Global warming increases potential wildfire damage in Mediterranean Europe

October 3, 2018, University of Barcelona
Simulation of the burned area for global warming cases of an increase by 1.5 ºC, 2 ºC and 3 ºC. On the left side, a case applying the stationary model (SM), and the case with a non-stationary model (NSM) at the right. Dots show the areas where at least the 50 % of simulations show a statistically significant change. Credit: Marco Turco et al.

A study published in Nature Communications, led by researchers at the University of Barcelona in collaboration with other research institutions, shows that anthropogenic warming will increase the burned areas due to fires in Mediterranean Europe, and that this increase could be reduced by limiting global warming to 1.5 ºC. The higher the warming level, the larger the increase of the burned area is.

"To draw this conclusion, we combined regional climate projections with several empirical models linking the summer burned area to key climatic drivers," notes Marco Turco, UB researcher and first author of the study. "These results support the statement of the Paris Agreement (2015) that reports that limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 ºC would "significantly reduce the risks and impacts of ," says the researcher.

Fire seasons in 2017 and 2018 have been unusually high in several regions in Europe, with large wildfires in Greece, Portugal and Sweden, associated with intense droughts and heatwaves. These fires caused economic and ecological losses, and even human casualties.

Marco Turco and his team used a series of regional climate models to project burned area in Mediterranean Europe, taking into account how the climate-vegetation-fire relationship will change under different scenarios due other factors such as droughts. The authors find that, with a 1.5 º C , the burned area could increase by 40 percent compared the projections that do not account for future (mainly in the Iberian Peninsula). If warming is at 3 ºC, it would increase by 100 percent.

Simulation of the burned area for global warming cases of an increase by 1.5 ºC, 2 ºC and 3 ºC. On the left side, a case applying the stationary model (SM), and the case with a non-stationary model (NSM) at the right. Dots show the areas where at least the 50 % of simulations show a statistically significant change. Credit: Marco Turco et al.
"These results, combined with the increase in societal exposure to large wildfires in recent years, call for a rethinking of current management strategies. Climate change effects could overcome fire prevention efforts, implying that more fire management efforts must be planned in the near future," says Marco Turco, researcher in the Group of Analysis of Adverse Weather Situations (GAMA) of the University of Barcelona, led by Carme Llasat, lecturer at the Department of Applied Physics of the UB. The development of climate-fire models is crucial to identify key actions in adaptation strategies. In particular, combined with seasonal climate forecasts, these offer an under-exploited opportunity to prevent and reduce the impact of adverse conditions.

Explore further: Europe fires to worsen even if climate goals met: study

More information: Marco Turco et al, Exacerbated fires in Mediterranean Europe due to anthropogenic warming projected with non-stationary climate-fire models, Nature Communications (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-06358-z

Related Stories

Is fire the new normal in the American West?

August 9, 2018

The summer of 1988 was unusually hot, dry and windy in the American West, and 30 years ago this year, those conditions combined at Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming to create what were among the largest and most severe ...

Recommended for you

Fish give up the fight after coral bleaching

October 22, 2018

Researchers found that when water temperatures heat up for corals, fish 'tempers' cool down, providing the first clear evidence of coral bleaching serving as a trigger for rapid change in reef fish behaviour.

Evidence of earliest life on Earth disputed

October 17, 2018

When Australian scientists presented evidence in 2016 of life on Earth 3.7 billon years ago—pushing the record back 220 million years—it was a big deal, influencing even the search for life on Mars.

17 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2018
Well, why not start something. The AGW narrative...CO2 drives global temperature rise. The math:

Earths mean temp. 58.3F (2013 number). CO2 PPM 420 (.00042% of the earths atmosphere is CO2) The current claim is that if this reaches 500PPM we will be up 2C because of said increase...can you see the discord yet? 8/10000 of a percent increase in atmospheric content of a trace gas which emits heat on a random vector only upon kinetic contact is going to cause an almost 2% rise in temperature???? Not even close to possible. CO2 cannot drive temperature rise on a global scale as claimed. It just doesn't have the legs. And yes, I also disagree with the commonly reported "97%" consensus garbage that is reported by the MEDIA. The math is too straight forward for this to be the actual case. If we are warming as reported it is not because of CO2 loading.
zz5555
4 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2018
This is an incredibly silly argument. It completely ignores the strength of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. There are many substances whose strength is very powerful even at low doses (look up botulism sometime), so the "trace gas" claim is powerful evidence of your incompetence. The basic science of greenhouse gases is well understood and not that difficult. The natural levels of greenhouse gases (~260PPM) results in earth's climate being ~33c warmer than without greenhouse gases. Because of the non-linear relationship, the increase to 520PPM will result in ~3C temperature increase. There really isn't much dispute with that from a science standpoint. It's only political/religious beliefs that object to the science.
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2018
That is an incredibly ill researched reply written by someone with apparently no knowledge whatsoever of how the earths heat system functions, an example:

"The natural levels of greenhouse gases (~260PPM) results in earth's climate being ~33c warmer than without greenhouse gases"

That is CO2 content...not total greenhouse gas content. Water vapor at its lowest concentration is .01% of the atmosphere ( "The percentage water vapor in surface air varies from 0.01% at -42 °C (-44 °F)[16] to 4.24% when the dew point is 30 °C (86 °F)".) And is better at heat trapping than CO2. So we have water vapor at 10,000 PPM at its lowest concentration as a greenhouse gas. We heat the planet more by breathing than we do with CO2 input.

"so the "trace gas" claim is powerful evidence of your incompetence"

Spoken by someone with absolutely no grasp on the meaning of "trace gas". And you compared a molecule to a virus to boot...are you the jonesdave of climate science?
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2018
" There really isn't much dispute with that from a science standpoint."

So say something scientific instead of just voicing your opinion.

" It's only political/religious beliefs that object to the science. "

It's only political/economical propaganda that support any science making the claims made around CO2. Earths primary variables for surface temperature: Solar irradiance, bb radiation, greenhouse gases, internal heat escaping and the solar wind. The claim of CO2 proponents that something which constitutes .00042% of the atmosphere... one of the sources heating the surface, can drive the entire system up any percentage higher than it's own contribution to one out five sources is beyond laughable.

People who believe this garbage are people who don't understand how the math and ratios work. But if you have math demonstrating how .00042% content of an atmospheric gas can retain enough heat to heat the entire system an additional 2C by upping it to .00008%. go for it.
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2018
Lastly, saying 260PPM is the "natural" level given where the max. and min. measurements are is the start of the smoke screen to push the agenda. The levels of CO2 have fluctuated throughout earths history and always will, and life has persisted through it all. Attaching the word "pollution" to a gas that is Omni-present regardless of what or who is here and is actually required by plants to execute biological processes should be your first clue it isn't scientifically sound. But try getting any funding from anywhere for a study to disprove the narrative...

If the earth were cooling right now, we would be told we were responsible, why, and how much we would have to pay to fix it. And it would be the same people telling us those lies as these ones, because the worldview is provided to the masses for economic reasons, not honest ones.

Sorry, above that should read "by .00008%"...not to .00008%.
zz5555
5 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2018
That is CO2 content...not total greenhouse gas content. Water vapor at its lowest concentration is .01% of the atmosphere ( "The percentage water vapor in surface air varies from 0.01% at -42 °C (-44 °F)[16] to 4.24% when the dew point is 30 °C (86 °F)".)

Water vapor is a condensing ghg. The amount of water vapor in the air depends on the temperature of the air. It cannot drive the temperature - it's only a feedback. Only non-condensing ghgs, like CO2, can drive temperatures. This is very, very basic stuff. You should try asking questions when you aren't knowledgeable about a topic.

By the way, botulism is caused by the toxin (produced by bacteria, not a virus). It's fatal in very small doses - traces - because the toxin is very powerful. Just like CO2 is a powerful ghg. Trace does not mean ineffective.
SteveS
5 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2018
Well, why not start something. The AGW narrative...CO2 drives global temperature rise. The math:


Water vapor feedback

https://www.annua...25.1.441
https://journals....0.CO%3B2
http://science.sc...970/1219
https://journals....li3990.1
https://agupubs.o...GL035333
https://www.natur...349500a0
https://agupubs.o...029p0130
https://journals....LI3329.1

The math is too straight forward for this to be the actual case.


Don't tell us, tell the authors of the above papers.
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2018
" It cannot drive the temperature - it's only a feedback. "

Try dropping the global atmospheric content to 420PPM and see how true the above statement is. Did you even think about what that meant when you said it? I know it is part of the narrative, but did you really think about it?

Botulism is effective in a "trace amount" because of what it does to a specific aspect of human physiology, sorry I called it a virus instead of a bacteria. But it cannot be remotely compared to the physics of heat exchange. If you want to believe because one happens the other also does, that's your choice...ill informed though it may be.

Steve S, read the abstract in your third link. To the authors of the paper above...read the abstract of Steve's third link.
" Only non-condensing ghgs, like CO2, can drive temperatures. "
See the abstract in Steve's 3rd link and my opening remark here...try to think before you repeat someone elses propaganda that is patently and provably wrong.

SteveS
5 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2018
Steve S, read the abstract in your third link. To the authors of the paper above...read the abstract of Steve's third link.
" Only non-condensing ghgs, like CO2, can drive temperatures. "


Try re-reading the abstract in my third link

Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.

Where's your quote?
barakn
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2018
Steve S, read the abstract in your third link. To the authors of the paper above...read the abstract of Steve's third link.
" Only non-condensing ghgs, like CO2, can drive temperatures. "
See the abstract in Steve's 3rd link and my opening remark here...try to think before you repeat someone elses propaganda that is patently and provably wrong.- thepill
The paper you referred to was only about stratospheric water vapor, whereas SteveS is referring to the sum total of water's effects, including liquid and solid phases which are highly reflective in the frequency range of sunlight. The stratosphere contains a tiny amount of water in comparison to the troposphere, and you are trying to convince us this small amount is representative of water's behaviour everywhere - a typical "tail wagging the dog" story. Sad.
SteveS
5 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2018
@theredpill

Don't worry, I just noticed where you got the quote from.

zz5555 is right water vapor is in equilibrium with temperature, CO2 upsets that equilibrium, higher temperature more water vapor, more water vapor higher temperature until the equilibrium is reached again. Hence water vapor feedback.

ps I don't think any of the authors read Physorg, you will probably have to contact them personally to tell them how wrong you think they are.
theredpill
3 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2018
you are trying to convince us this small amount is representative of water's behaviour everywhere - a typical "tail wagging the dog" story. Sad.

For some reason you believe that water traps heat differently depending on what part of the atmosphere it is in is the truly sad thing. Here I'll try the math this way and see if you get it: 420 out of 1000,000 molecules in the atmosphere are CO2, if the earths atmospheric surface temp. is 58.3F and 80 more PPM out of 1000,000 will cause a 2C (3.5F) rise in temperature, the AGW narrative is that .00042% of the atmosphere is responsible for 33% of the heat it stores, and hilariously enough your claim of it being "non-linear" means it is actually more because according to AGW math 1PPM means more closer to zero than it does to 1000. Tail wagging the dog indeed....you guys are smarter than this. Or so you keep telling me....
theredpill
3 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2018
"zz5555 is right water vapor is in equilibrium with temperature"

It is eh? Yet another statement made without thinking about what it actually means. I assume you are paraphrasing from when he said " The amount of water vapor in the air depends on the temperature of the air." Well then it's a good thing the humidex is useless....you know that whole "temperature is "X" but it feels like "Y" because of the humidity. Thermal equilibrium deals with the pressure water exerts at certain temperatures...not it's quantity.

SteveS
not rated yet Oct 05, 2018
"zz5555 is right water vapor is in equilibrium with temperature"

It is eh? Yet another statement made without thinking about what it actually means. I assume you are paraphrasing from when he said " The amount of water vapor in the air depends on the temperature of the air."


No I'm stating a fact, please read the papers I linked to.

There's no shame in not understanding something if you willing to learn, just don't shout at everybody because your not.
theredpill
3 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2018
Well steve I read the first 3...just pick the quote from the one you are referring to and post it to clarify what you did mean.

I didn't realize my posts were volume adjustable, but I wasn't shouting. Since you know the content of your papers so well can you possibly show where they explain that .00042% of the atmospheric content is responsible for 33% of the heat retention? And where it is experimentally backed that what they are saying is accurate?

There's no shame in following the mass consensus...until you want to debate on behalf of it without confirming whether it warrants your support.
zz5555
5 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2018
Since you know the content of your papers so well can you possibly show where they explain that .00042% of the atmospheric content is responsible for 33% of the heat retention? And where it is experimentally backed that what they are saying is accurate?

Before I provide links, I think I ought to mention that I don't have any great hope that you'll actually look at them. Your comments to date have contained nothing but misunderstandings or outright misinformation. My experience with dealing with those who oppose science has been that when confronted with real science, they just ignore it. I'm happy to help people understand the science if I can, but I have little patience for those who are arrogant in their ignorance and argue via logical fallacies.

Anyway, I think the following site discusses why CO2 isn't ineffective as a ghg: https://scienceof...map/co2/

Make sure to read all 8 parts, but part 1 includes experimental evidence.
zz5555
5 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2018
By the way, here's a small discussion on how water vapor acts only as a feedback and not as a forcing: https://www.acs.o...co2.html (note that the article disproves the title). For a more in depth view of water vapor, you might check https://scienceof...r-vapor/

Good luck and have fun reading. There's not a lot more fun than reading science (other than doing it ;).

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.