null
(Ed.)
Abstract. Global fire-vegetation models are widely used to assessimpacts of environmental change on fire regimes and the carbon cycle and toinfer relationships between climate, land use and fire. However,differences in model structure and parameterizations, in both the vegetationand fire components of these models, could influence overall modelperformance, and to date there has been limited evaluation of how welldifferent models represent various aspects of fire regimes. The Fire ModelIntercomparison Project (FireMIP) is coordinating the evaluation ofstate-of-the-art global fire models, in order to improve projections of firecharacteristics and fire impacts on ecosystems and human societies in thecontext of global environmental change. Here we perform a systematicevaluation of historical simulations made by nine FireMIP models to quantifytheir ability to reproduce a range of fire and vegetation benchmarks. TheFireMIP models simulate a wide range in global annual total burnt area(39–536 Mha) and global annual fire carbon emission (0.91–4.75 Pg C yr−1) for modern conditions (2002–2012), but most of the range in burntarea is within observational uncertainty (345–468 Mha). Benchmarking scoresindicate that seven out of nine FireMIP models are able to represent thespatial pattern in burnt area. The models also reproduce the seasonality inburnt area reasonably well but struggle to simulate fire season length andare largely unable to represent interannual variations in burnt area.However, models that represent cropland fires see improved simulation offire seasonality in the Northern Hemisphere. The three FireMIP models whichexplicitly simulate individual fires are able to reproduce the spatialpattern in number of fires, but fire sizes are too small in key regions, andthis results in an underestimation of burnt area. The correct representationof spatial and seasonal patterns in vegetation appears to correlate with abetter representation of burnt area. The two older fire models included inthe FireMIP ensemble (LPJ–GUESS–GlobFIRM, MC2) clearly perform less wellglobally than other models, but it is difficult to distinguish between theremaining ensemble members; some of these models are better at representingcertain aspects of the fire regime; none clearly outperforms all othermodels across the full range of variables assessed.
more »
« less
