the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Implications of dust minerals on radiative transfer at regional scale, using the METAL-WRF model
Abstract. Dust particles originating from desert areas of the planet have significant radiative impacts on the ground and atmospheric column, changing the energy distribution of the entire earth system, which cannot be underestimated, as dust is considered a climatic regulator. The magnitude of the dust radiative effect is dependent on the optical properties of desert dust aerosols, which in turn is regulated by the composition and mineralogical content of desert dust plumes. The mineralogical composition in atmospheric models is commonly related to the soil type at dust sources and the optical properties needed are provided by observational campaigns and dedicated measurements. In this work we upgrade the METAL-WRF model to incorporate the direct radiative impact of the minerals in dust and test the impact of the direct radiative feedback on a 2-month simulation period, namely March and April 2022, when consecutive intense dust outbursts affected the Mediterranean Basin. The simulation results were compared against Global Horizontal Irradiance data and AERONET optical properties that were measured at five sites. An improvement was observed in all sites, especially close to the sources, when the minerals and dust are treated as interacting in the radiative transfer calculations, thus improving the capabilities of METAL-WRF to simulate the chemical composition of dust particles in the atmosphere along with their contribution to radiative transfer processes.
- Preprint
(3955 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1083 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3570', Pamela Pasquariello, 30 Sep 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Christos Spyrou, 20 Oct 2025
We would like to thank the reviewer for his comments and recommendations. For the technical corrections:
- The "index" subscript in the equation has been corrected.
- The list in Lines 148 – 150 has been rewritten as per the reviewer suggestions.
- Changed the text according to the reviewer suggestions.
- Changed the text according to the reviewer suggestions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3570-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Christos Spyrou, 20 Oct 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3570', Marco D'Emilio, 14 Oct 2025
The article demonstrates a high level of quality overall, with no issues identified in its structure, methodology, or results.
Only a few minor technical corrections are recommended, as outlined below:- Figure 2 contains a labeling error: the panel for Iron fraction in arid soils should be labeled (l) instead of (j), and the caption should also indicate ‘iron (l)’ for consistency.
- It would be beneficial to provide a brief justification for the selection of the specific physical schemes listed in Table 2. Explaining why these parameterizations were chosen, particularly in relation to the model’s objectives, the study region, or their known performance in similar configurations, would strengthen the methodological transparency and scientific rationale of the work.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3570-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Christos Spyrou, 20 Oct 2025
We would like to thank the reviewer for his comments and recommendations. Specifically:
- The Figure 2 labeling error, along with the caption, has been corrected.
- A brief justification of the selected physical schemes has been provided, and the pertinent publications have been added. More specifically the following paragraph has been included after Table 2: The physical parameterizations schemes chosen are selected due to their previous performance in similar studies. For instance, the same configuration was used in Solomos et al., 2023 for the sensitivity simulations for the METAL-WRF development. Additionally, the same parameterizations were used in Spyrou et al., 2022 where a dust source map was created for the Saharan desert (excluding the use of a newer cumulus scheme in this work) and other similar works (i.e. Drakaki et al., 2022). For the microphysics, surface and radiative transfer schemes specifically, the choices made are also suggested by the WRF-ARW user setup guide (Skamarock et al., 2021) and have been successfully used in a number of other publications (Kampouri et al., 2021; Varlas et al., 2021 and others).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3570-AC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,209 | 64 | 19 | 1,292 | 27 | 30 | 28 |
- HTML: 1,209
- PDF: 64
- XML: 19
- Total: 1,292
- Supplement: 27
- BibTeX: 30
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The overall quality of this article is very high, and I have no objections regarding its structure, methodology, or results.
A few minor technical corrections are suggested below: