Articles | Volume 18, issue 16
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 12491–12510, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-12491-2018
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 12491–12510, 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: 3,081 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
2,108 927 46 3,081 332 53 48
  • HTML: 2,108
  • PDF: 927
  • XML: 46
  • Total: 3,081
  • Supplement: 332
  • BibTeX: 53
  • EndNote: 48
Views and downloads (calculated since 14 Mar 2018)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 14 Mar 2018)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 3,081 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 3,113 with geography defined and -32 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 30 Nov 2022
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.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint