A new framework for evaluating dust emission model development using dichotomous satellite observations of dust emission

Dust models are essential for understanding the impact of mineral dust on Earth’s systems, human health, and global economies, but dust emission modelling has large uncertainties. Satellite observations of dust emission point sources (DPS) provide a valuable dichotomous inventory of regional dust emissions. We develop a framework for evaluating dust emission model performance using existing DPS data before routine calibration of dust models. To illustrate this framework’s utility and arising insights, we evaluated the albedo-based dust emission model (AEM) with its areal (MODIS 500 m) estimates of soil surface wind friction velocity (us*) and common, poorly constrained grain-scale entrainment threshold (u*ts) adjusted by a function of soil moisture (H). The AEM simulations are reduced to its frequency of occurrence, P(us* > u*tsH). The spatio-temporal variability in observed dust emission frequency is described by the collation of nine existing DPS datasets. Observed dust emission occurs rarely, even in North Africa and the Middle East, where DPS frequency averages 1.8 %, (~7 days y− 1), indicating extreme, large wind speed events. The AEM coincided with observed dust emission ~71.4 %, but simulated dust emission ~27.4 % when no dust emission was observed, while dust emission occurrence was over-estimated by up to 2 orders of magnitude. For estimates to match observations, results showed that grain-scale u*ts needed restricted sediment supply and compatibility with areal us*. Failure to predict dust emission during observed events, was due to us* being too small because reanalysis winds (ERA5-Land) were averaged across 11 km pixels, and inconsistent with us* across 0.5 km pixels representing local maxima. Assumed infinite sediment supply caused the AEM to simulate dust emission whenever P(us*>u*tsH), producing false positives when wind speeds were large. The dust emission model scales of existing parameterisations need harmonising and a new parameterisation for u*ts is required to restrict sediment supply over space and time.</p

A North American dust emission climatology (2001–2020) calibrated to dust point sources from satellite observations

Measurements of atmospheric dust have long influenced our understanding of dust sources and dust model calibration. However, assessing dust emission magnitude and frequency may reveal different dust source dynamics and is critical for informing land management. Here we use MODIS (500 m) albedo-based daily wind friction estimates to produce a new dust emission climatology of North America (2001–2020), calibrated by the novel use of dust point sources from optical satellite observations (rather than being tuned to dust in the atmosphere). Calibrated dust emission occurred predominantly in the biomes of the Great Plains (GP) and North American Deserts (NAD), in broad agreement with maps of aerosol optical depth and dust deposition but with considerably smaller frequency and magnitude. Combined, these biomes produced 7.2 Tg y-1 with contributions split between biomes (59.8% NAD, 40.2% GP) due to the contrasting conditions. Dust emission is dependent on different wind friction conditions on either side of the Rocky Mountains. In general, across the deserts, aerodynamic roughness was persistently small and dust sources were activated in areas prone to large wind speeds; desert dust emissions were wind speed limited. Across the Great Plains, large winds persist, and dust emission occurred when vegetation cover was reduced; vegetated dust emissions were roughness limited. We found comparable aerodynamic roughness exists across biomes/vegetation classes demonstrating that dust emission areas are not restricted to a single biome, instead they are spread across an ‘envelope’ of conducive wind friction conditions. Wind friction dynamics, describing the interplay between changing vegetation roughness (e.g., due to climate and land management) and changing winds (stilling and its reversal), influence modelled dust emission magnitude and frequency and its current and future climatology. We confirm previous results that in the second half of the 21st century the southern Great Plains is the most vulnerable to increased dust emission and show for the first time that risk is due to increased wind friction (by decreased vegetation roughness and / or increased wind speed). Regardless of how well calibrated models are to atmospheric dust, assuming roughness is static in time and / or homogeneous over space, will not adequately represent current and future dust source dynamics

Elucidating hidden and enduring weaknesses in dust emission modeling

Large-scale classical dust cycle models, developed more than two decades ago, assume for simplicity that the Earth's land surface is devoid of vegetation, reduce dust emission estimates using a vegetation cover complement, and calibrate estimates to observed atmospheric dust optical depth (DOD). Consequently, these models are expected to be valid for use with dust-climate projections in Earth System Models. We reveal little spatial relation between DOD frequency and satellite observed dust emission from point sources (DPS) and a difference of up to 2 orders of magnitude. We compared DPS data to an exemplar traditional dust emission model (TEM) and the albedo-based dust emission model (AEM) which represents aerodynamic roughness over space and time. Both models overestimated dust emission probability but showed strong spatial relations to DPS, suitable for calibration. Relative to the AEM calibrated to the DPS, the TEM overestimated large dust emission over vast vegetated areas and produced considerable false change in dust emission. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that calibrating dust cycle models to DOD has hidden for more than two decades, these TEM modeling weaknesses. The AEM overcomes these weaknesses without using masks or vegetation cover data. Considerable potential therefore exists for ESMs driven by prognostic albedo, to reveal new insights of aerosol effects on, and responses to, contemporary and environmental change projections.</p

Satellites reveal Earth's seasonally shifting dust emission sources

Establishing mineral dust impacts on Earth's systems requires numerical models of the dust cycle. Differences between dust optical depth (DOD) measurements and modelling the cycle of dust emission, atmospheric transport, and deposition of dust indicate large model uncertainty due partially to unrealistic model assumptions about dust emission frequency. Calibrating dust cycle models to DOD measurements typically in North Africa, are routinely used to reduce dust model magnitude. This calibration forces modelled dust emissions to match atmospheric DOD but may hide the correct magnitude and frequency of dust emission events at source, compensating biases in other modelled processes of the dust cycle. Therefore, it is essential to improve physically based dust emission modules. Here we use a global collation of satellite observations from previous studies of dust emission point source (DPS) dichotomous frequency data. We show that these DPS data have little-to-no relation with MODIS DOD frequency. We calibrate the albedo-based dust emission model using the frequency distribution of those DPS data. The global dust emission uncertainty constrained by DPS data (±3.8 kg m−2 y−1) provides a benchmark for dust emission model development. Our calibrated model results reveal much less global dust emission (29.1 ± 14.9 Tg y−1) than previous estimates, and show seasonally shifting dust emission predominance within and between hemispheres, as opposed to a persistent North African dust emission primacy widely interpreted from DOD measurements. Earth's largest dust emissions, proceed seasonally from East Asian deserts in boreal spring, to Middle Eastern and North African deserts in boreal summer and then Australian shrublands in boreal autumn-winter. This new analysis of dust emissions, from global sources of varying geochemical properties, have far-reaching implications for current and future dust-climate effects. For more reliable coupled representation of dust-climate projections, our findings suggest the need to re-evaluate dust cycle modelling and benefit from the albedo-based parameterisation.</p