the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of global fire simulations in CMIP6 Earth system models
Abstract. Fire is the primary form of terrestrial ecosystem disturbance on a global scale and an important Earth system process. Most Earth system models (ESMs) have incorporated fire modeling, with 19 out of them submitting model outputs of fire-related variables to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). This study provides the first comprehensive evaluation of CMIP6 historical fire simulations by comparing them with multiple satellite-based products and charcoal-based historical reconstructions. Our results show that most CMIP6 models simulate the present-day global burned area and fire carbon emissions within the range of satellite-based products. They also capture the major features of observed spatial patterns and seasonal cycles, the relationship of fires with precipitation and population density, and the influence of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) on the interannual variability of tropical fires. Regional fire carbon emissions simulated by the CMIP6 models from 1850 to 2010 generally align with the charcoal-based reconstructions, although there are regional mismatches, such as in southern South America and eastern temperate North America prior to the 1910s and in temperate North America, eastern boreal North America, Europe, and boreal Asia since the 1980s. The CMIP6 simulations have addressed three critical issues identified in the CMIP5: (1) the simulated global burned area less than half of the observations, (2) the failure to reproduce the high burned area fraction observed in Africa, and (3) the weak fire seasonal variability. Furthermore, the CMIP6 models exhibit improved accuracy in capturing the observed relationship between fires and both climatic and socioeconomic drivers, and better align with the historical long-term trends indicated by charcoal-based reconstructions in most regions worldwide. However, the CMIP6 models still fail to reproduce the decline in global burned area and fire carbon emissions observed over the past two decades, mainly attributed to an underestimation of anthropogenic fire suppression, and the spring peak in fires in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, mainly due to an underestimation of crop fires. In addition, the model underestimates the fire sensitivity to wet-dry conditions, indicating the need to improve fuel wetness estimation. Based on these findings, we present specific guidance for fire scheme development and suggest the post-processing methodology for using CMIP6 multi-model outputs to generate reliable fire projection products.
- Preprint
(3079 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2986 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-85', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jun 2024
Li et al. 2024 evaluated global fire simulations in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) Earth system models as compared to observational benchmark datasets and CMIP5 results. Overall, CMIP6 shows better simulation performance than CMIP5, especially in capturing global spatial patterns, seasonal cycles, and interannual variability. However, this manuscript also pointed out that underestimation of anthropogenic (mostly crop) fires and models are needed to improve fuel wetness estimation. I believe this manuscript provides valuable insights not only from the evaluation perspective but also from the direction to develop a more accurate fire scheme in Earth system modeling. I only have one major concern before accepting this manuscript.
Major concern:
Each model in CMIP5/6 has diverse patterns in physical climatic factors that can modulate fire activities such as temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, and so on, because historical scenario results are from coupled climate simulations with online atmosphere, land, and ocean models. In CMIP6, a "land-hist" scenario is available, which is driven by Global Soil Wetness Project phase three (GSWP3), forcing data and offline land surface results. Therefore, comparing fire activity data (e.g., burnt area and C emission by fire) in a "land-hist" scenario would be a better comparison with the same given climatic forcing in different fire schemes and land surface models. The current result might be influenced by climatic simulation results, and we cannot separate pure impact from the fire scheme's contribution to different fire activity simulation results. Please consider employing a "land-hist" scenario for your evaluation of fire activity simulation performance.
Detailed "land-hist" scenario information below:
https://view.es-doc.org/index.html?renderMethod=id&project=cmip6&id=a77b98df-92df-453f-a506-735ba743ca74&version=1
Minor comments:
L9-10 on P10: ensemble mean (MME) -> multi-model ensemble (MME)
L13 on P10: big -> significant or large
L5 on P11: remove (MMEs)
L12 on P11: at the 0.05 level -> at the 95% confidence level (needed to modify throughout the whole manuscript)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-85-RC1 -
CC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-85', Yiquan Jiang, 27 Jun 2024
This paper presents a comprehensive assessment of fire simulations in 19 Earth System Models (ESMs) from CMIP6, representing a significant and timely contribution to the field. The authors systematically evaluate CMIP6 models' performance in simulating global and regional fire characteristics by comparing them with multiple satellite-based products and charcoal-based historical reconstructions. The results demonstrate substantial improvements in CMIP6 models across several aspects, including the simulation of global burned area, reproduction of high burned area fractions in Africa, and capture of fire seasonal variability. The authors also identify persistent issues, such as the failure to reproduce the observed decline in global burned area and fire carbon emissions over the past two decades, and the underestimation of spring fire peaks in Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes. In conclusion, this is a high-quality research paper that significantly contributes to understanding and improving fire simulations in Earth System Models. After minor revisions, this paper will provide valuable insights for researchers and model developers in related fields.
Detailed comments:
Page 3, Line 10: What are the potential reasons for CMIP5 models underestimating the simulated burned area?
Page 9, Line 10: Please specify the data source for the observed sea surface temperatures.
Page 11, Line 16: How well do EC-Earth3-CC and EC-Earth3-Veg simulate the climatology of precipitation and temperature? Does this affect their ability to simulate burned area in Africa?
Page 11, Line 17: What are the possible reasons for models overestimating burned area in the South American savannas? Is this due to biases in simulated climate background or issues with the fire module?
Figure 3: Please include the global average values of burned area from the three observational datasets in the figure.
Figure 4: Please label the global average values of fire carbon emissions from the three observational datasets in the figure.
Figure 5: Please indicate the data sources for the observed burned area and carbon emissions in the figure.
Page 17, Line 2: Please provide some references for the observed decline in burned area.
Page 17, Lines 5-10: This section of discussion seems to lack corresponding figures. Please consider adding relevant illustrations.
Figure 10: How is the coefficient of variability (CV) of interannual variability defined?
Page 20, Line 5: Why do models using the Li scheme show different errors in simulating the interannual variability of burned area and carbon emissions?
Page 20, Line 20: Are the errors in MPI models possibly due to poor simulation of relationships with ENSO and precipitation?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-85-CC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2024-85', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Jul 2024
General Comments:
The paper "Evaluation of global fire simulations in CMIP6 Earth system models" provides an important contribution to the field of Earth system modeling. It offers a comprehensive assessment of CMIP6 historical fire simulations, comparing them with satellite-based products, charcoal-based reconstructions and CMIP5 historical fire simulations. The paper is well-structured, with a clear presentation of methods, results, and discussions. The study effectively highlights improvements in CMIP6 models over CMIP5, providing valuable insights into the state fire modeling and its implications for climate and environmental research.
Specific Comments:
- Introduction:
- The introduction effectively sets the context by explaining the role of fire in the Earth system and the advancements in fire modeling from CMIP5 to CMIP6.
- Consider elaborating more on the specific limitations of previous fire models to strengthen the study's rationale.
- The following two sentences contradict each other:
Page 2, Line 7: “However, the CMIP6 models still fail to reproduce the decline in global burned area and fire carbon emissions observed over the past two decades, mainly attributed to an underestimation of anthropogenic fire suppression,”
Page 2, Line 25: “Despite a reduction in the global burned area over the past two decades, emissions from forest fires and the occurrence of extreme fires have increased (Andela et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2021).“
Are you stating a decline in fire carbon emissions along with burned area or an increase in fire carbon emissions in spite of a burned area decline?
- Methods:
- The methodology is robust, with detailed descriptions of data sources, fire schemes, and evaluation metrics.
- The use of multiple satellite-based products and charcoal records for validation is commendable.
- Including a flowchart summarizing the methodological framework would enhance clarity.
- Page 5, Line 9: “The SPITFIRE scheme is the most complex since it uses the Rothermel model to calculate the fire spread rate in the downwind direction,” - Li et al also uses the Rothermel scheme, so mentioning it as a distinction of SPITFIRE is confusing.
- Results:
- The results section is thorough, covering global totals, spatial patterns, seasonal cycles, trends, interannual variability, and relationships with climatic and socioeconomic factors.
- The documented improvements in CMIP6 models over CMIP5 are well-supported by clear figures and tables.
- A more detailed discussion on regional discrepancies and their potential causes would be beneficial.
- Page 10, Line 10: add the word “lower” - “fall within the lower range of satellite-based products”
- Please address the reason why some fire models simulate burned area and fire carbon emissions over the Sahara (Figures 3-5).
- In section 3.3 and perhaps throughout the Results section it would be helpful to spell out whether biases in results are due to biases in drivers or in the components existing/missing from the fire scheme, potentially with a table stating the dominating factors.
- Conclusions and Discussion:
- The summary effectively summarizes the key findings and their implications.
- The discussion appropriately contextualizes the findings within the broader literature and identifies critical issues in current fire models.
- The suggestions for future model development are insightful and practical.
Technical Corrections:
- Page 2, Line 3: Replace “the simulated global burned area less than half of the observations” with “the simulated global burned area is less than half of the observations”
- Page 10, Line 15: Replace "are a range" with "show a range".
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-85-RC2 - Introduction:
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
539 | 189 | 27 | 755 | 67 | 20 | 21 |
- HTML: 539
- PDF: 189
- XML: 27
- Total: 755
- Supplement: 67
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1