Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
54
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
54 results for “fire models”
Plot-level field data and model simulation results, archived to accompany Turner et al. manuscript; reports data from summer 2017 sampling of short-interval fires that burned during summer 2016 in Greater Yellowstone.
Subalpine forests in the northern Rocky Mountains have been resilient to stand-replacing fires that historically burned at 100–300-yr intervals. Fire intervals are projected to decline drastically as climate warms, and forests that reburn before recovering from previous fire may lose their ability to rebound. We studied recent fires in Greater Yellowstone (Wyoming, USA) and asked whether short-interval (less than 30 yrs) stand-replacing fires can erode lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) forest resilience via increased burn severity, reduced early postfire tree regeneration, reduced carbon stocks, and slower carbon recovery. During 2016, fires reburned young lodgepole pine forests that regenerated after wildfires in 1988 and 2000. During 2017, we sampled 0.25-ha plots in stand-replacing reburns (n=18) and nearby young forests that did not reburn (n=9). We also simulated stand development with and without reburns to assess carbon recovery trajectories. Nearly all prefire biomass was combusted ("crown fire plus") in some reburns in which prefire trees were dense and small (≤ 4 cm basal diameter). Postfire tree seedling density was reduced six-fold relative to the previous (long-interval) fire, and high-density stands (greater than 40,000 stems ha-1) were converted to sparse stands (less than 1,000 stems ha-1). In reburns, coarse wood biomass and aboveground carbon stocks were reduced by 65% and 62%, respectively, relative to areas that did not reburn. Increased carbon loss plus sparse tree regeneration delayed simulated carbon recovery by greater than 150 yrs. Forests did not transition to nonforest, but extreme burn severity and reduced tree recovery foreshadow an erosion of forest resilience.
Model outputs: Historical (1700–2012) Global Multi-model Estimates of the Fire Emissions from the Fire Modeling Intercomparison Project (FireMIP)
<p>This dataset contains the fire model outputs of emissions for 34 species (elements, compounds, and classes of compounds) as described in the following:</p> <p>Li, F., Val Martin, M., Hantson, S., Andreae, M. O., Arneth, A., Lasslop, G., Yue, C., Bachelet, D., Forrest, M., Kaiser, J. W., Kluzek, E., Liu, X., Melton, J. R., Ward, D. S., Darmenov, A., Hickler, T., Ichoku, C., Magi, B. I., Sitch, S., van der Werf, G. R., Wiedinmyer, C., and Rabin, S.: Historical (1700–2012) Global Multi-model Estimates of the Fire Emissions from the Fire Modeling Intercomparison Project (FireMIP), <em>Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.</em>, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-37, accepted pending technical corrections, 2019.</p> <p>See Readme for more information.</p>
Data, Analytical Code, and Model Outputs From: "Green is the New Black: Outcomes of Post-Fire Tree Planting Across the Interior West, USA"
<p>This archive includes data (locations of tree plantings, one-year survival records, remotely sensed canopy cover change), statistical code, and model outputs from Rodman et al. (2024). For more information on specific information, processing methods, and data formats, see "README.md" or "README.html" files associated with this archive</p>
Structure of the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index System: the model and its components
<p>This material is part of:</p> <p>de Rigo, D. 2018. <strong>The Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index System: a synopsis of computational semantics</strong>. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4046673<br><br><strong>Structure of the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index system: the model and its components</strong> — The <a href="../record/10806780#preview-iframe">figure below</a> (formats: <a href="../record/10806780/files/FWI-sys_simple_diagram.png?download=1">PNG</a> or <a href="../record/10806780/files/FWI-sys_simple_diagram.pdf?download=1">PDF</a>) shows the logical subdivision of the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index system (FWI-sys) in components.</p> <p> </p> <p>The Canadian FWI-sys (De Groot,1987; Van Wagner,1987) is an index of fire danger by weather designed to consider the effects on vegetation fuels of the sequence of weather conditions. It is designed to estimate a uniform numerical rating for the relative fire potential accounting for the local sequence of temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, and precipitation, for the day in which the rating is estimated but also modelling the dynamics of the previous days. In addition, the variable amount of possible drying due to the varying solar irradiation in different seasons is taken into account by adjusting the parameters per each month of the year.<br><br>The system is standardised to consider the behaviour of a reference typology of vegetation fuel (mature pine stand) regardless of other non-weather factors which may locally influence the fire danger, such as the specific topography or the pattern, composition, and structure of vegetation assemblages. Therefore, FWI-sys is suitable to support the harmonised comparison among variable weather conditions, either spatially (comparing different spatial regions) or temporally (comparing the same region over time).<br><br>The FWI-sys components are organised in three layers, processing at the daily frequency weather information (either from observations, reanalysis, forecast, or climate scenarios) and estimating from it a final standard aggregated numerical rating of fire intensity.<br><br>The required input variables are</p> <ul> <li>Temperature T (nominally, FWI-sys requires T at noon)</li> <li>Wind speed W (nominally, FWI-sys requires T at noon)</li> <li>Relative humidity</li> <li>Precipitation (24-hour rainfall)</li> <li>Month of the year</li> </ul> <p>The FWI-sys was originally designed to fit the Candian conditions. Following its success, adaptations of the system were studied for different areas of the globe. This implies that the parameters used inside the FWI-sys globally also depend on the latitude (Alexander, 2008).</p> <p>The first layer of components (the <em>fuel moisture codes</em>: Fine Fuel Moisture Content, FFMC; Duff Moisture Code, DMC; Drought Code, DC) is composed by dynamic variables. This means that the value of each component for a given day depends also on the value of the same component the day before. The dynamic components with longer memory of their past history also approximate the seasonal changes in solar radiation, by considering the month of the year (see Figure, bottom left).</p> <ul> <li><strong>Fine Fuel Moisture Code (FFMC)</strong> : provides a numerical rating of the moisture content of the top litter and other cured fine fuels, indicating the relative ease of ignition and flammability of fine fuel.</li> <li><strong>Duff Moisture Code (DMC)</strong> : models a standard moisture content of loosely-compacted organic layers of moderate depth (duff layers and medium-sized woody material). This component of the FWI-sys represents wooden fuels of intermediate thickness.</li> <li><strong>Drought Code (DC)</strong> : models a standard moisture content of deeper, compact, organic layers. This component of the FWI-sys is able to track seasonal drought effects on coarse wooden fuels.</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p>The second layer of components (the<em> fire behaviour indices</em>: Initial Spread Index, ISI; Buildup Index, BUI; Fire Weather Index, FWI) mathematically is composed by stateless D-TM components. This means that these components do not have an internal memory of the past conditions, while instead they rely on the combined information offered by the different temporal inertia of the fuel moisture codes, which they process as input information.</p> <ul> <li><strong>Initial Spread Index (ISI)</strong> : represents the expected rate of fire spread. It considers the combined effects of wind and the FFMC on the rate of spread. However, it excludes the influence of fuel moisture and availabity for the coarser wooden fuels.</li> <li><strong>Buildup Index (BUI)</strong> : combines DMC and DC to model the total amount of fuel available for combustion to the spreading fire.</li> <li><strong>Fire Weather Index (FWI)</strong> : offers a standard aggregated numerical rating of fire intensity which combines ISI and BUI.</li> </ul> <p><br>Given its structure, the model can also be interpreted as a recurrent neural network (RNN) where the input variables are transformed into the final aggregated numerical rating (FWI) by means of two hidden layers: the <em>fuel moisture codes</em> (three nodes/neurons); and the <em>fire behaviour indices</em> (two nodes/neurons).</p> <p>Note that this structure is not a simple feedforward network, as the first hidden layer is made by dynamic components (FFMC, DMC, DC, see highlighted feedack loops in <a href="../record/10806780/files/FWI-sys_simple_diagram_recurrent.png?download=1">PNG</a> format). The activation functions are complex, and the D-TM components (either dynamic or stateless) generally mix physically-based and empirical aspects. A consequence of the complexity of the FWI-sys activation functions is that a neural network with standard (e.g. sigmoidal) activation functions would need to exploit disproportionally many more additional neurons for the same FWI-sys D-TM complexity to be reasonably approximated.</p> <p> </p> <p>An additional FWI-sys component is a simple transfromation of the aggregated FWI values to better account for the nonlinear increase of fire control effort with increasing FWI values (Van Wagner, 1987):</p> <ul> <li><strong>Daily Severity Rating (DSR)</strong>: this transformation of FWI is meant to provide a measure of control difficulty:<br> DSR = 0.0272 ⋅ FWI <sup>1.77</sup><br>which easily invertible:<br> FWI = ( DSR / 0.0272 ) <sup>1 / 1.77</sup></li> </ul> <p><br><br>To cite the Figure, please refer to:<br><br>de Rigo, 2016. <strong>Structure of the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index System: the model and its components</strong>. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6558576</p> <p>which is part of</p> <p>de Rigo, D. 2018. <strong>The Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index System: a synopsis of computational semantics</strong>. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4046673<br><br> </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>De Groot, W.J., 1987. <strong>Interpreting the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) System</strong>. In: <em>Fourth Central Regional Fire Weather Committee Scientific and Technical Seminar, Proceedings</em>. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, pp. 3-14. <a href="https://purl.org/INRMM-MiD/c-14176512">https://purl.org/INRMM-MiD/c-14176512</a> </p> <p>Van Wagner, C.E., 1987. <strong>Development and structure of the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index System</strong>. <em>Forestry Technical Report</em>. Canadian Forestry Service, Ottawa, Canada. <a href="https://purl.org/INRMM-MiD/c-14168337">https://purl.org/INRMM-MiD/c-14168337</a> </p> <p>Alexander, M.E., 2008. <strong>Latitude considerations in adapting the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index System for use in other countries</strong>. In: Lawson, B.D., Armitage, O.B. (Eds.), <em>Weather Guide for the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System</em>. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, pp. 67–73. ISBN:978-1-100-11565-8 <a href="https://purl.org/INRMM-MiD/z-MBDA6A6I">https://purl.org/INRMM-MiD/z-MBDA6A6I</a></p> <p> </p>
Post-fire flood hazard model (PF2HazMo) version 1.0.0: Model scripts and parameterization and validation data
<p>Human development at the foot of the mountains faces sediment-laden flood hazards characterized by high-velocity, erosive flows carrying mud and debris, and when flood control infrastructure that protects communities fills with sediment, it loses capacity. The estimation and management of sediment-laden floods have proven challenging because cycles of wildfire, precipitation, and infrastructure sedimentation are still poorly understood. Efforts to model compound hazards such as post-fire floods are relatively new, and existing models do not consider the role of flood control infrastructure, such as debris retention basins and flood channels, in the development of post-fire floods. Here we present data sources and calibration methods to estimate sediment-laden flood hazards downstream of infrastructure on a catchment-by-catchment basis using the Post-Fire Flood Hazard Model (PF2HazMo), a stochastic modeling approach that utilizes continuous simulation to resolve the effects of antecedent conditions and system memory. Data sources provide parameter ranges needed for stochastic modeling, and several performance measures are considered for model calibration. With application to three catchments in Southern California, we show that PF2HazMo predicts the median of the simulated distribution of peak bulked flows within the 95% confidence interval of observed flows, with an order of magnitude range in bulked flow estimates depending on the performance measure used for calibration. Using infrastructure overtopping data from a post-fire wet season, we show that PF2HazMo accurately predicts the number of flood channel exceedances. Model applications to individual watersheds reveal whether existing infrastructure is undersized to contain present-day and future overtopping hazards based on current design standards.</p>
Fig. 1. The potential distribution map for B in Long-Term Bioclimatic Modelling The Distribution Of The Fire-Bellied Toad, Bombina Bombina (Anura, Bombinatoridae), Under The Influence Of Global Climate Change
Fig. 1. The potential distribution map for B. bombina under contemporary climatic conditions. The colour gradient represents high (red) to low (green) habitat suitability for the species.
Fig. 4. The potential distribution map for B. bombina under projected 2050 in Long-Term Bioclimatic Modelling The Distribution Of The Fire-Bellied Toad, Bombina Bombina (Anura, Bombinatoridae), Under The Influence Of Global Climate Change
Fig. 4. The potential distribution map for B. bombina under projected 2050 climatic conditions. The colour gradient represents high (red) to low (green) habitat suitability for the species.
Fig 3 in Long-Term Bioclimatic Modelling The Distribution Of The Fire-Bellied Toad, Bombina Bombina (Anura, Bombinatoridae), Under The Influence Of Global Climate Change
Fig 3. Response curve showing how the logistic prediction changes as the environmental variable Bio2 (Mean diurnal temperature range, oC, X-axis) is varied, keeping all other environmental variables at their average sample value. The curve shows the mean response of the 10 replicate Maxent runs (red) and and the mean +/– one standard deviation (blue).
SeasFire Cube: A Global Dataset for Seasonal Fire Modeling in the Earth System
<p>The <strong>SeasFire Cube</strong> is a scientific datacube for seasonal fire forecasting around the <strong>globe</strong>. Apart from seasonal fire forecasting, which is the aim of the SeasFire project, the datacube can be used for several other tasks. For example, it can be used to model teleconnections and memory effects in the earth system. Additionally, it can be used to model emissions from wildfires and the evolution of wildfire regimes.<br> <br> It has been created in the context of the <a href="https://seasfire.hua.gr/">SeasFire project</a>, which deals with "<em>Earth System Deep Learning for Seasonal Fire Forecasting</em>" and <strong>is funded by the European Space Agency (ESA) </strong> in the context of ESA Future EO-1 Science for Society Call.<br> <br> It contains <strong>21 years</strong> of data (2001-2021) in an <strong>8-days</strong> time resolution and <strong>0.25 degrees grid</strong> resolution. It has a diverse range of seasonal fire drivers. It expands from atmospheric and climatological ones to vegetation variables, socioeconomic and the target variables related to wildfires such as burned areas, fire radiative power, and wildfire-related CO2 emissions.</p> Datacube properties <table><tbody><tr> <th> <p><strong>Feature</strong></p> </th> <th> <p><strong>Value</strong></p> </th> </tr> </tbody><tbody> <tr> <td> <p>Spatial Coverage</p> </td> <td> <p>Global</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Temporal Coverage</p> </td> <td> <p>2001 to 2021</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Spatial Resolution</p> </td> <td> <p>0.25 deg x 0.25 deg</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Temporal Resolution</p> </td> <td> <p>8 days</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Number of Variables</p> </td> <td> <p>54</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Tutorial Link </p> </td> <td> <p><a href="https://github.com/SeasFire/seasfire-datacube">https://github.com/SeasFire/seasfire-datacube</a></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table> <tbody><tr> <th>Full name</th> <th>DataArray name</th> <th>Unit</th> <th>Contact *</th> </tr> </tbody><tbody> <tr> <th>Dataset: <a href="https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/reanalysis-era5-pressure-levels?tab=overview">ERA5 Meteo Reanalysis Data</a></th> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <th>Mean sea level pressure</th> <td>mslp</td> <td>Pa</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Total precipitation</th> <td>tp</td> <td>m</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Relative humidity</th> <td>rel_hum</td> <td>%</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Vapor Pressure Deficit</th> <td>vpd</td> <td>hPa</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Sea Surface Temperature</th> <td>sst</td> <td>K</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Skin temperature</th> <td>skt</td> <td>K</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Wind speed at 10 meters</th> <td>ws10</td> <td>m*s-2</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Temperature at 2 meters - Mean</th> <td>t2m_mean</td> <td>K</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Temperature at 2 meters - Min</th> <td>t2m_min</td> <td>K</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Temperature at 2 meters - Max</th> <td>t2m_max</td> <td>K</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Surface net solar radiation</th> <td>ssr</td> <td>MJ m-2</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Surface solar radiation downwards</th> <td>ssrd</td> <td>MJ m-2</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Volumetric soil water level 1</th> <td>swvl1</td> <td>m3/m3</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tbody> <tr> <th>Volumetric soil water level 2</th> </tr> </tbody> </table> </th> <td>swvl2</td> <td>m3/m3</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Volumetric soil water level 3</th> <td>swvl3</td> <td>m3/m3</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Volumetric soil water level 4</th> <td>swvl4</td> <td>m3/m3</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Land-Sea mask</th> <td>lsm</td> <td>0-1</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Dataset: Copernicus <p><a href="http://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/cems-fire-historical?tab=overview">CEMS</a></p> </th> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <th>Drought Code Maximum</th> <td>drought_code_max</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Drought Code Average</th> <td>drought_code_mean</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Fire Weather Index Maximum</th> <td>fwi_max</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Fire Weather Index Average</th> <td>fwi_mean</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Dataset: <a href="http://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/CKB/CAMS%3A+Global+Fire+Assimilation+System+%28GFAS%29+data+documentation">CAMS: Global Fire Assimilation System (GFAS)</a></th> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <th>Carbon dioxide emissions from wildfires</th> <td>cams_co2fire</td> <td>kg/m²</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Fire radiative power</th> <td>cams_frpfire</td> <td>W/m²</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Dataset: <a href="https://climate.esa.int/en/projects/fire/data/">FireCCI - European Space Agency’s Climate Change Initiative</a></th> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <th>Burned Areas from Fire Climate Change Initiative (FCCI)</th> <td>fcci_ba</td> <td>ha</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Valid mask of FCCI burned areas</th> <td>fcci_ba_valid_mask</td> <td>0-1</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th><br> Fraction of burnable area</th> <td>fcci_fraction_of_burnable_area</td> <td>%</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Number of patches</th> <td>fcci_number_of_patches</td> <td>N</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Fraction of observed area</th> <td>fcci_fraction_of_observed_area</td> <td>%</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Dataset: Nasa MODIS <a href="https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/mod11c1v006/">MOD11C1</a>, <a href="https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/mod13c1v006/">MOD13C1</a>, <a href="https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/mcd15a2hv006/">MCD15A2</a></th> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <th>Land Surface temperature at day</th> <td>lst_day</td> <td>K</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Leaf Area Index</th> <td>lai</td> <td>m²/m²</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Normalized Difference Vegetation Index</th> <td>ndvi</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Dataset: Nasa SEDAC <a href="https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/gpw-v4-population-density-adjusted-to-2015-unwpp-country-totals-rev11">Gridded Population of the World (GPW), v4</a></th> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <th>Population density</th> <td>pop_dens</td> <td>persons per square kilometers</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Dataset: <a href="http://www.globalfiredata.org/data.html">Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED)</a></th> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <th>Burned Areas from GFED (large fires only)</th> <td>gfed_ba</td> <td>hectares (ha)</td> <td>MPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Valid mask of GFED burned areas</th> <td>gfed_ba_valid_mask</td> <td>0-1</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>GFED basis regions</th> <td>gfed_region</td> <td>N</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Dataset: <a href="http://gwis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/apps/country.profile/downloads">Global Wildfire Information System (GWIS)</a></th> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <th>Burned Areas from GWIS</th> <td>gwis_ba</td> <td>ha</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Valid mask of GWIS burned areas</th> <td>gwis_ba_valid_mask</td> <td>0-1</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Dataset: <a href="https://psl.noaa.gov/data/climateindices/list/">NOAA Climate Indices</a></th> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <th>Arctic Oscillation Index</th> <td>oci_ao</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Western Pacific Index</th> <td>oci_wp</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Pacific North American Index</th> <td>oci_pna</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>North Atlantic Oscillation</th> <td>oci_nao</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Southern Oscillation Index</th> <td>oci_soi</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Global Mean Land/Ocean Temperature</th> <td>oci_gmsst</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Pacific Decadal Oscillation</th> <td>oci_pdo</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Eastern Asia/Western Russia</th> <td>oci_ea</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>East Pacific/North Pacific Oscillation</th> <td>oci_epo</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Nino 3.4 Anomaly</th> <td>oci_nino_34_anom</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Bivariate ENSO Timeseries</th> <td>oci_censo</td> <td>unitless</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Dataset: <a href="https://www.esa-landcover-cci.org/">ESA CCI</a></th> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <th>Land Cover Class 0 - No data</th> <td>lccs_class_0</td> <td>%</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Land Cover Class 1 - Agriculture</th> <td>lccs_class_1</td> <td>%</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Land Cover Class 2 - Forest</th> <td>lccs_class_2</td> <td>%</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Land Cover Class 3 - Grassland</th> <td>lccs_class_3</td> <td>%</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Land Cover Class 4 - Wetlands</th> <td>lccs_class_4</td> <td>%</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Land Cover Class 5 - Settlement</th> <td>lccs_class_5</td> <td>%</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Land Cover Class 6 - Shrubland</th> <td>lccs_class_6</td> <td>%</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Land Cover Class 7 - Sparse vegetation, bare areas, permanent snow and ice</th> <td>lccs_class_7</td> <td>%</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Land Cover Class 8 - Water Bodies</th> <td>lccs_class_8</td> <td>%</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Dataset: <a href="https://ecoregions.appspot.com/">Biomes</a></th> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <th>Dataset: Calculated</th> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <th>Grid Area in square meters</th> <td>area</td> <td>m²</td> <td>NOA</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>*The datacube specifications (temporal, spatial resolution, chunk size) have been set up by the Max Planck Institut (MPI) team. For the variables that the contact is MPI, Lazaro Alonso (lalonso <at> bgc-jena.mpg.de) has led the efforts to collect and process them. For the variables that the contact is NOA, Ilektra Karasante (ile.karasante <at> noa.gr) has led the efforts to collect and process them.</p>
Projected Smoke Impacts from Increased Prescribed Fire Activity (PHIRE) Smoke Modeling Datasets
<p>This dataset support the publication, Kramer et al., 2023, submitted to JGR: Atmospheres on 01-13-2023</p> <p>This project was supported by a grant from the CAL FIRE Forest Health Research Program (Agreement #8GG19803), as part of California Climate Investments. California Climate Investments is a statewide program that puts billions of Cap-and-Trade dollars to work reducing greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening the economy, and improving public health and the environment—particularly in disadvantaged communities. This study has not been reviewed by the funding agency and may not represent their opinion and interpretation of the findings. We also would like to acknowledge all participating organizations in the PHIRE team: The California Department of Public Health- Sumi Hoshiko; The Sequoia Foundation- Jeff Sanchez; U.S. EPA- Ana G. Rappold; Michigan Technological University- Nancy French; the U.S. Forest Service- Leland Tarnay; and Sonoma Technology- Fred Lurmann, ShihMing Huang, Samantha J. Kramer, Crystal McClure, and Melissa Chaveste. Beyond the authors of this publication, we would also like to acknowledge Sonoma Technology team members Kenneth J. Craig and Anondo Mukherjee for their contributions.</p>
Data --- "Optimization of Convolutional Neural Network models for spatially coherent multi-site fire danger predictions"
<p>Data to reproduce the results of the manuscript entitled "Optimization of Convolutional Neural Network models for spatially coherent multi-site fire danger predictions" submitted to Geophysical Research Letters. The companion jupyter notebook can be found in DOI: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8387558">10.5281/zenodo.8387558</a></p>
The western United States large forest-fire stochastic simulator (WULFFSS) 1.0: A monthly gridded forest-fire model using interpretable statistics
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Model output tracking smoke from agricultural fires in south Florida from October 2022 - May 2023
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Post-fire flood hazard model (PF2HazMo) version 1.0.0: Model scripts and parameterization and validation data
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Dynamic inferential NOx emission prediction model with delay estimation for SCR de-NOx process in coal-fired power plants
<p><span><span>The selective catalytic reduction (SCR) de</span><span>-</span><span>NO<sub>x</sub> </span><span>process in coal-fired power plants not only displays nonlinearity, large inertia, and time variation but also a lag in NO<sub>x</sub> analysis; </span><span>hence,</span><span> it is difficult to obtain an accurate model </span><span>that </span><span>can be used to control NH<sub>3</sub> injection </span><span>during changes in the </span><span>operating state. </span><span>In this work,</span><span> a novel dynamic inferential model with delay estimation was proposed for NO<sub>x</sub> emission prediction. First, k-nearest neighbour mutual information (knnMI) was used to estimate the time-delay of the descriptor variables, followed by reconstruction of the phase space of the model data. Second, multi-scale wavelet kernel partial least square (mwKPLS) was</span><span> used</span><span> to improve the prediction ability, </span><span>and this was followed by verification using </span><span>benchmark dataset experiments. Finally, the delay-time difference (DTD) method and feedback correction strategy </span><span>were </span><span>proposed to deal with the time variation of the SCR de</span><span>-</span><span>NO<sub>x</sub> process.</span> <span>Through the analysis of the </span><span>experimental field data </span><span>in the</span> <span>steady state, </span><span>the variable</span><span> state and </span><span>the </span>NO<sub>x</sub> analyser blowback process<span>, the results proved that</span><span> this dynamic model has </span><span>high prediction accuracy</span><span> during</span><span> state changes and can </span><span>realize</span><span> advance prediction of the NO<sub>x</sub> emission. </span></span></p>
Richardson Model R-5 Slam Fire Shotgun Low Poly
* 2048x2048 texture + normal map * low poly game ready model Richardson Model R-5 Single Shot Shotgun 12 ga. Barrel length 24" Excellent Bore , Marked clearly on top of the Receiver is "Richardson Industries, Inc. New Haven Conn.USA Model R-5 12ga. For those of you out their not familiar with a slamfire shot-gun, this is a factory gun made after WW2 by the Richardson Industries, a company owned by the famous Lt Iliff D. Richardson, during WW2 Lt Richardson fought the Japanese on the Philippines, it is their that he developed this unusual simple shotgun Source: Objaverse 1.0 / Sketchfab
Variability of Global Fire Emissions - Data and Model Code
<p>Netcdf files including all relevant data for the manuscript entitled "Trends and variability of global fire emissions due to historical anthropogenic activities", submitted to Global Biogeochemical Cycles in 2017. </p> <p>FINALv2_presentday_2002-2009.nc: Monthly fire area burned and carbon emissions data from FINAL.2 for the years 2002 through 2009</p> <p>FINALv2C_*_1700-2009.ts.nc: Historical time series of monthly area burned and carbon emissions for natural, secondary, crop and pasture land cover for years 1700 to 2009</p> <p>vegn_fire.F90: The main module of FINAL.2 in the GFDL LM3</p>
Wildland fire PM2.5 modeled estimates for the US from 2008-2018
<p>This dataset includes daily modeled wildland fire PM<sub>2.5 </sub>concentrations for 2008-2018 for the state of California at a 12-km grid spatial resolution, estimated using the U.S. EPA's Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) (v. 5.0.1- 5.3) modeling system. These wildland fire emissions estimates (which include wildfires and prescribed burns [but exclude agricultural burns]) incorporate multiple sources of fire activity. SMARTFIRE2 was used to reconcile the sources of fire activity data. Fuel consumption was calculated using the U.S. Forest Service's CONSUME ver. 3.0 fuel consumption model and the Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS) fuel-loading database in the BlueSky Framework. Emission factors were taken from the Fire Emission Production Simulator (FEPS) model. Non-fire emissions sources are from the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The model was run with all emissions (fire and non-fire sources) and again without fires. The calculated difference between these simulations ('all sources PM<sub>2.5</sub>'<sub> </sub>and 'non-fire PM<sub>2.5</sub>') isolates the fire contribution, or 'fire-only PM<sub>2.5</sub>', which is the dataset provided here. </p>
Dataset related to the manuscript Wagner and Schepanski (submitted to JAMES, 2024): "Quantifying fire-driven dust emissions using a global aerosol model"
<p>This dataset belongs to the manuscript of Wagner and Schepanski (2024) entitled "Quantifying fire-driven dust emissions using a global aerosol model" submitted to the "Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems (JAMES)".</p> <p>It contains the for the 10 year simulation period 2004-2013 the monthly, seasonal, or yearly averaged fields of the variables (variable name in brackets) that were used to prepare the plots and statements made in the manuscript. These are in detail:</p> <ol> <li>GFAS input data of FRP (frp)</li> <li>simulated AOD (tau_2d_550nm) and dust AOD (tau_comp_du_550nm)</li> <li>simulated wind-driven (emi_du_dust) and fire-driven (emi_du_fdust) dust emission fluxes</li> <li>simulated atmospheric dust concentration (du_all) including the soluble/insoluble coarse (du_ci, du_cs) and accumulation (du_ai, du_as) mode together with vertical atmospheric pressure levels (pfull)</li> </ol> <p>The simulated results are provided for both simulations, the <strong>control run</strong> without the additional fire-dust emissions and the actual <strong>firedust simulation</strong> with the new fire-dust emission parameterization.</p>
Updated Smoke Exposure Estimate for Indonesian Peatland Fires using a Network of Low-cost PM2.5 sensors and a regional air quality model - Model Simulation Data
<p>WRF-Chem simulated daily mean PM2.5 concentrations for:</p> <p>1) with fires </p> <p>2) without fires</p> <p>simulations. </p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.