A Comparison of Two Dust Uplift Schemes within the Same General Circulation Model
Aeolian dust modelling has improved significantly over the last ten years and many institutions now consistently model dust uplift, transport and deposition in general circulation models (GCMs). However, the representation of dust in GCMs is highly variable between modelling communities due to diffe...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2012-01-01
|
| Series: | Advances in Meteorology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/260515 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832558828028166144 |
|---|---|
| author | Duncan Ackerley Manoj M. Joshi Eleanor J. Highwood Claire L. Ryder Mark A. J. Harrison David N. Walters Sean F. Milton Jane Strachan |
| author_facet | Duncan Ackerley Manoj M. Joshi Eleanor J. Highwood Claire L. Ryder Mark A. J. Harrison David N. Walters Sean F. Milton Jane Strachan |
| author_sort | Duncan Ackerley |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Aeolian dust modelling has improved significantly over the last ten years and many institutions now consistently model dust uplift, transport and deposition in general circulation models (GCMs). However, the representation of dust in GCMs is highly variable between modelling communities due to differences in the uplift schemes employed and the representation of the global circulation that subsequently leads to dust deflation. In this study two different uplift schemes are incorporated in the same GCM. This approach enables a clearer comparison of the dust uplift schemes themselves, without the added complexity of several different transport and deposition models. The global annual mean dust aerosol optical depths (at 550 nm) using two different dust uplift schemes were found to be 0.014 and 0.023—both lying within the estimates from the AeroCom project. However, the models also have appreciably different representations of the dust size distribution adjacent to the West African coast and very different deposition at various sites throughout the globe. The different dust uplift schemes were also capable of influencing the modelled circulation, surface air temperature, and precipitation despite the use of prescribed sea surface temperatures. This has important implications for the use of dust models in AMIP-style (Atmospheric Modelling Intercomparison Project) simulations and Earth-system modelling. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-d09df17b75d5493ba17cd40794c9fc48 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-9309 1687-9317 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2012-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Advances in Meteorology |
| spelling | doaj-art-d09df17b75d5493ba17cd40794c9fc482025-02-03T01:31:29ZengWileyAdvances in Meteorology1687-93091687-93172012-01-01201210.1155/2012/260515260515A Comparison of Two Dust Uplift Schemes within the Same General Circulation ModelDuncan Ackerley0Manoj M. Joshi1Eleanor J. Highwood2Claire L. Ryder3Mark A. J. Harrison4David N. Walters5Sean F. Milton6Jane Strachan7Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UKNational Centres for Atmospheric Science (Climate), University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UKDepartment of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UKDepartment of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UKMet Office, Exeter EX1 3PB, UKMet Office, Exeter EX1 3PB, UKMet Office, Exeter EX1 3PB, UKDepartment of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UKAeolian dust modelling has improved significantly over the last ten years and many institutions now consistently model dust uplift, transport and deposition in general circulation models (GCMs). However, the representation of dust in GCMs is highly variable between modelling communities due to differences in the uplift schemes employed and the representation of the global circulation that subsequently leads to dust deflation. In this study two different uplift schemes are incorporated in the same GCM. This approach enables a clearer comparison of the dust uplift schemes themselves, without the added complexity of several different transport and deposition models. The global annual mean dust aerosol optical depths (at 550 nm) using two different dust uplift schemes were found to be 0.014 and 0.023—both lying within the estimates from the AeroCom project. However, the models also have appreciably different representations of the dust size distribution adjacent to the West African coast and very different deposition at various sites throughout the globe. The different dust uplift schemes were also capable of influencing the modelled circulation, surface air temperature, and precipitation despite the use of prescribed sea surface temperatures. This has important implications for the use of dust models in AMIP-style (Atmospheric Modelling Intercomparison Project) simulations and Earth-system modelling.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/260515 |
| spellingShingle | Duncan Ackerley Manoj M. Joshi Eleanor J. Highwood Claire L. Ryder Mark A. J. Harrison David N. Walters Sean F. Milton Jane Strachan A Comparison of Two Dust Uplift Schemes within the Same General Circulation Model Advances in Meteorology |
| title | A Comparison of Two Dust Uplift Schemes within the Same General Circulation Model |
| title_full | A Comparison of Two Dust Uplift Schemes within the Same General Circulation Model |
| title_fullStr | A Comparison of Two Dust Uplift Schemes within the Same General Circulation Model |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Two Dust Uplift Schemes within the Same General Circulation Model |
| title_short | A Comparison of Two Dust Uplift Schemes within the Same General Circulation Model |
| title_sort | comparison of two dust uplift schemes within the same general circulation model |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/260515 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT duncanackerley acomparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT manojmjoshi acomparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT eleanorjhighwood acomparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT clairelryder acomparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT markajharrison acomparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT davidnwalters acomparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT seanfmilton acomparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT janestrachan acomparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT duncanackerley comparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT manojmjoshi comparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT eleanorjhighwood comparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT clairelryder comparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT markajharrison comparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT davidnwalters comparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT seanfmilton comparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel AT janestrachan comparisonoftwodustupliftschemeswithinthesamegeneralcirculationmodel |