Johnson, Aaron, Wang, Xuguang, Blake, Benjamin T., Rogers, Eric, Wang, Yunheng, Carley, Jacob R., Clark, Adam, Beck, Jeffrey, and Alexander, Curtis
This study evaluates simulated radiance forecasts from a series of controlled experiments consisting of FV3‐LAM forecasts with different configurations of model physics and vertical resolution. The forecasts were produced during the 2020 Hazardous Weather Testbed Spring Forecasting Experiments on the same forecast cases. The evaluation includes grid‐point, neighborhood‐based and object‐based verification. The experiments include forecasts that were identical except for the physics (EMC‐LAM vs. EMC‐LAMx), vertical resolution (EMC‐LAMx vs. NSSL‐LAM), or combined initial conditions, physics and vertical resolution (GSL‐LAM). It is found that the EMC‐LAM generally provided better simulated radiance forecasts than the other three configurations at most forecast lead times, due to its unique physics configuration. All configurations generally over‐forecasted high level clouds. EMC‐LAM reduced the over‐forecasting of high clouds, but also under‐forecasted the coverage of mid‐level clouds. In contrast, at early lead times the EMC‐LAM had relatively poor performance relative to the other forecasts. Furthermore, EMC‐LAM was an outlier in terms of the vertical structure of clouds. It is also found that the NSSL‐LAM consistently improved upon the EMC‐LAMx, which had fewer vertical levels than NSSL‐LAM. Compared to EMC‐LAMx, NSSL‐LAM had less cloud over‐forecasting bias, especially with small cloud objects, and less overall error. The differences between EMC‐LAMx and GSL‐LAM were generally much smaller than the differences between EMC‐LAMx and EMC‐LAM/NSSL‐LAM. Finally, it is found that a non‐linear bias correction conditioned on symmetric brightness temperature reduced the overall root‐mean‐square error by about a factor of 2 while improving the unrealistic vertical structure of clouds in the EMC‐LAM. Plain Language Summary: While forecasts from different convection‐allowing model (CAM) configurations are often evaluated in terms of simulated reflectivity or precipitation, many users are also interested in simulated brightness temperature and associated cloud features. This study evaluates the forecast performance of several configurations of the FV3‐LAM CAM in terms of simulated infrared brightness temperature. The different configurations highlight the impacts of vertical resolution and physical parameterizations, in particular. It is found that the older physics parameterization, with Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory microphysics and Eddy‐Diffusivity Mass‐Flux boundary layer, performed generally better than a newer configuration, with Thompson microphysics and Mellor‐Yamada‐Nakanishi‐Niino boundary layer, that had previously been found to improve precipitation and simulated reflectivity forecasts. The difference is related to both the presence of an additional cumulus parameterization in the older physics, as well as the tendency of the newer Thompson microphysics scheme to produce large regions of high cloud near deep convection. However, at early lead times the older physics configuration took longer to spin up ongoing convection. It is also found that enhanced vertical resolution consistently improved the forecasts. A caveat to these conclusions is that the FV3‐LAM and its physics configuration are undergoing continuous development which may change these results in the newest model versions. Key Points: FV3‐LAM physics configuration strongly impacts the performance of simulated brightness temperature forecastsVertical resolution has a consistent impact, related to a reduction in over‐forecasting of small clouds with enhanced vertical resolutionBias correction greatly reduces the brightness temperature forecast errors as well as reducing errors in cloud vertical structure [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]