Abstract
In this study, the ability of several cloud microphysical and planetary boundary layer parameterization schemes to accurately simulate cloud characteristics within 4-km grid-spacing ensemble forecasts over the contiguous United States was evaluated through comparison of synthetic Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) infrared brightness temperatures with observations. Four double-moment microphysics schemes and five planetary boundary layer (PBL) schemes were evaluated. Large differences were found in the simulated cloud cover, especially in the upper troposphere, when using different microphysics schemes. Overall, the results revealed that the Milbrandt–Yau and Morrison microphysics schemes tended to produce too much upper-level cloud cover, whereas the Thompson and the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) double-moment 6-class (WDM6) microphysics schemes did not contain enough high clouds. Smaller differences occurred in the cloud fields when using different PBL schemes, with the greatest spread in the ensemble statistics occurring during and after daily peak heating hours. Results varied somewhat depending upon the verification method employed, which indicates the importance of using a suite of verification tools when evaluating high-resolution model performance. Finally, large differences between the various microphysics and PBL schemes indicate that large uncertainties remain in how these schemes represent subgrid-scale processes.
Linearization of a Simplified Planetary Boundary Layer Parameterization
