Downscaled CMIP5 projections of physical fire risk understate historical trends

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 lac...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental Research Letters
Main Authors: Theo C Avila, David C Lafferty, Madeline Stover, Spencer Guerrero, Charumeghana Samantula, Ian Sue Wing, Ryan L Sriver
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: IOP Publishing 2025-01-01
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ade892
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:1748-9326