Introduction

The latest study by Robert J. Allen, James Gomez, Larry W. Horowitz, and Elena Shevliakova, published in Communications Earth & Environment, reveals an astonishingly profound discovery: if there is more vegetation to burn, it might burn more. Truly groundbreaking! This study, titled “Enhanced future vegetation growth with elevated carbon dioxide concentrations could increase fire activity“, dives deep into the complexities of models built upon other models to tell us something as obvious as saying the sky is blue. Let’s unpack this genius-level revelation.

Abstract

Many regions of the planet have experienced an increase in fire activity in recent decades. Although such increases are consistent with warming and drying under continued climate change, the driving mechanisms remain uncertain. Here, we investigate the effects of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations on future fire activity using seven Earth system models. Centered on the time of carbon dioxide doubling, the multi-model mean percent change in fire carbon emissions is 66.4 ± 38.8% (versus 1850 carbon dioxide concentrations, under fixed 1850 land-use conditions). A substantial increase is associated with enhanced vegetation growth due to carbon dioxide biogeochemical impacts at 60.1 ± 46.9%. In contrast, carbon dioxide radiative impacts, including warming and drying, yield a negligible response of fire carbon emissions at 1.7 ± 9.4%. Although model representation of fire processes remains uncertain, our results show the importance of vegetation dynamics to future increases in fire activity under increasing carbon dioxide, with potentially important policy implications.

The Core Hypothesis: More Vegetation Equals More Fire

The researchers investigate how increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations might influence future fire activity using seven Earth system models. Spoiler alert: they found that enhanced vegetation growth due to higher CO2 levels could lead to more fires. In simpler terms, if you fill a room with flammable materials, the room is more likely to catch fire. Profound, isn’t it?

Modeling the Obvious

The study uses seven Earth system models to project fire activity under increased CO2 levels. According to their findings, the multi-model mean percent change in fire carbon emissions is 66.4 ± 38.8% compared to 1850 levels. This increase is attributed mainly to enhanced vegetation growth, with carbon dioxide biogeochemical impacts contributing 60.1 ± 46.9%. Radiative impacts, which include warming and drying, yield a negligible response of 1.7 ± 9.4%.

Plus or minus 39% and 47%? This is no more accurate than throwing darts at a dartboard and using that for the results. Of course it is well known that hypothetical fires burn the hottest.

Here’s a direct quote from the study for added gravitas:

“Our results show the importance of vegetation dynamics to future increases in fire activity under increasing carbon dioxide, with potentially important policy implications”​​.

Essentially, the study highlights that more vegetation means more fuel, leading to increased fire activity. It’s like stating that a bigger bonfire will produce more heat—astounding!

Climbing the Intellectual Heights

The researchers emphasize that the increase in fire activity is robust across most land areas, particularly in North America, Europe, and Asia. They also note that the models show considerable spread in predictions, with the highest increase in fire activity projected by the GFDL-ESM4 model at 408.6%. This might remind one of the saying, “The fall from the penthouse is greater than the fall from the first floor.” The wealth of vegetation growth leads to a higher potential for loss—brilliantly insightful.

To quote the study again:

“Why do the models, under idealized increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, yield such a robust and large increase in fFire? Quantifying the causes of the fFire response can be difficult, due to the many processes that impact fire activity”​​.

Translation: it’s complicated, but more stuff to burn means more burning.

The Profound Policy Implications

This study doesn’t just stop at stating the obvious; it delves into the potential policy implications. The researchers suggest that understanding the relationship between CO2 levels, vegetation growth, and fire activity is crucial for future policy-making. Yes, policymakers should definitely consider that more vegetation might mean more fires. It’s like telling a firefighter to expect more work if people start building houses out of matchsticks.

Conclusions: A Masterclass in the Obvious

In conclusion, the study by Allen et al. is a masterclass in stating the obvious with a veneer of scientific complexity. The revelation that increased vegetation growth due to higher CO2 levels could lead to more fire activity is as profound as discovering that adding more logs to a fire makes it burn longer. This study is an excellent example of why we need to critically examine the real-world applicability and necessity of some scientific research. After all, what’s the point of wealth (increasing global greening) if you might lose it to fires? The penthouse might be luxurious, but the fall is much harder.

Let’s leave with a final quote from the study to ponder upon:

“Although considerable uncertainties remain, these models can reasonably reproduce the observed amount, interannual variability and seasonality of fire carbon emissions”​​.

Ackchyually, “considerable uncertainties” means they probably DON’T “reasonably reproduce…”

References

• Allen, R. J., Gomez, J., Horowitz, L. W., & Shevliakova, E. (2024). Enhanced future vegetation growth with elevated carbon dioxide concentrations could increase fire activity. Communications Earth & Environment, 5, Article 54. Available at: Nature Communications

This post highlights the absurdity and the overly complex modeling to state simple facts, serving as a critical reminder of the importance of questioning the necessity and real-world relevance of a huge number of scientific “studies.”

Link to the “Study” below

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01228-7