HWRF 2016 Physics Evaluation
![Website header](/eval/hwrf_GF_PC_CO/images/header_hwrf_GF_PC_CO-smallfont.png)
HWRF 2016 Physics Evaluation Executive Summary
• The partial cloudiness (PC) configuration demonstrates a tendency for lower non-SS mean track errors at the longest lead times.
• Mean intensity errors demonstrate a negative intensity bias for both PC and the control (CL).
• Mean absolute intensity errors show SS differences favoring PC at 84-, 90-, and 108-hr lead times.
• Relative to CL, PC demonstrates increased skill in representing cloud brightness temperatures.
• Alternate Cloud Overlap Methodology
• The cloud overlap (CO) configuration indicates modest reduction in track errors (non-SS) beyond 2 days.
• Mean intensity errors demonstrate a negative intensity bias for both CO and CL, whereas absolute intensity errors indicate lower non-SS mean errors out to 30 hours.
• CO and CL demonstrate about the same level of skill in representing cloud brightness temperatures.
• Grell-Freitas cumulus parameterization
• Grell-Freitas (GF) has SS differences relative to CL for early lead times (18-hr improvement, 48- and 54-hr degradation), with mean differences suggesting smaller non-SS track errors for GF beyond 84-hrs.
• Mean intensity biases are smaller for GF than those for CL.
• Lower non-SS absolute intensity error differences for GF from 76- to 102 hrs.
• Lower shear for GF favored intensification.
• Updrafts were absent in the eyewall region for CL.
• Grid-scale processes contribute a larger percentage of the precipitation with GF compared to CL.
• Relative to CL, GF produced cloud populations with colder brightness temperature distributions, resulting in a more skillful representation of the coldest, highest clouds on the hemispheric-scale domain, but a slightly less skillful representation of the warmest, lowest clouds.