Journal cover Journal topic
Geoscientific Model Development An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 4.252 IF 4.252
  • IF 5-year value: 4.890 IF 5-year 4.890
  • CiteScore value: 4.49 CiteScore 4.49
  • SNIP value: 1.539 SNIP 1.539
  • SJR value: 2.404 SJR 2.404
  • IPP value: 4.28 IPP 4.28
  • h5-index value: 40 h5-index 40
  • Scimago H index value: 51 Scimago H index 51
Volume 8, issue 2 | Copyright
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 341-362, 2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-341-2015
© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Development and technical paper 19 Feb 2015

Development and technical paper | 19 Feb 2015

Testing the performance of state-of-the-art dust emission schemes using DO4Models field data

K. Haustein1, R. Washington1, J. King1, G. Wiggs1, D. S. G. Thomas1, F. D. Eckardt2, R. G. Bryant3, and L. Menut4 K. Haustein et al.
  • 1School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • 2University of Cape Town, Environmental and Geographical Science, Cape Town, South Africa
  • 3Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  • 4Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France

Abstract. Within the framework of the Dust Observations for Models (DO4Models) project, the performance of three commonly used dust emission schemes is investigated in this paper using a box model environment. We constrain the model with field data (surface and dust particle properties as well as meteorological parameters) obtained from a dry lake bed with a crusted surface in Botswana during a 3 month period in 2011. Our box model results suggest that all schemes fail to reproduce the observed horizontal dust flux. They overestimate the magnitude of the flux by several orders of magnitude. The discrepancy is much smaller for the vertical dust emission flux, albeit still overestimated by up to an order of magnitude. The key parameter for this mismatch is the surface crusting which limits the availability of erosive material, even at higher wind speeds. The second-most important parameter is the soil size distribution. Direct dust entrainment was inferred to be important for several dust events, which explains the smaller gap between modelled and measured vertical dust fluxes. We conclude that both features, crusted surfaces and direct entrainment, need to be incorporated into dust emission schemes in order to represent the entire spectra of source processes. We also conclude that soil moisture exerts a key control on the threshold shear velocity and hence the emission threshold of dust in the model. In the field, the state of the crust is the controlling mechanism for dust emission. Although the crust is related to the soil moisture content to some extent, we are not as yet able to deduce a robust correlation between state of crust and soil moisture.

Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
In this paper, the performance of three commonly used dust emissions schemes is investigated using a box model environment and observational data obtained in Botswana (Sua Pan). The results suggest that all schemes fail to reproduce the observed horizontal dust flux properly. They overestimate its magnitude by several orders of magnitude. The key parameter for this mismatch is the surface crusting which limits the availability of erosive material, even at higher wind speeds.
In this paper, the performance of three commonly used dust emissions schemes is investigated...
Citation
Share