Articles | Volume 18, issue 16
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-12491-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-12491-2018
Research article
 | 
29 Aug 2018
Research article |  | 29 Aug 2018

How reliable are CMIP5 models in simulating dust optical depth?

Bing Pu and Paul Ginoux

Viewed

Total article views: 6,040 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
4,421 1,492 127 6,040 614 181 186
  • HTML: 4,421
  • PDF: 1,492
  • XML: 127
  • Total: 6,040
  • Supplement: 614
  • BibTeX: 181
  • EndNote: 186
Views and downloads (calculated since 14 Mar 2018)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 14 Mar 2018)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 6,040 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 6,033 with geography defined and 7 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 17 Mar 2026
Download
Short summary
Biases in dust modeling may result in biases in simulating energy budget and regional climate. Output of seven Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models is examined. Seasonal cycle and spatial pattern of dust optical depth (DOD) in very dusty regions are largely captured by multi-model mean. But observed connections between DOD and local controlling factors such as bareness are not well represented. Future projections by CMIP5 models and a regression model are also analyzed.
Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint