the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Global projections of aridity index for mid and long-term future based on CMIP6 scenarios
Abstract. This study evaluates and projects global aridity index (AI) and dryland distribution using the FAO Aridity Index based on Penman-Monteith potential evapotranspiration. A multimodel ensemble of 13 CMIP6 models, with a horizontal resolution of 100 km, was selected for analysis. The ensemble was validated against WorldClim and ERA5 reanalysis datasets for the reference period (1970–2000), showing strong correlations in key variables and consistent geographic representation of drylands, with some regional discrepancies, notably in North-Eastern Brazil. Future projections of AI were generated for three socio-economic pathways (SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5) and two timeframes (2030–2060 and 2070–2100). Results indicate that most regions will maintain their current climate classification but face decreasing AI values, signifying drier conditions. Under SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5, significant drying is projected for the mid-term, with continued but slower changes by century's end, affecting regions such as North and Central America, the Mediterranean Basin, and areas adjacent to present-day deserts. In contrast, SSP3-7.0 shows limited drying or localized wetting in the mid-term, followed by extensive drying in the long-term. Comprehensive maps and tables detailing dryland proportions and distributions are provided to support these findings.
- Preprint
(1278 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2103 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 20 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3710', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Feb 2025
reply
This study provides a well-structured and comprehensive analysis of global aridity projections based on CMIP6 scenarios. The results are presented clearly, and the methodological approach appears to be sound and well explained. The study is relevant for understanding long-term trends in desertification and future climate impacts.
Comments:
- Aridity classification - The manuscript primarily focuses on desertification, but only includes 1–2 humid categories. Would it be possible to shift the focus slightly toward transitions between different aridity index (AI) classification states rather than focusing exclusively on desertification? If the authors prefer to maintain the current classification, a justification for this choice would be helpful.
- The AI classification used in this study appears to be slightly different from the classification used by the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and UNCCD (2024), also cited in this study. See: [Dry sub-humid (0.5 ≤ AI < 0.65), Semi-arid (0.2 ≤ AI < 0.5), Arid (0.05 ≤ AI < 0.2), Hyper-arid (AI < 0.05)]. It is only a minor change to the classification but it would make it easier to compare your assessment to more recent publications.
See for reference: e.g. Figure CCP3.1 in Mirzabaev, A., L.C. Stringer, T.A. Benjaminsen, P. Gonzalez, R. Harris, M. Jafari, N. Stevens, C.M. Tirado, and S. Zakieldeen, 2022: Cross-Chapter Paper 3: Deserts, Semiarid Areas and Desertification. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2195–2231, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.020. - Will the dataset produced in this study be made publicly available? A dataset of time-series AI classifications would enable further studies on system-state transitions, which could be valuable for assessing long-term desertification and land degradation trends. Making such data accessible would enhance the impact and usability of this research.
- Formatting comments:
- There are some inconsistencies in citation formatting. For example, "et" appears to be used as “and” in some cases (e.g., lines 56, 59, and 73). Standardizing the citation format to English would avoid confusion.
- Lines 99–100: Please check the units—there appears to be a discrepancy of three orders of magnitude between mJ and MJ.
- Lines 545 and 548: The formatting of "CO₂" should be corrected.
- Table 2 should be formatted for easier readability.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3710-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Camille Crapart, 04 Mar 2025
reply
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments. We answer them in detail in the enclosed document.
Best regards,
Camille Crapart
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
167 | 57 | 4 | 228 | 29 | 5 | 4 |
- HTML: 167
- PDF: 57
- XML: 4
- Total: 228
- Supplement: 29
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 56 | 24 |
France | 2 | 26 | 11 |
China | 3 | 20 | 8 |
Germany | 4 | 16 | 7 |
Netherlands | 5 | 13 | 5 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 56