4.3 Article

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

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 366-372

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/asl.765

关键词

fennec; AMMA; dust; reanalysis; monsoon; Sahara

资金

  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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据