Downscaled CMIP5 projections of physical fire risk understate historical trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reliable projections of wildfire risk are important for multi-sector impacts analysis. Statistically downscaled and bias-corrected Earth system model ensemble products are routinely used to analyze regional physical wildfire risk, but evaluations of historical observed trends and variability are lacking. Here, we evaluate physical fire risk over the western United States using the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) by comparing model outputs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), statistically downscaled via the Multivariate Adaptive Constructed Analogs (MACA) approach, against the observational target dataset gridMET, a gridded high-resolution surface meteorological product. We analyze multidecadal trends and interannual variability in seasonal average FWI for the historical period and future projections under two emissions scenarios, and we compare MACA-CMIP5 ensemble results with a simple time series model that generates historical and future projections of seasonal FWI based on bootstrapping observed historical trends and variability. Our findings indicate that MACA-CMIP5 accurately captures the magnitude and spatial patterns of seasonally averaged FWI but tends to underestimate historical decadal trends. We show that future increases in fire risk may be underestimated relative to the simple time series model that projects historical variability into the future. We also highlight that model biases in relative humidity contribute significantly to model-data differences. Our results underscore the importance of historical hindcasting exercises for informing broader multi-sector applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".