the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Dust emission, loading, and deposition throughout the Phanerozoic simulated by CESM1.2 coupled with BIOME4
Abstract. Atmospheric dust plays a critical role in Earth's climate system and marine biogeochemistry, but how dust varied during the Phanerozoic is still unclear. Here, we simulate the global dust cycle and its climatic impacts during the whole Phanerozoic using an Earth system model with interactive dust. Our results show that the colonization of land by plants near the end of the Silurian caused a fundamental reorganization of the global dust emission, driving a transition from an uninhibited, highly intense dust cycle to one limited largely to unvegetated subtropical regions. Since 410 Ma, subtropical land area and continental fragmentation have acted as the primary controls on dust emissions. Crucially, while total ocean dust deposition broadly follows global emission trends, the oceanic fraction of dust deposition is strongly regulated by paleogeography; more fragmented continental configurations allow dust to be transported more efficiently to the ocean. By comparing the result of dynamically active dust experiments against that of globally uniform prescribed dust experiments, we explicitly isolate the spatiotemporally heterogeneous radiative forcing induced by interactive dust cycles. The uniform dust assumption misrepresents land surface climate, underestimating dust-induced cooling during vegetation-free intervals but overestimating it after plant colonization. Although the first-order temperature response is driven by shortwave radiative attenuation, the final regional response is strongly modulated by localized feedbacks, including snow–albedo, adjustments of cloud and ocean circulation. Overall, this study underscores that deep-time dust is not merely a passive aerosol tracer but an active component of the coupled Earth system that tightly links paleogeography, terrestrial vegetation, marine biogeochemistry, and climate evolution. The modelled dust distribution compares well with the geological records in general but systematically underestimating the dust emission region since 100 Ma, probably because of the overestimation of vegetation by the model when the fragmentation of continents is high. The present-day dust emission and atmospheric dust loading may be the highest over the past 200 Ma, mainly due to its large subtropical land area.
- Preprint
(3881 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(8636 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 10 Sep 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3925', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Jul 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 136 | 37 | 15 | 188 | 22 | 11 | 11 |
- HTML: 136
- PDF: 37
- XML: 15
- Total: 188
- Supplement: 22
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript presents the results of a large set of equilibrium climate simulations focusing on the dust cycle throughout the Phanerozoic, by means of the coupled climate model CESM1.2 with vegetation cover derived from the BIOME4 model. Simulated dust source areas are compared with geological evidence from the literature. The main controls on dust emission are investigated, including e.g. vegetation cover, land-ocean distribution across latitudes, continent fragmentation and other feedback mechanisms. Finally, climate effects of an interactive dust cycle compared to uniformly prescribed dust fields are analyzed.
This work is very interesting for the time span it encompasses, and the manuscript is generally well prepared. There are of course some limitations, as expected, but some of them should be more thoroughly discussed, in my opinion.
General comments
My first general comment is about the coupling of CESM1.2 and BIOME4. It should be made extremely clear which variables simulated by BIOME4 are passed and which routines of CESM use them. In particular, it should be made clear whether BIOME vegetation is only interacting with dust emissions or also with the physical climate.
The second general comment is about the model version used, which does not include dust LW interactions. It was previously shown (the cited paper: Albani et al., 2014) how this limitation affects the climate impacts of dust, even with opposing effects. The implications of this model version should be more thoroughly discussed throughout the paper, when dust direct effects are discussed.
My third and last general comment is about the limited comparison with other studies in the discussion. I would suggest to better integrate a comparison with the results of e.g. Heavens et al. (2012, 2015: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2015.02.024 ) in the discussion sections.
Specific comments
18-19. Maybe it would be more accurate to say something like “at 55 time slices during the entire Phanerozoic”
28. It is driven by shortwave cooling also because you do not include longwave interactions
30. “… is not a passive tracer …” without “aerosol”, which seems out of place here
31. While dust has impacts on marine biogeochemistry, this was not included in your simulations
33. “… systematically underestimates …”
55. Maybe use something like “somewhat realistic” rather than “decent”
95. You cited Lin et al. (2024), but perhaps you should report here the main features. For instance, you could at least say that soil erodibility was set to a constant value over space and time, anticipating what you state at line 141. Also, notably, please specify whether the coupling of BIOME4 is only providing fields for the dust emission scheme or it also used to refine more broadly PFTs distributions and thus impacting the physical climate.
130. It is not clear how Figure S1 is explicative of the text here
132-134. Why have you chosen to prescribe aerosol fields from present-day, rather than pre-industrial (which would seem more logical considering the heavy anthropogenic emissions of species such as e.g. sulfates etc.)?
137-138. You should comment a bit further on your choice of not using any prescribed ice sheet, which would be relevant for some of your time slices, and potential implications
150. Maybe the “dust cycle” rather than “dust activities”
158. It would be useful to add the age range here
216. “Quite dense” is perhaps more appropriate
226. Please define how you define “subtropical land” here, i.e. the latitude range
282. Also by indirect effects through aerosol-cloud interactions. It is true that direct effects are the only ones activated in your simulations. Please rephrase.
288-289. Because it is the only interaction represented in the model. Please rephrase.
380. Probably you meant “even more uncertain”
400-401. That is not consistent with the model version using only dust-SW interactions, as described in the Methodology section