4.3 Article

New Saharan wind observations reveal substantial biases in analysed dust-generating winds

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE LETTERS
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages 366-372

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/asl.765

Keywords

fennec; AMMA; dust; reanalysis; monsoon; Sahara

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Saharan-West African Monsoon Multiscale Analysis (SWAMMA) project [NE/L005352/1]
  2. Fennec project [NE/G017166/1]
  3. French Ministry of Research
  4. National Institute for Earth Sciences and Astronomy
  5. NERC [NE/G017166/1, ncas10008, NE/L005352/1, ncas10005, ncas10004, ncas10003] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Natural Environment Research Council [ncas10009, ncas10005, ncas10004, ncas10008, ncas10003, NE/L005352/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For the remote Sahara, the Earth's largest dust source, there has always been a near-absence of data for evaluating models. Here, new observations from the Fennec project are used along with Sahelian data from the African Monsoon Multidisciplinary Analysis (AMMA) to give an unprecedented evaluation of dust-generating winds in the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts ERA-Interim reanalysis (ERA-I). Consistent with past studies, near-surface, high-speed winds are lacking in ERA-I and the diurnal variability is under-represented. During the summer monsoon season, correlations of ERA-I with observed wind-speed are low (approximate to 0.35 in Sahel and 0.25-0.4 in the Sahara). Fennec data show for the first time that: (1) correlations are reduced even in the Sahara, not directly influenced by the monsoon, (2) the systematic underestimation of observed winds by ERA-I in the summertime Sahel extends into the central Sahara: potentially explaining the failure of global models to capture the observed global dust maximum that occurs over the summertime Sahara (such as CMIP5), and demonstrates that modelled winds must be improved if they are to capture this key feature of the climatology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available