the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Observationally constrained regional variations of shortwave absorption by iron oxides emphasize the cooling effect of dust
Vincenzo Obiso
María Gonçalves Ageitos
Carlos Pérez García-Pando
Gregory L. Schuster
Susanne E. Bauer
Claudia Di Biagio
Paola Formenti
Jan P. Perlwitz
Konstantinos Tsigaridis
Ronald L. Miller
Abstract. The composition of soil dust aerosols derives from the mineral abundances in the parent soils that vary across dust source regions. Nonetheless, Earth System Models (ESMs) have traditionally represented mineral dust as a globally homogeneous species. The growing interest in modeling dust mineralogy, facilitated by the recognized sensitivity of the dust climate impacts to composition, has motivated state-of-the-art ESMs to incorporate the mineral speciation of dust along with its effect upon the dust direct radiative effect (DRE). In this work, we enable the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE2.1 to calculate the shortwave (SW) DRE by accounting for the regionally varying soil mineralogy. Mineral-radiation interaction at solar wavelengths is calculated according to two alternative coupling schemes: 1) external mixing of three mineral components that are optically distinguished, one of which contains embedded iron oxides; 2) a single internal mixture of all dust minerals with a dynamic fraction of iron oxides that varies regionally and temporally. We link dust absorption to the fractional mass of iron oxides based on recent chamber measurements using natural dust aerosol samples. We show that coupled mineralogy overall enhances the scattering by dust, and thus the global cooling, compared to our control run with globally uniform composition. According to the external mixing scheme, the SW DRE at the top of atmosphere (TOA) changes from -0.25 to -0.30 W · m-2, corresponding to a change in the net DRE, including the longwave effect, from -0.08 to -0.12 W · m-2. The cooling increase is accentuated when the internal mixing scheme is configured: SW DRE at TOA becomes -0.34 W · m-2 (with a net DRE of -0.15 W · m-2). The varying composition modifies the regional distribution of single scattering albedo (SSA), whose variations in specific regions can be remarkable (above 0.03) and significantly modify the regional DRE. Evaluation against the AErosol RObotic NETwork (AERONET) shows that explicit representation of soil mineralogy and its regional variations reduces the low bias of model dust SSA, while improving the range of variability across stations and calendar months. Despite these improvements, the moderate spatio-temporal correlation with AERONET reveals remaining modeling challenges and the need for more accurate measurements of mineral fractions in soils.
- Preprint
(2376 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(350 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Vincenzo Obiso et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1166', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jun 2023
Overall, this paper presents a commendable piece of work. It provides valuable insights into dust optical properties and modeling on a global scale. However, there are a few areas where further clarification is required.Line 125: 'One half of dust particles are assumed to be soluble.' Is it typical to assume that half of the dust particles are soluble in your simulation? Could you please provide a justification for this assumption? Additionally, are you employing a kappa-Kohler framework to determine the solubility?Line 127: Could you elaborate on the similarity between your un-calibrated emissions and the observed concentrations? Specifically, what is the magnitude of the calibration factor? How much larger is it compared to the un-calibrated emissions?Line 195-205: Regarding the refractive index mixing rules, I appreciate the decision to exclude the MG or BG methods. While the volume weight mixing rule seems acceptable, I believe the Lorentz-Lorenz mixing rule is more suitable for aerosols. This rule has been found to be particularly effective in situations where the refractive indices of individual components in the mixture are closely aligned. For further information on mixing rules for aerosols, I recommend referring to the paper by Liu.Liu, Y., & Daum, P. H. (2008). Relationship of refractive index to mass density and self-consistency of mixing rules for multicomponent mixtures like ambient aerosols. <i>Journal of Aerosol Science</i>, <i>39</i>(11), 974–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2008.06.006Figure 2: I thought it was interesting that the complex refractive indexes are close to those of salts, measured in:Bain, A., Rafferty, A., & Preston, T. C. (2019). The Wavelength‐Dependent Complex Refractive Index of Hygroscopic Aerosol Particles and Other Aqueous Media: An Effective Oscillator Model. <i>Geophysical Research Letters</i>, <i>46</i>(17–18), 10636–10645. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL084568Line 330-335: Considering that the dust emissions have been calibrated (as stated in Line 127), it is indeed anticipated that there will be an agreement with the observations. However, please correct me if I have misunderstood this section.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2023-1166-RC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gregory L. Schuster, 30 Jun 2023
Interesting idea about the Lorenz-Lorenz mixing rule... The Lorenz-Lorenz rule is reasonable for dilute mixtures of isotropic dielectrics, but it is difficult to apply to mixtures of dense materials that have mass densities >> 1 (like minerals). One would need to know the molecular polarizability for each of the mineral components to apply the Lorenz-Lorenz relation, and it is unlikely that these polarizabilities are available for all minerals and wavelengths of interest.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1166-CC1
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gregory L. Schuster, 30 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1166', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Aug 2023
This study investigates the effect of heterogeneous mineral composition on dust aerosol optical properties especially absorption, and the impact on estimated dust direct radiative effect (DRE) in the shortwave. Two approaches are implemented to account for the mixing of absorbing iron oxides and non-absorbing dust minerals, compared to the assumption of the globally uniform composition. It is found that the consideration of spatially and temporally dependent mineral composition in dust leads to better agreement with the AERONET retrieved single scattering albedo and generally results in a larger cooling of dust than the homogeneous assumption. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of accounting for the variability in dust mineralogy in the calculation of dust forcing and showed the sensitivity to the mixing assumptions. These insights are very useful for improving the global modeling of dust and understanding the differences between the models and from the observations. I have a few general comments and some specific comments are given below that need further clarification.
The manuscript discussed the model results of dust optical properties and radiative effects with different approaches first and then evaluated the calculated dust optics with AERONET. I’d suggest moving the model evaluation up front before the discussions of the sensitivity studies. The comparison with the AERONET observations would add value to the discussion of dust DREs with different methods and show how the observationally constrained single scattering albedo affects the calculated direct effect.
For the calculation of dust DRE, vertical distribution is also an important parameter, in addition to dust optical depth and single scattering albedo. Although the representation of dust mineral composition may not have a large impact, it should be discussed how the model representation of dust vertical distribution in this model may affect its estimated dust DRE especially when compared to other studies. Also, this should be mentioned in the discussion of “source of model uncertainty”.
This study examines two mixing rules regarding the absorbing and non-absorbing substances in dust. It would be interesting to compare the results from the DRE sensitivity studies, e.g., HOM vs EXT and HOM vs INT, with previous studies such as DB19, SZ15 and Li et al. 2021.
Specific comments:
- Section 2.2.1: How does the global model determine the mass fraction of each dust mixture in EXT in a specific time and location: host mixture, static accretion and free iron oxides?
- Line 262: how does the AeroTAU0 dataset differ from the standard Level 1.5 data products? This is a bit unclear.
- Line 292: how sensitive are the results to this criteria: K_rir<0.0042? Please add a couple of sentences to justify it.
- Line 300: 80 hours per month is barely more than 3 days. For those sites/months, the monthly means calculated may not be comparable to the model monthly averages. This caveat should be mentioned in the comparison with AERONET.
- Section 2.3: AERONET has an AE product, which has been used to distinguish particles with large vs small sizes. Can you comment why not use this product, instead of using the FVF and absorption spectra?
- Lines 341-342: it would be helpful to clarify how much the non-sphericity assumption would increase the particle scattering, e.g., based on the estimates from the previous studies such as Kok et al. (2017), compared to the low bias in DOD (by percent) in this study.
- Line 350: suggest to also include the mean forcing value from Kok et al (2017)
- Line 341: “warming effect”: is this referring to the SW effect of the coarsest particles? Should the SW effect be more negative for larger particles, which are more efficient in scattering (higher SSA that smaller dust particles)? Please clarify.
- Line 356: same question as on line 341.
- Line 394: why is the increase of dust scattering relative to the imaginary part of refractive index? It became clear after reading the rest of the paragraph. But this sentence is confusing. Suggest rephrasing.
- Line 420: suggest using same color scale for Figure 11-B and Figure 8-B as for other panels in those two figures. It helps to compare the differences between EXT-HOM and INT-EXT.
- Line 454: do you mean “very large particles” between 30 micron and 32 micron in diameter? That doesn’t seem to be a lot, even if the model’s upper size limit is 2-micron larger than the assumption of AERONET.
- Lines 455-456: do you mean that AERONET over-predicts IRI but preserve the SSA? But, how does this relate to the model (HOM) underestimation of SSA from AERONET?
- Line 460: what dust sources is the dust IRI from Sinyuk et al. (2003) representative of? It seems to overpredict the dust absorption (or IRI) in all the regions shown here from AERONET. It is a far stretch to apply one single value to the global scale, but at least it should be representative of the region where it is derived?
- Line 486: is the low correlation between the three models and AERONET driven by under-represented temporal or spatial variability in the models?
- Line 509: AERONET DOD: do you mean AERONET AOD at the selected dusty sites? Or a fraction of the AERONET AOD for DOD? Please clarify.
- Line 630: same question as above: why this IRI also leads to overestimated absorption in Sahara dust, from which it is derived.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1166-RC2
Vincenzo Obiso et al.
Vincenzo Obiso et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
304 | 94 | 16 | 414 | 37 | 6 | 8 |
- HTML: 304
- PDF: 94
- XML: 16
- Total: 414
- Supplement: 37
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1