Quantifying global dust devil occurrence from meteorological analyses

Abstract

Dust devils and nonrotating dusty plumes are effective uplift mechanisms for fine particles, but their contribution to the global dust budget is uncertain. By applying known bulk thermodynamic criteria to European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) operational analyses, we provide the first global hourly climatology of potential dust devil and dusty plume (PDDP) occurrence. In agreement with observations, activity is highest from late morning into the afternoon. Combining PDDP frequencies with dust source maps and typical emission values gives the best estimate of global contributions of 3.4% (uncertainty 0.9–31%), 1 order of magnitude lower than the only estimate previously published. Total global hours of dust uplift by dry convection are ∼0.002% of the dust-lifting winds resolved by ECMWF, consistent with dry convection making a small contribution to global uplift. Reducing uncertainty requires better knowledge of factors controlling PDDP occurrence, source regions, and dust fluxes induced by dry convection. Key Points Global potential dust devil occurrence quantified from meteorological analyses Climatology shows realistic diurnal cycle and geographical distribution Best estimate of global contribution of 3.4% is 10 times smaller than the previous estimate

Dust Devil Sediment Transport: From Lab to Field to Global Impact

“…High-performance computing environments allow for the use of high-resolution large-eddy simulations -with and without coupled dust emission schemes -to study the characteristics of individual dust devils. New methods to estimate dust devil occurrence frequency and dust devil dust transport (Jemmett-Smith et al 2015; yield the opportunity to study the effect of dust devils on a significantly higher spatio-temporal resolution, thus hopefully leading to more accurate results. In global models, the use of dust devil parameterizations enabled the reproduction of the martian background annual dust cycle (e.g.…”

“…Verba et al (2010) estimated that dust devils contribute ∼ 3% (uncertainty 1 to 25%) to the total mineral dust budget on Earth, when assuming an annual global dust emission of 2000 × 10 9 kg (Griggs and Noguer 2002;Shao et al 2011;Huneeus et al 2011). In addition, if the dust devil flux values given by were applied to the results by Koch and Renno (2005) and Jemmett-Smith et al (2015), both would give dust devil contributions of less than 1% to the total mineral dust budget on Earth.…”

“…However, dust devils can be a major dust event type on regional scales depending on the season, such as in the Eldorado (Nevada) or Avra Valleys (Arizona), USA (Sinclair 1969;, in parts of the Atacama and Sechura deserts in South America (Kurgansky et al 2011;Hesse 2012;Reiss et al 2013;Jemmett-Smith et al 2015), or at locations in southeastern Australia (Oke et al 2007b;. As a large part of the dust lifting in dust devils occurs through aerodynamic entrainment, dust devils can still cause emissions from soil surfaces which contain little or no particles in the saltation size range.…”

History and Applications of Dust Devil Studies

“…On Earth, the first estimate by Koch and Renno (2005) was that dust devils may contribute by about 35 % to the total dust burden. More recent estimates suggest a contribution of about a factor of 10 less (∼3.4 %, Jemmett-Smith et al 2015).…”

Dust opacities inside the dust devil column in the Taklimakan Desert

“…Emissions of total primary particulate mass by DDs to the atmosphere are as high as 65 % in the United States (Gillette and Sinclair, 1990). About 77-87 % of the primary particulate mass emitted to the atmosphere in Chinese deserts is caused by DDs (Han et al, 2008;Deng et al, 2011;Zhang et al, 1994), while recent studies show that global dust uplift by DDs is about 3.4 % (Jemmett-Smith et al, 2015) even 1 % (Klose and Shao, 2016;Metzger et al, 2011). But some key factors like dust flux per DD and the fractional updraft area occupied by DDs in a convectively active region are still uncertainty in the calculation.…”