Convective distribution of dust over the Arabian Peninsula: the impact of model resolution

Bukowski, Jennie; van den Heever, Susan C.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2967-2020

Articles | Volume 20, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2967-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Holistic Analysis of Aerosol in Littoral Environments - A...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2967-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 20, issue 5

Research article

|

12 Mar 2020

Research article |

| 12 Mar 2020

Convective distribution of dust over the Arabian Peninsula: the impact of model resolution

Jennie Bukowski and Susan C. van den Heever

Download

Final revised paper (published on 12 Mar 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 12 Apr 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of ACPD-197', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 May 2019
- AC1: 'Author Response to RC1', Jennie Bukowski, 11 Oct 2019
RC2: 'Review of “Convective distribution of dust over the Arabian Peninsula: the impact of model resolution.”', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jun 2019
- AC2: 'Author Response to RC2', Jennie Bukowski, 11 Oct 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Jennie Bukowski on behalf of the Authors (11 Oct 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Oct 2019) by Jui-Yuan Christine Chiu

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (30 Oct 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear authors,

Thanks a lot for your revision. A lot of efforts were achieved for this new version. However, some answers are 'off-topic' and the most important questions, requesting changes in the text and figures, are not always taken into account. I think this is important points and I will briefly repeat my main concerns.

1. The sensitivity study is a mix between model set-up (the resolution) and processes (convection). The fact that the resolution is the most sensitive point just show that the model has parameterizations badly written: a well-written model is sensitive to processes but not resolution. This is a basic in model development. Apart the 'grey-zone' for turbulence, there is no reason that different resolutions change the emissions fluxes. Of course, this is a well-known problem for mineral dust, the parameterization considering this is a threshold process. But many recent developments were done to avoid this problem in regional models. See the recent literature about the ways to reduce the problem of threshold/resolution.

2. Boundary and initial conditions: When studying regional events, it is not acceptable to use a regional model without boundary and initial conditions (for dust or any other gas or aerosol). Now, the authors made the simulation with boundary and intial conditions. So, it is easy to use the new simulations and replace the old ones without BC/IC. It will be more robust for the discussion. The authors say that the results are more or less the same with or without the BC and IC, but the supplementary figures (p.12, figure 6a*) shows a large impact. The comparisons to measurements (supp fig 12) a clear improvement, even if the model has no good results. With BC/IC, the modelled AOD is more realistic compared to observations.

3. The fact that a scheme (p.3 l.214) or a model (p.5 general comment #5) was/is widely used is not a scientific and objective justification about its quality.

4. The fact that another paper already compared model results to measurements is not a justification to do nothing here. Please add at least a table of statistical scores.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (29 Nov 2019) by Jui-Yuan Christine Chiu

AR by Jennie Bukowski on behalf of the Authors (27 Dec 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (17 Jan 2020) by Jui-Yuan Christine Chiu

AR by Jennie Bukowski on behalf of the Authors (18 Jan 2020) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

This paper seeks to better our understanding of how dust storms are represented in a weather model. Depending on how well the model can represent the storm, it can change the dust forecast significantly. This is important for predictions of air quality and visibility; as dust can heat and cool the air in its environment, it is also crucial for calculating the Earth's energy budget. Here, we communicate the uncertainty in a dust model and the effect that it may have on dust forecasts.