Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-578
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-578

  13 Sep 2021

13 Sep 2021

Review status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal ACP.

How well do the CMIP6 models simulate dust aerosols?

Alcide Zhao1,2, Claire L. Ryder1, and Laura J. Wilcox1,2 Alcide Zhao et al.
  • 1Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK
  • 2National Centre for Atmospheric Science, UK

Abstract. Mineral dust impacts key processes in the Earth system, including the radiation budget, clouds, and nutrient cycles. We evaluate dust aerosols in 16 models participating in the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) against multiple reanalyses and satellite observations. Most models, and particularly the multi-model ensemble mean (MEM), capture the spatial patterns and seasonal cycles of global dust processes well. However, large uncertainties and inter-model diversity are found. For example, global dust emissions, primarily driven by model-simulated surface winds, vary by a factor of 5 across models, while the MEM estimate is double the amount in reanalyses. The ranges of CMIP6 model-simulated global dust emission, deposition, burden and optical depth (DOD) are larger than previous generations of models. Models present considerable disagreement in dust seasonal cycles over North China and North America. Here, DOD values are overestimated by most CMIP6 models, with the MEM estimate 1.2–1.7 times larger compared to satellite and reanalysis datasets. Such overestimates can reach up to a factor of 5 in individual models. Models also fail to reproduce some key features of the regional dust distribution, such as dust accumulation along the southern edge of the Himalayas. Overall, there are still large uncertainties in CMIP6 models’ simulated dust processes, which feature inconsistent biases throughout the dust lifecycle between models, particularly in the relationship connecting dust mass to DOD. Our results imply that modelled dust processes are becoming more uncertain as models become more sophisticated. More detailed output relating to the dust cycle in future intercomparison projects will enable better constraints of global dust cycles, and enable the potential identification of observationally-constrained links between dust cycles and optical properties.

Alcide Zhao et al.

Status: final response (author comments only)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-578', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Oct 2021
  • RC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-578', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Oct 2021

Alcide Zhao et al.

Alcide Zhao et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 665 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
477 180 8 665 27 5 14
  • HTML: 477
  • PDF: 180
  • XML: 8
  • Total: 665
  • Supplement: 27
  • BibTeX: 5
  • EndNote: 14
Views and downloads (calculated since 13 Sep 2021)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 13 Sep 2021)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 785 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 785 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 26 Nov 2021
Download
Short summary
The CMIP6 Models' simulated dust processes are getting more uncertain as models become more sophisticated. Of particular challenge are the links between dust cycles and optical properties, and we recommend more detailed output relating to dust cycles in future intercomparison projects to constrain such links. Also, models struggle to capture certain key regional dust processes such as dust accumulation along the slope of the Himalayas, and dust seasonal cycles in North China and North America.
Altmetrics