Regional Cloud Forecast Verification Using Standard, Spatial, and Object-Oriented Methods

Abstract

Abstract This study assesses the accuracy of the Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Mesoscale Prediction System (COAMPS) forecasts for clouds within stable and unstable environments (thereafter refers as “stable” and “unstable” clouds). This evaluation is conducted by comparing these forecasts against satellite retrievals through a combination of traditional, spatial, and object-based methods. To facilitate this assessment, the Model Evaluation Tools (MET) community tool is employed. The findings underscore the significance of fine-tuning the MET parameters to achieve a more accurate representation of the features under scrutiny. The study’s results reveal that when employing traditional pointwise statistics (e.g., frequency bias and equitable threat score), there is consistency in the results whether calculated from Method for Object-Based Diagnostic Evaluation (MODE)-based objects or derived from the complete fields. Furthermore, the object-based statistics offer valuable insights, indicating that COAMPS generally predicts cloud object locations accurately, though the spread of these predicted locations tends to increase with time. It tends to overpredict the object area for unstable clouds while underpredicting it for stable clouds over time. These results are in alignment with the traditional pointwise bias scores for the entire grid. Overall, the spatial metrics provided by the object-based verification methods emerge as crucial and practical tools for the validation of cloud forecasts. Significance Statement As the general Navy meteorological and oceanographic (METOC) community engages in collaboration with the broader scientific community, our goal is to harness community tools like MET for the systematic evaluation of weather forecasts, with a specific focus on variables crucial to the Navy. Clouds, given their significant impact on visibility, hold particular importance in our investigations. Cloud forecasts pose unique challenges, primarily attributable to the intricate physics governing cloud development and the complexity of representing these processes within numerical models. Cloud observations are also constrained by limitations, arising from both top-down satellite measurements and bottom-up ground-based measurements. This study illustrates that, with a comprehensive understanding of community tools, cloud forecasts can be consistently verified. This verification encompasses traditional evaluation methods, measuring general qualities such as bias and root-mean-squared error, as well as newer techniques like spatial and object-based methods designed to account for displacement errors.