Articles | Volume 15, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1055-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Fire weather compromises forestation-reliant climate mitigation pathways
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 15 Aug 2024)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 19 Jan 2024)
- Supplement to the preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-15', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Feb 2024
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Felix Jäger, 20 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-15', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Feb 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Felix Jäger, 20 Mar 2024
Peer review completion
AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (28 Mar 2024) by Anping Chen
AR by Felix Jäger on behalf of the Authors (26 Apr 2024)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (04 Jun 2024) by Anping Chen
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (04 Jun 2024)
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (20 Jun 2024)
ED: Publish as is (02 Jul 2024) by Anping Chen
AR by Felix Jäger on behalf of the Authors (02 Jul 2024)
Manuscript
Carbon sink is a crucial strategy for mitigating the effects of climate change, but wildfires have multiple perturbations to vegetation carbon storage. The authors simulated forestation-dependent climate mitigation scenarios using five integrated assessment models. The burned area caused by fire weather was projected over future forested regions. While the topic is very interesting and relevant to the scope of EGUsphere, the MS suffers from several major weaknesses that need to be addressed.
Introduction:
1) The literature review section should not simply list what the other researchers have done. I suggest that the authors briefly discuss how the problems addressed by previous studies advance the research topic here.
2) The authors thoroughly discussed the mechanisms of wildfires affecting carbon sinks. It would be useful to add more recent data on how much of the global carbon sink is affected by wildfires.
3) The last paragraph: ‘How to set up and how to improve the experiment’ is not an appropriate scientific question. I suggest reorganizing this paragraph.
Results:
1) The 2090 fire risk for MESSAGE-GLOBIOM and REMIND-MAgPIE is lower than that during 2050 in Figure 4a, but in Figure 4b the results are reversed. It is confusing.
2) The multi-model results reveal a less than 35% increase of FWI in 2090, but the increase in the burned area could be close to 80% (Figure 4a, b). If planted trees are greatly likely to be at risk of fire, are they still needed? If they are needed, how can they be protected from fire based on your results? I suggest the authors briefly discuss it.
3) There are large differences between the projected and observed forest areas in 2020 (Figure 1). There are also large differences in the magnitudes and patterns of projections from different models (Figure 5), although they all show an upward risk. How can these results be credible?
4) Figure 5 sets values from -0.5 to 0.5 to the same color, which does not help distinguish the areas of decreasing FWI.