Search from over 60,000 research works

Advanced Search

How well do the CMIP6 models simulate dust aerosols?

[thumbnail of Open access]
Preview
acp-22-2095-2022.pdf - Published Version (14MB) | Preview
Available under license: Creative Commons Attribution
[thumbnail of acp-2021-578.pdf]
acp-2021-578.pdf - Accepted Version (3MB)
Restricted to Repository staff only
Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Zhao, A. orcid id iconORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8300-5872, Ryder, C. L. orcid id iconORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9892-6113 and Wilcox, L. J. orcid id iconORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5691-1493 (2022) How well do the CMIP6 models simulate dust aerosols? Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 22. pp. 2095-2119. ISSN 1680-7316 doi: 10.5194/acp-22-2095-2022

Abstract/Summary

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.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/100316
Item Type Article
Refereed No
Divisions Science > School of Mathematical, Physical and Computational Sciences > NCAS
Science > School of Mathematical, Physical and Computational Sciences > Department of Meteorology
Publisher Copernicus Publications
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar