Articles | Volume 15, issue 22
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8411–8437, 2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8411-2022
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8411–8437, 2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8411-2022
Model description paper
 | Highlight paper
21 Nov 2022
Model description paper  | Highlight paper | 21 Nov 2022

Global biomass burning fuel consumption and emissions at 500 m spatial resolution based on the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED)

Dave van Wees et al.

Related authors

Modelling biomass burning emissions and the effect of spatial resolution: a case study for Africa based on the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED)
Dave van Wees and Guido R. van der Werf
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4681–4703, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4681-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4681-2019, 2019
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Ocean Modeling with Adaptive REsolution (OMARE; version 1.0) – refactoring the NEMO model (version 4.0.1) with the parallel computing framework of JASMIN – Part 1: Adaptive grid refinement in an idealized double-gyre case
Yan Zhang, Xuantong Wang, Yuhao Sun, Chenhui Ning, Shiming Xu, Hengbin An, Dehong Tang, Hong Guo, Hao Yang, Ye Pu, Bo Jiang, and Bin Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 679–704, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-679-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-679-2023, 2023
Short summary
Monthly-scale extended predictions using the atmospheric model coupled with a slab ocean
Zhenming Wang, Shaoqing Zhang, Yishuai Jin, Yinglai Jia, Yangyang Yu, Yang Gao, Xiaolin Yu, Mingkui Li, Xiaopei Lin, and Lixin Wu
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 705–717, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-705-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-705-2023, 2023
Short summary
stoPET v1.0: a stochastic potential evapotranspiration generator for simulation of climate change impacts
Dagmawi Teklu Asfaw, Michael Bliss Singer, Rafael Rosolem, David MacLeod, Mark Cuthbert, Edisson Quichimbo Miguitama, Manuel F. Rios Gaona, and Katerina Michaelides
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 557–571, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-557-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-557-2023, 2023
Short summary
URANOS v1.0 – the Ultra Rapid Adaptable Neutron-Only Simulation for Environmental Research
Markus Köhli, Martin Schrön, Steffen Zacharias, and Ulrich Schmidt
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 449–477, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-449-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-449-2023, 2023
Short summary
Combining regional mesh refinement with vertically enhanced physics to target marine stratocumulus biases as demonstrated in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 1
Peter A. Bogenschutz, Hsiang-He Lee, Qi Tang, and Takanobu Yamaguchi
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 335–352, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-335-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-335-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Abatzoglou, J. T., Williams, A. P., and Barbero, R.: Global Emergence of Anthropogenic Climate Change in Fire Weather Indices, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 326–336, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080959, 2019. 
Ballhorn, U., Siegert, F., Mason, M., and Limin, S.: Derivation of burn scar depths and estimation of carbon emissions with LIDAR in Indonesian peatlands, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 106, 21213–21218, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906457106, 2009. 
Berbery, E. H., Ciappesoni, H. C., and Kalnay, E.: The smoke episode in Buenos Aires, 15–20 April 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L21801, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL035278, 2008. 
Download
Executive editor
Fire is a pervasive feature of the Earth system, and a cause of significant carbon emissions. This manuscript presents a higher resolution fire emissions data set than previously available, thereby providing a valuable resource to the scientific community.
Short summary
We present a global fire emission model based on the GFED model framework with a spatial resolution of 500 m. The higher resolution allowed for a more detailed representation of spatial heterogeneity in fuels and emissions. Specific modules were developed to model, for example, emissions from fire-related forest loss and belowground burning. Results from the 500 m model were compared to GFED4s, showing that global emissions were relatively similar but that spatial differences were substantial.