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

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