Articles | Volume 20, issue 22
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13835-2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13835-2020
Research article
 | 
17 Nov 2020
Research article |  | 17 Nov 2020

Understanding processes that control dust spatial distributions with global climate models and satellite observations

Mingxuan Wu, Xiaohong Liu, Hongbin Yu, Hailong Wang, Yang Shi, Kang Yang, Anton Darmenov, Chenglai Wu, Zhien Wang, Tao Luo, Yan Feng, and Ziming Ke

Related authors

A protocol for model intercomparison of impacts of marine cloud brightening climate intervention
Philip J. Rasch, Haruki Hirasawa, Mingxuan Wu, Sarah J. Doherty, Robert Wood, Hailong Wang, Andy Jones, James Haywood, and Hansi Singh
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7963–7994, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7963-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7963-2024, 2024
Short summary
The Emissions Model Intercomparison Project (Emissions-MIP): quantifying model sensitivity to emission characteristics
Hamza Ahsan, Hailong Wang, Jingbo Wu, Mingxuan Wu, Steven J. Smith, Susanne Bauer, Harrison Suchyta, Dirk Olivié, Gunnar Myhre, Hitoshi Matsui, Huisheng Bian, Jean-François Lamarque, Ken Carslaw, Larry Horowitz, Leighton Regayre, Mian Chin, Michael Schulz, Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Toshihiko Takemura, and Vaishali Naik
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 14779–14799, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14779-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14779-2023, 2023
Short summary
The fully coupled regionally refined model of E3SM version 2: overview of the atmosphere, land, and river results
Qi Tang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Luke P. Van Roekel, Mark A. Taylor, Wuyin Lin, Benjamin R. Hillman, Paul A. Ullrich, Andrew M. Bradley, Oksana Guba, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Tian Zhou, Kai Zhang, Xue Zheng, Yunyan Zhang, Meng Zhang, Mingxuan Wu, Hailong Wang, Cheng Tao, Balwinder Singh, Alan M. Rhoades, Yi Qin, Hong-Yi Li, Yan Feng, Yuying Zhang, Chengzhu Zhang, Charles S. Zender, Shaocheng Xie, Erika L. Roesler, Andrew F. Roberts, Azamat Mametjanov, Mathew E. Maltrud, Noel D. Keen, Robert L. Jacob, Christiane Jablonowski, Owen K. Hughes, Ryan M. Forsyth, Alan V. Di Vittorio, Peter M. Caldwell, Gautam Bisht, Renata B. McCoy, L. Ruby Leung, and David C. Bader
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3953–3995, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, 2023
Short summary
Long-term variability in immersion-mode marine ice-nucleating particles from climate model simulations and observations
Aishwarya Raman, Thomas Hill, Paul J. DeMott, Balwinder Singh, Kai Zhang, Po-Lun Ma, Mingxuan Wu, Hailong Wang, Simon P. Alexander, and Susannah M. Burrows
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5735–5762, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5735-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5735-2023, 2023
Short summary
Importance of different parameterization changes for the updated dust cycle modeling in the Community Atmosphere Model (version 6.1)
Longlei Li, Natalie M. Mahowald, Jasper F. Kok, Xiaohong Liu, Mingxuan Wu, Danny M. Leung, Douglas S. Hamilton, Louisa K. Emmons, Yue Huang, Neil Sexton, Jun Meng, and Jessica Wan
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8181–8219, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8181-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8181-2022, 2022
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Aerosols | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling and Data Analysis | Altitude Range: Troposphere | Science Focus: Physics (physical properties and processes)
Gaps in our understanding of ice-nucleating particle sources exposed by global simulation of the UK Earth System Model
Ross J. Herbert, Alberto Sanchez-Marroquin, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Kirsty J. Pringle, Stephen R. Arnold, Benjamin J. Murray, and Kenneth S. Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 291–325, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-291-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-291-2025, 2025
Short summary
The role of interfacial tension in the size-dependent phase separation of atmospheric aerosol particles
Ryan Schmedding and Andreas Zuend
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 327–346, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-327-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-327-2025, 2025
Short summary
Warming effects of reduced sulfur emissions from shipping
Masaru Yoshioka, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Ben B. B. Booth, Colin P. Morice, and Ken S. Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13681–13692, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13681-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13681-2024, 2024
Short summary
The key role of atmospheric absorption in the Asian summer monsoon response to dust emissions in CMIP6 models
Alcide Zhao, Laura J. Wilcox, and Claire L. Ryder
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13385–13402, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13385-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13385-2024, 2024
Short summary
Multi-model effective radiative forcing of the 2020 sulfur cap for shipping
Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Rachael Byrom, Øivind Hodnebrog, Caroline Jouan, and Gunnar Myhre
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13361–13370, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13361-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13361-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Allen, R. J. and Landuyt, W.: The vertical distribution of black carbon in CMIP5 models: Comparison to observations and the importance of convective transport, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 4808–4835, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021595, 2014. 
Amiridis, V., Wandinger, U., Marinou, E., Giannakaki, E., Tsekeri, A., Basart, S., Kazadzis, S., Gkikas, A., Taylor, M., Baldasano, J., and Ansmann, A.: Optimizing CALIPSO Saharan dust retrievals, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12089–12106, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12089-2013, 2013. 
Anderson, T. L., Wu, Y., Chu, D. A., Schmid, B., Redemann, J., and Dubovik, O.: Testing the MODIS satellite retrieval of aerosol fine-mode fraction, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D18204, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005978, 2005. 
Arimoto, R., Duce, R. A., Savoie, D. L., Prospero, J. M., Talbot, R., Cullen, J. D., Tomza, U., Lewis, N. F., and Ray, B. J.: Relationships among aerosol constituents from Asia and the North Pacific during PEM-West A, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 2011–2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/95JD01071, 1996. 
Baddock, M. C., Ginoux, P., Bullard, J. E., and Gill, T. E.: Do MODIS-defined dust sources have a geomorphological signature?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 2606–2613, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067327, 2016. 
Download
Short summary
The spatiotemporal distributions of dust aerosol simulated by global climate models (GCMs) are highly uncertain. In this study, we evaluate dust extinction profiles, optical depth, and surface concentrations simulated in three GCMs and one reanalysis against multiple satellite retrievals and surface observations to gain process-level understanding. Our results highlight the importance of correctly representing dust emission, dry/wet deposition, and size distribution in GCMs.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint