the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Improving Fine Mineral Dust Representation from the Surface to the Column in GEOS-Chem 14.4.1
Abstract. Accurate representation of mineral dust remains a challenge for global air quality or climate models due to inadequate parametrization of the emission scheme, removal mechanisms, and size distribution. While various studies have constrained aspects of dust emission fluxes and/or dust optical depth, surface dust concentrations still vary by factors of 5–10 among models. In this study, we focus on improving the simulation of fine dust in the GEOS-Chem chemical transport model, leveraging recent mechanistic understanding of dust source and removal, and reconciling the size differences between models and ground-based measurements. Specifically, we conduct sensitivity simulations using GEOS-Chem in its high performance configuration (GCHP) version 14.4.1 to investigate the effects of mechanism or parameter updates. The results are evaluated by comparisons versus Deep Blue satellite-based aerosol optical depth (AOD) and AErosol RObotic NETwork (AERONET) ground-based AOD for total column abundance, and versus the Surface Particulate Matter Network (SPARTAN) for surface PM2.5 dust concentrations. Reconciling modelled geometric diameter versus measured aerodynamic diameter is important for consistent comparison. The two-fold overestimation of surface fine dust in the standard model is alleviated by 36 % without degradation of total column abundance by implementing a new physics-based dust emission scheme with better spatial distribution. Further reduction by 16 % of the overestimation of surface PM2.5 dust is achieved through reducing the mass fraction of emitted fine dust based on the brittle fragmentation theory, and explicit tracking of three additional fine mineral dust size bins with updated parametrization for below-cloud scavenging. Overall, these developments reduce the normalized mean difference against surface fine dust measurements from SPARTAN from 73 % to 21 %, while retaining comparable skill of total column abundance against satellite and ground-based AOD.
- Preprint
(4812 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 15 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-438', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Mar 2025
reply
Review of “Improving Fine Mineral Dust Representation from the Surface to the Column in GEOS-Chem 14.4.1”
The manuscript titled GMD_2025_Improving Fine Mineral Dust Representation from the Surface to the Column in GEOS-Chem 14.4.1 describes the implementation of the latest dust emission scheme in the GEOS-Chem High Performance configuration (version 14.4). The authors emphasize the need to reconcile the modeled geometric diameter with in-situ measurements that are based on aerodynamic diameter. They also provide a comprehensive, step-by-step approach to refining and evaluating the model, effectively isolating uncertainties by region. The manuscript is well-organized, and the thoroughness of the performance evaluations is particularly commendable. Overall, I am impressed by the clarity and depth of this work, and I recommend acceptance with minor revisions.
Specific comments:
- Dust Optical Properties in GEOS-Chem: It would be helpful to include a concise summary of the dust optical properties used in your GEOS-Chem configuration. You mention that the model employs the improved dust optical properties from Singh et al. (2024). Could you clarify whether the aspect ratios of the various dust bins in your model are consistent with those in Singh et al. (2024)
- Size Distribution Comparisons: Your analysis would be more compelling if you compared the model’s size distribution against in-situ measurements, including AERONET data and other publicly available datasets (e.g., doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-4995-2024). Such comparisons would provide additional evidence that your updates to the dust emission scheme accurately capture real-world size distributions.
Technical corrections:
In your figures, the circles appear to lack any visible color fill. Consider adjusting the visualization to ensure the colors are clear and distinguishable.
Reporting “AW 2.3 ± 5.7” can be misleading because concentrations and emissions generally cannot be negative. Replacing the AW values with confidence intervals or alternative statistical measures might be more informative and intuitive for readers.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-438-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
175 | 37 | 5 | 217 | 5 | 4 |
- HTML: 175
- PDF: 37
- XML: 5
- Total: 217
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1