the major comment section: In the response (Lines 837-844), the authors correctly note that Christensen et al. (2024) found microphysics scheme choice to be a secondary source of variability. However, the statement that "the overall conclusions are unlikely to change substantially with alternative... schemes" remains a qualitative assertion. To strengthen this point, I recommend a minor textual addition. Please explicitly acknowledge the computational constraint as a practical reason for not performing multi-scheme sensitivity tests in this study, while affirming that the identified processes (e.g., early autoconversion, broad DSD) are known issues within the framework of two-moment bulk schemes and thus the diagnostic conclusions are broadly relevant.

2. There are incorrect unit formats on many of the figures in the text. For example, in Figure 2, (TKE m2/s2), and in Figures 4, 5, 6, 14, and 15, there are certain issues. We hope the author canuse a unified standard format for all of them (TKE m2s−2).

3. The image quality of Figures R1, R2 and R3 in the reply document is very poor and difficult to read. Please re-save these figures as vector graphics (e.g., .eps or .pdf) with a resolution of at least 300 DPI to ensure they remain clear and legible at any scale.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (10 Dec 2025)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (10 Dec 2025) by Minghui Diao

AR by Shaoyue Qiu on behalf of the Authors (24 Dec 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 Jan 2026) by Minghui Diao

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (13 Jan 2026)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (16 Jan 2026)

ED: Publish as is (16 Jan 2026) by Minghui Diao

AR by Shaoyue Qiu on behalf of the Authors (27 Jan 2026) Manuscript

Download

Article (9218 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

Model liquid water path (LWP) responses match satellite observations, showing decreased (increased) LWP for non-precipitating thin (precipitating) clouds, due to realistic simulations of non-precipitating and drizzling regimes. However, LWP increases for non-precipitating thick clouds, opposite to satellite-based decreases, due to excessive precipitation, moist bias in cloud-top humidity, and cloud droplet number–LWP relations from internal cloud processes, rather than aerosol-cloud interaction.