Dust model sensitivity to dust source mask, sandblasting efficiency, air density, and land use: Implications for model improvement

This study compares dust storm simulations using two commonly adopted methods for representing four important dust emission parameters. Compared with a dynamic dust source mask based on land use and vegetation cover, a static mask based solely on land use overestimates dust concentration and optical depth by a factor of 2, besides generating spurious emissions. The results reinforce that seasonal variations in vegetation cover can significantly affect dust emissions. For sandblasting efficiency, a clay-dependent semiempirical expression produces 12 times more dust than does a physics-based expression. Simulations using model-predicted versus constant air density differ by only 8%. However, this difference (often overlooked) could range between 12% and 22% for annual simulations over global dust source regions. Simulations with updated versus old land use data, using the same dust source mask, differ twofold, indicating the significant impact of land use change on regional dust emission in central Arizona. The difference between simulations within each of the four pairs is generally larger than the uncertainty due to meteorology. The simulations align better with observation when using the dynamic dust source mask, the physics-based sandblasting efficiency, and the up-to-date land use data. Given the high sensitivity of dust to surface conditions, the results discussed have implications for improving the dust cycle in weather and climate models and for interpreting model intercomparisons.