the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C minimises projected global increases in fire weather days, but adaptation to new fire regimes is still needed
Abstract. Understanding future shifts in fire weather risk, including peak season, transitional and off-season, will be crucial for reshaping fire preparation and management in order to adapt to climate change. This study explores future climate-driven projections of fire weather using the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) across three Global Warming Levels (GWLs) with two future emissions scenarios – 1.5 °C, 2.0 °C under both RCP2.6 and RCP8.5, and 4.0 °C under RCP8.5. Using a large, perturbed physics ensemble, we assess uncertainty in fire weather projections globally and for three regions: Australia, Brazil, and the USA. In addition to season length and peak FFDI, we evaluate transitions in meteorological fire danger periods and shifts in low-fire weather windows to inform fire management throughout the annual cycle. We project a global rise in fire weather days and severity at all GWLs, with the largest increases in Australia, followed by Brazil and the USA. At 1.5 °C, the area exposed to Very High fire weather (FFDI ≥ 24) expands by 31 % (25 %–36 %) relative to a baseline of 1986–2005. Higher GWLs drive further increases, with more than a threefold rise in Very High fire weather days from 2.0 °C to 4.0 °C, emphasising the mitigation benefits of limiting global warming to well below 2.0 °C as intended by the Paris Agreement. The transition from High to Very High, a proxy for the start of the fire season, advances, by 9–12 days in Australia, 16–22 days in Brazil, and 8–24 days in the USA. Despite these changes, low-fire windows persist, providing crucial opportunities for out-of-season preparation such as controlled burns. Our findings highlight the need for both emissions reductions and adaptive strategies, including accounting for changes in out-of-season fire risks when employing management techniques that rely on pre-fire season preparations.
- Preprint
(1749 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-720', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Apr 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-720', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 May 2025
This study investigates projected changes in fire weather, focusing on the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) across three distinct regions: Australia, Brazil, and the USA. While the authors conduct several types of analyses, the overall novelty of the work is somewhat limited. Nevertheless, I am not necessarily opposed to this; the methods and analyses are sound, data sets are public, which I appreciate. However, the study needs to present more specific insights. As the title suggests, the main focus lies in understanding future fire weather changes and potential mitigation strategies. In my opinion, there is potential to deepen this focus. Below are some of the main issues and suggestions on how to address them.
Introduction:
As the first reviewer already pointed out, the study lacks a clearly defined research gap. Given that it compares three climatically and geographically diverse regions, there is an inherent strength in highlighting region-specific mitigation strategies and identifying similarities and differences based on local conditions. However, the current text remains too broad and reads more like a general overview. I recommend restructuring the introduction to clearly define the research gap and then justify the choice of focusing on Australia, Brazil, and the USA. In addition, existing other FFDI products and the state of the art should be summarized, with a clear explanation of how the Perturbed Physics Ensemble approach can yield new insights.Methods:
There is considerable repetition between the justification provided in the introduction and the methods section. This could be streamlined. The methods section should focus on technical clarity. Important technical details—such as the spatial resolution of the datasets, software used to estimate the FFDI, and other relevant aspects should be added.Results and Figures:
While the study claims to focus on three specific regions, only global-scale maps are shown. This is a missed opportunity. To align with the paper’s stated goals, I strongly recommend including detailed regional breakdowns, for instance zoom-ins on Australia, Brazil, and the USA, particularly where changes in FFDI are most significant. Instead of clipping results only to non-burnable land, including hotspots of burnable land (e.g., using a proxy for fuel loads) could make the recommendations more specific.Figure 5 stands out as the most promising in terms of offering new insight into mitigation potentials. It would be valuable to expand this part of the discussion.
Figure 6 shows that several extreme years are expected in the future. This deserves a closer look: what do these extremes look like regionally? Which areas are most at risk? It would be useful to analyze a few “what-if” scenarios more deeply—especially if the PPE approach allows a better understanding of tail risks than traditional GCM ensembles.
Discussion:
The discussion begins to touch on relevant points but currently lacks depth. The section on the different regions holds the most promise in my opinion, but the latter part feels somewhat half-hearted, especially where it lists potential future research questions without any explaining how this study contributes to solving them.General:
All in all, I share many of the concerns raised by reviewer 1, particularly regarding consistency in terminology and the lack of depth in the analysis. However, I still believe the study could make a valuable contribution once the text is improved and the novel aspects are clarified.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720-RC2
Data sets
Global Daily FFDI Projections from HadCM3C Perturbed Physics Ensemble - RCP2.6 I. Taylor et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14860331
Global Daily FFDI Projections from HadCM3C Perturbed Physics Ensemble - RCP8.5 I. Taylor et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14859064
Model code and software
Analysis code for Limiting global warming to 1.5°C minimises projected global increases in fire weather days, but adaptation to new fire regimes is still needed I. Taylor et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14871362
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
658 | 118 | 19 | 795 | 12 | 33 |
- HTML: 658
- PDF: 118
- XML: 19
- Total: 795
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 33
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Referee comments
General comments
This is another global and regional assessment study of changes in fire weather (FW) carried out based on: (i) a meteorological fire danger index calculated with values of meteorological variables/climate elements, such as precipitation, temperature and air humidity; and (ii) climate model simulations for different GWLs and scenarios (in this case, the surpassed RCP). Unsurprisingly, the study concludes that the values of the chosen index and metrics will increase and that the increases are proportional to the increasing severity of the GWLs and scenarios. This is one of the main problems with the manuscript: what’s new?
Additionally, this study suffers from other serious problems, which I will detail in the more specific comments. Together, these issues prevent you from recommending this manuscript for publication.
Specific comments
Technical corrections
The manuscript requires a large number of corrections, as a result of an excessive number of typos, errors in writing units (e.g., unit “stuck” to the numerical value, e.g., “1.5m” and “10m” in lines 199-200, but also other errors such as “km/hr1” in line 200) and even citations, for example, “by (Noble et al., 1980)” (line 102), “by (Noble et al., 1980)” (line 116), etc. Please use an n-dash instead of a minus sign to define a period.
Authors should review the entire manuscript to identify and correct any existing errors.