Importance of different parameterization changes for the updated dust cycle modelling in the Community Atmosphere Model (version 6.1)
- 1Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States
- 2Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- 3Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
- 4Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, United States
- 5Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, United States
- 6Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
- 7Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY 10025, USA
- 8NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA
- 1Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States
- 2Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- 3Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
- 4Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, United States
- 5Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, United States
- 6Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
- 7Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY 10025, USA
- 8NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA
Abstract. The Community Earth System Model (CESM; version 2.1) simulates the lifecycle (emission, transport, and deposition) of mineral dust and its interactions with physio-chemical components to quantify the impacts of dust on climate and the Earth system. The accuracy of such quantifications relies on how well dust-related processes are represented in the model. Here we update the parameterizations for the dust module, including those on the dust emission scheme, the aerosol dry deposition scheme, the size distribution of transported dust, and the treatment of dust particle shape. Multiple simulations were undertaken to evaluate the model performance against diverse observations, and to understand how each update alters the modeled dust cycle and the simulated dust direct radiative effect. The model-observation comparisons suggest that substantially improved model representations of the dust cycle are achieved primarily through the new more physically-based dust emission scheme. In comparison, the other modifications except the size distribution of dust in the coarse mode induced small changes to the modeled dust cycle and model-observation comparisons. We highlight which changes introduced here are important for which regions, shedding light on further dust model developments required for more accurately estimating interactions between dust and climate.
- Preprint
(11115 KB) -
Supplement
(20112 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Longlei Li et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-31', Juan Antonio Añel, 01 Mar 2022
Dear authors,
After checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our Code and Data Policy.
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code in GitHub. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other alternatives for long-term archival and publishing, such as Zenodo. Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories, and include the relevant primary input/output data.
Also, we can not accept embargoes such as publication only after acceptance, registration or previous contact with the authors. You must publish the assets used during the review process too.
In this way, you must reply to this comment with the link to the suitable repository used in your manuscript and containing all the materials used (code and data) with its DOI. Moreover, you must include in a potential reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section and the DOI of the code.Â
Please, reply as soon as possible to this comment with the link for it to continue with the peer-review process for your manuscript.
Regards,
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Exec. Editor  - RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-31', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Mar 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2022-31', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Apr 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2022-31/gmd-2022-31-RC2-supplement.pdf
Longlei Li et al.
Longlei Li et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
522 | 129 | 12 | 663 | 41 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 522
- PDF: 129
- XML: 12
- Total: 663
- Supplement: 41
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1