High-resolution simulations unravel intensification mechanisms of pyrocumulonimbus clouds

Cenk Gazen; Jeffrey B. Parker; John Anderson; Matthias Ihme; Qing Wang; Robert Carver; Sheide Chammas; Tapio Schneider; Yi-Fan Chen

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 43 references

High-resolution simulations unravel intensification mechanisms of pyrocumulonimbus clouds

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Rain from a fire's own storm triples its power in low wind

desk verdict A serious, well-executed simulation study with a plausible new mechanism, but the strongest claims outrun the single-run evidence base. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01237 v2 pith:OYHBJ7IP submitted 2025-07-01 physics.ao-ph physics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn

Qing Wang , Cenk Gazen , Matthias Ihme , Robert Carver , Jeffrey B. Parker , Tapio Schneider , Sheide Chammas , Yi-Fan Chen

show 1 more author

John Anderson

This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.ao-phphysics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn

keywords pyrocumulonimbuswildlandfirefire-atmospherecouplinglarge-eddysimulationfuelmoisturedowndraftfeedbackSAFIRLagrangianparceltracking

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a pyrocumulonimbus (pyroCb) firestorm—a thunderstorm generated by a wildfire—is controlled by two opposing mechanisms whose balance decides whether the storm intensifies or decays. Fuel moisture acts mainly as an energy sink: evaporating it cools the fuel bed and consumes combustion heat, weakening the fire and its plume, and it contributes less than one percent of the cloud's water. The accelerator is the self-amplifying fire-induced recirculation (SAFIR) mechanism, in which rain-driven downdrafts spread outward at the surface, feed extra air into the fire, and intensify the fire and the storm in a feedback loop. In the low-wind simulation this loop tripled fire power, from about 481 GW to 1907 GW. If correct, the results imply that low-wind pyroCb events can erupt far faster than wind-speed-based forecasts expect.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a fully coupled large-eddy simulation in which a physics-based combustion model (solid-fuel pyrolysis plus gas-phase reaction) is coupled to an atmospheric LES with a one-moment bulk microphysics scheme for rain, snow, and ice; the fire and atmosphere exchange heat, moisture, and momentum at every grid point. Two diagnostics make the mechanisms visible: Lagrangian parcel tracking with $10^5$ passive tracers, whose energy and humidity budgets along trajectories quantify each source and sink, and a set of perturbation runs (one-third wind, two-thirds wind, and 30% fuel moisture) that isolate the role of each pathway. The named object, SAFIR, is the closed loop: precipitation-induced downdraft → near-surface outflow → enhanced fire inflow → stronger fire → stronger convection → more precipitation. In the text the downdraft recirculation is measured by the fraction of parcels that pass from the downdraft back into the fire, and the feedback onset times (79, 50, and 24 minutes in the baseline, 2/3-wind, and 1/3-wind cases) mark when this loop engages.

What would settle it

A decisive test would compare the simulations against a well-observed pyroCb firestorm: if radar and near-surface anemometer data show that the rain-driven downdraft outflow does not reach the fire perimeter before a rapid fire-growth surge, or if the simulated rain rates and downdraft winds differ from observations by more than the model's uncertainty, then SAFIR's role in real events is not established. A model-internal falsifier is to rerun the low-wind case with precipitation evaporation disabled; if the fire-power surge persists, the surge does not require the downdraft mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that pyroCb intensification does not scale simply with wind speed. In fully coupled simulations at 5 m horizontal and 0.5 m near-surface vertical resolution, the authors find that under weak ambient winds the pyroCb's own precipitation produces a downdraft that reaches 10–20 m/s at the surface, drives a lateral outflow back into the fire perimeter, and raises fire power to roughly three times its baseline value while the fraction of recirculated air parcels increases about thirty-fold. They name this loop SAFIR. They also find that fuel moisture suppresses fire: at 30% fuel moisture content, vaporization consumes 2.2% of combustion energy and the combined thermal feedback cuts total fire power by 37.4%, reduces fireCAPE from 2899 to 1921 J/kg, and lowers the theoretical maximum updraft from 76.2 to 62.0 m/s. Backward parcel tracking from the cloud shows that ambient entrainment supplies 90–97% of cloud water, combustion supplies 2–10%, and fuel-moisture vaporization less than 1%, even at 30% moisture.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the simulated downdraft is faithful to reality: the simplified rain, evaporation, and combustion parameterizations must produce realistic precipitation, near-surface outflow, and fire response, and the observed correlation between recirculated parcels and fire-power surges must be causation, not coincidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Low-wind environments can host a distinct blowup mode in which rain from the fire's own thunderstorm accelerates the fire, so forecasts that rank danger only by wind speed may miss the most eruptive events.
Fuel moisture loading should be treated primarily as a fire suppression factor in pyroCb risk assessment; it removes energy from the fire and does not substantially water the cloud.
PyroCb cloud water is dominated by ambient entrainment, so moisture for the cloud comes mostly from the surrounding air, not from the fire or fuel.
The feedback cycle begins sooner and is stronger when the downdraft stays near the fire; stronger winds push the downdraft downstream and shut the loop off.
Coupling fire, atmosphere, and cloud microphysics at high resolution in one model makes previously unobservable fire–weather feedback loops measurable and provides a framework for pyroCb prediction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A direct testable extension is to search existing radar and surface-station records of pyroCb events for a downdraft-outflow collision with the fire perimeter immediately before a rapid fire-growth surge; this would confirm SAFIR outside the model.
The strength of SAFIR likely depends on how much precipitation evaporates before reaching the surface; because the one-moment microphysics is simple, switching to a more detailed microphysics scheme could shift the wind and moisture thresholds for triggering the loop.
The same mechanism may apply to other self-driven fire behavior, such as fire whirls or urban conflagrations, wherever a convective plume creates its own surface inflow, but the paper does not claim this.
If SAFIR is real, operational pyroCb warnings could use downdraft proximity to the fire perimeter, rather than wind speed alone, as a predictor of imminent eruptive spread.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is worth your time. The paper reports the first fully coupled 5 m LES of a pyroCb, with a companion 0.5 m vertical resolution near the surface, and tries to pull apart two proposed control mechanisms: fuel moisture as an energy sink, and a self-amplifying downdraft-fire feedback they call SAFIR. The computational effort is real, and the Lagrangian parcel budgets are a genuinely useful diagnostic. The moisture result is well supported: the energy budget shows vaporization consuming a significant fraction of combustion energy at 30% MC, the scaling analysis is consistent with the simulation, and the <1% contribution of fuel moisture to cloud water is a clean, falsifiable statement. That part of the paper is solid.

The SAFIR mechanism is the more ambitious claim, and here the evidence is proportionally softer. The authors show a temporal correlation between recirculated parcel fraction and a tripling of fire power in the low-wind run, with recirculation 'directly preceding' the surge. But it is still a single unperturbed trajectory. The feedback loop they describe is closed, so a rise in recirculation is expected as the fire grows even if the downdraft has no causal kick. The stress-test note is right: without an ablation that removes or weakens the downdraft while holding everything else fixed, the unique causal direction is not established. The enhanced inflow and ROS fields are consistent with SAFIR but do not isolate it. I would not call this a fatal flaw—the mechanism is plausible and the timing evidence points in their direction—but the abstract's 'driver of rapid intensification' overreaches.

The other soft spots are the usual ones for a study like this: one simulation per configuration, no ensemble, no grid convergence, and no validation of the one-moment microphysics or combustion parameterization against observed rain rates, downdraft winds, or fire spread. They do provide code and data, which is good, and the self-citations are to their own published model, which is legitimate.

Bottom line: this is a thoughtful, honestly presented simulation study with a new quantitative result on fuel moisture and a novel candidate mechanism. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it out, but I would ask for tempered claims and preferably an ablation run or at least a clear statement that the causal attribution is a hypothesis rather than a demonstrated fact. For my own work, I would cite the moisture budget result but not the SAFIR attribution without more evidence.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a new high-resolution, fully coupled fire-atmosphere LES framework (SWIRL-LM) applied to a idealized-but-Williams-Flat-inspired pyroCb event, using a 20-km-deep domain with 5 m horizontal grid spacing near the fire and 0.5 m vertical resolution near the surface. Four simulations (baseline, 1/3 wind, 2/3 wind, and 30% fuel moisture) are analyzed with Lagrangian parcel tracking (10^5 parcels) to derive energy and humidity budgets (eqs. S45, S46). The authors propose two opposing mechanisms: fuel moisture acts as an energy sink that attenuates fire intensity and pyroCb vigor, and a 'SAFIR' (Self-Amplifying Fire-Induced Recirculation) loop in which precipitation-induced downdrafts enhance near-surface inflow into the fire, tripling fire power in the low-wind case. The paper claims this is the first high-resolution fully coupled simulation of a pyroCb and that the findings provide a new mechanistic framework for pyroCb prediction.

Significance. If the SAFIR mechanism is correct, it identifies a low-wind pathway for eruptive, dangerous fire growth that is not captured by conventional wind-speed-scaling forecasts, and the fuel-moisture result would resolve a long-standing debate by showing that moisture is primarily an energy sink rather than a moisture source. The study's strengths include a genuinely new computational capability with machine-generated code and data repositories, the use of internally consistent Lagrangian budgets as independent diagnostics, and a clear set of falsifiable predictions (e.g., low-wind pyroCb can intensify faster than classic models). However, the central causal claim for SAFIR is not yet established, as it relies on temporal correlation in a single unperturbed simulation without an ablation control, and the microphysics/combustion submodels that generate the downdraft are not validated against observations. These weaknesses limit the confidence that can be placed in the quantitative magnitudes reported.

major comments (4)

[The Self-Intensification Mechanism: The SAFIR Feedback Loop; Fig. 4I and fig. S4] The causal attribution of the fire-power surge to downdraft-driven recirculation is not uniquely supported because the correlation between recirculated-parcel fraction and fire power is expected under the null hypothesis that fire growth alone strengthens the updraft, which then produces more precipitation and hence more recirculation. The diagnostics in Figs. 4A-D and S9 are consistent with SAFIR but do not separate the proposed causal direction from the reverse or from a common cause. A control run that prevents the downdraft from influencing the fire (e.g., by suppressing precipitation or by deflecting the near-surface outflow) while keeping all other physics unchanged is needed to isolate the SAFIR mechanism. Without such an ablation, the Discussion's statement that 'the strong positive correlation ... provides convincing evidence' overstates the support.
[Materials and Methods, microphysics (eqs. S13-S21) and combustion (eqs. S27-S33)] The downdraft that drives the SAFIR loop is produced by a one-moment bulk microphysics scheme whose parameters are not evaluated against observed rain rates, downdraft wind speeds, or precipitation accumulations for this or any pyroCb event. Likewise, the combustion rate (eq. S27) depends on empirical constants c_F=0.5 and s_x=0.05 m, and the dehydration rate (eq. S33) on A_deh and T_deh, with no validation against observed fire spread or energy release. Because the tripling of fire power in the 1/3-wind case (Fig. 4I) is the central quantitative evidence for SAFIR, the reported magnitudes are contingent on these unvalidated submodels. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis over these parameters or a comparison with observations of a pyroCb event to support the quantitative claims.
[Model configuration and case study; Fig. 2 and Fig. 4I] Each configuration is represented by a single simulation; there is no ensemble and no grid-resolution convergence study. The stretched grid uses 5 m horizontal resolution near the fire, but no test demonstrates that fire growth, recirculation fraction, or fire power are numerically converged. The 30-fold increase in recirculation fraction and the tripling of fire power are quantitative cornerstones of the SAFIR argument, so the absence of a resolution or ensemble check weakens these numbers. A representative grid-coarsening experiment or a small ensemble with perturbed initial conditions should be added to establish robustness.
[Model configuration; ref. 11 and Fig. 1] The baseline simulation is described as approximating the fuel and atmospheric conditions of the 2019 Williams Flat fire and its pyroCb, but the paper does not validate the simulated pyroCb against available observations, such as the fire perimeter, rate of spread, cloud-top height, or precipitation. Without observational anchoring, the claim to 'unravel intensification mechanisms' of real pyroCb events is not yet established. A comparison with the FIREX-AQ measurements (ref. 11) or other pyroCb observations would considerably strengthen the paper.

minor comments (5)

[Supplementary Text, eq. S46] In eq. S46 the third source term is labeled 'Mevap: Combustion Water Source', but 'Mevap' is already used for fuel-moisture vaporization earlier in the same equation; this label should be distinct, e.g., 'Mcomb', to avoid confusion.
[The Self-Intensification Mechanism section, Fig. 4I] The phrase 'directly precedes a surge' is ambiguous; please specify the time lag between the recirculation onset and the fire-power surge, and, if possible, report a correlation coefficient or other statistical measure.
[Figure S4 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'conceptural' should be 'conceptual'.
[Main text, Table 1 reference] The text refers to 'Table. 1' with an extra period; please make the reference consistent with the style used for other tables.
[Main text and Table S1] The term 'fireCAPE' is used without a definition; please define it explicitly or refer the reader to the relevant source (ref. 4).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; central mechanism claims rest on independent diagnostics from prescribed perturbed simulations, with self-citations confined to modeling software.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is simulation-based: a baseline and three prescribed perturbations (wind-speed rescaling and fuel-moisture increase) are integrated with a coupled LES/fire model; mechanisms are then diagnosed from Lagrangian budgets, parcel-fate statistics, fire-power time series, and flow fields. No parameter is fitted to the claimed outcomes and then re-reported as a prediction. The fuel-moisture 'energy sink' conclusion is a quantitative budget result (2.2% of combustion energy, 37.4% fire-power reduction), not an assumed input; although the sign of the vaporization term is fixed by the governing equations, its magnitude and the <1% moisture contribution to cloud water are emergent. The SAFIR mechanism is inferred from temporal correlation between recirculated-parcel fraction and fire power plus flow/ROS diagnostics; the absence of an ablation control is an attribution weakness rather than a circular reduction, because neither quantity is constructed from the other. Self-citations (refs. 23-25, 31) point to the publicly available SWIRL-LM code and prior model-development papers; they are tooling and are not invoked to justify the physical conclusions. Accordingly, no step in the claimed derivation reduces by definition or by self-citation to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims depend on the fidelity of the LES combustion, microphysics, and boundary conditions. Most quantitative parameters are empirical and unvalidated at pyroCb scales, and the SAFIR causal story rests on a single simulated realization per configuration.

free parameters (6)

Combustion rate scaling c_F = 0.5
Empirical multiplier in reaction rate eq. S27; controls fire power and thus all central fire and plume quantities.
Turbulence scale s_x = 0.05 m
Empirical characteristic turbulence scale in eq. S27; sets combustion rate.
Fuel dehydration pre-exponential A_deh = 6.05e5 K^(1/2)/s
In eq. S33; determines how much fuel moisture vaporizes and the energy sink magnitude.
Fuel dehydration activation temperature T_deh = 5956 K
In eq. S33; controls temperature sensitivity of moisture vaporization.
Radiation interaction coefficient k = 1
In the grey-gas radiation model in Methods; affects energy balance.
Fuel element characteristic length zeta = 0.5 m
In the radiation model; affects radiative heat exchange.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption LES-filtered anelastic conservation equations with Smagorinsky subgrid closure adequately represent turbulent fire-atmosphere flow.
Governing equations eqs. S2 to S7 are used throughout; no grid-convergence study or observational validation of the resolved flow is provided.
domain assumption One-moment bulk microphysics (Marshall-Palmer) produces realistic rain and snow fields and downdrafts.
Microphysics eqs. S13 to S21; SAFIR depends on precipitation-induced downdraft strength.
domain assumption One-step global combustion with empirical ignition function represents wildland fire spread.
Eqs. S26 to S32; fire behavior and heat release are model outputs, not validated against observed fire spread.
domain assumption The prescribed sounding and fuel distributions are representative of the 2019 Williams Flat pyroCb.
Materials and Methods; single case, no ensemble or event-to-event generalization demonstrated.
domain assumption Temporal correlation between downdraft recirculation and fire power surge implies causation.
Fig. 4I and the Discussion; no control simulation that disables the downdraft is performed.

invented entities (1)

SAFIR (Self-Amplifying Fire-Induced Recirculation) mechanism
purpose: Explains rapid fire intensification under weak winds via precipitation-downdraft to fire feedback
A named conceptual mechanism inferred from one set of simulations; no separate observational dataset or controlled simulation is provided to confirm it outside this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-resolution simulations unravel intensification mechanisms of pyrocumulonimbus clouds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OYHBJ7IP

@misc{pith2026250701237,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-resolution simulations unravel intensification mechanisms of pyrocumulonimbus clouds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OYHBJ7IP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01237}
}

read the original abstract

Pyrocumulonimbus (pyroCb) firestorms -- wildfire-generated thunderstorms -- can trigger rapid fire spread. However, the multi-physics nature of pyroCb has made their core mechanisms inaccessible to direct observation and previous simulation and prediction efforts. We introduce a new simulation capability with the first high-resolution, fully coupled simulations of a pyroCb, allowing us to unravel its life cycle governed by two opposing mechanisms. We show fuel moisture is an energy sink that attenuates fire intensity rather than fueling clouds, resolving a long-standing debate. Conversely, we identify the driver of rapid intensification: the Self-Amplifying Fire-Induced Recirculation (SAFIR) mechanism, where precipitation-induced downdrafts intensify the parent fire under weak winds. This work provides a new mechanistic framework for pyroCb prediction and demonstrates a transformative computational approach for previously intractable problems in environmental science.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[1]

Fromm, A

M. Fromm, A. Tupper, D. Rosenfeld, R. Servranckx, R. McRae, Violent pyro-convective storm devastates Australia’s capital and pollutes the stratosphere.Geophysical Research Letters33 (5), 2005GL025161 (2006)

work page 2006
[2]

Rosenfeld, et al., The Chisholm firestorm: observed microstructure, precipitation and light- ning activity of a pyro-cumulonimbus

D. Rosenfeld, et al., The Chisholm firestorm: observed microstructure, precipitation and light- ning activity of a pyro-cumulonimbus. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 7 (3), 645–659 (2007)

work page 2007
[3]

N. P. Lareau, C. B. Clements, Environmental controls on pyrocumulus and pyrocumulonim- businitiation and development. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16 (6), 4005–4022 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

K. J. Tory, W. Thurston, J. D. Kepert, Thermodynamics of Pyrocumulus: A Conceptual Study. Mon. Weather Rev.146 (8), 2579–2598 (2018)

work page 2018
[5]

Fromm, R

M. Fromm, R. Servranckx, B. J. Stocks, D. A. Peterson, Understanding the critical elements of the pyrocumulonimbus storm sparked by high-intensity wildland fire. Communications Earth & Environment 3 (1), 243 (2022)

work page 2022
[6]

D. A. Peterson, et al., Wildfire-driven thunderstorms cause a volcano-like stratospheric injection of smoke. Npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 1 (1), 1–8 (2018)

work page 2018
[7]

D. A. Ridley, et al., Total volcanic stratospheric aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change. Geophysical Research Letters41 (22), 7763–7769 (2014)

work page 2014
[8]

Yu, et al., Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume

P. Yu, et al., Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume. Science 365 (6453), 587–590 (2019)

work page 2019

Show all 43 references

[9]

J. M. Katich, et al. , Pyrocumulonimbus affect average stratospheric aerosol composition. Science 379 (6634), 815–820 (2023)

2023
[10]

K. J. Tory, M. Peace, W. Thurston, Pyrocumulonimbus forecasting: Needs and issues, Report no. 239.2016, Bureau of Meteorology, Australia (2016), bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC

2016
[11]

D. A. Peterson, et al., Measurements from inside a Thunderstorm Driven by Wildfire: The 2019 FIREX-AQ Field Experiment. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 103 (9), E2140–E2167 (2022). 14

2022
[12]

Trentmann, et al., Modeling of biomass smoke injection into the lower stratosphere by a large forest fire (Part I): reference simulation.Atmos

J. Trentmann, et al., Modeling of biomass smoke injection into the lower stratosphere by a large forest fire (Part I): reference simulation.Atmos. Chem. Phys. 6 (12), 5247–5260 (2006)

2006
[13]

Luderer, et al., Modeling of biomass smoke injection into the lower stratosphere by a large forest fire (Part II): sensitivity studies

G. Luderer, et al., Modeling of biomass smoke injection into the lower stratosphere by a large forest fire (Part II): sensitivity studies. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 6 (12), 5261–5277 (2006)

2006
[14]

Reutter, et al., 3-D model simulations of dynamical and microphysical interactions in pyro- convective clouds under idealized conditions.Atmos

P. Reutter, et al., 3-D model simulations of dynamical and microphysical interactions in pyro- convective clouds under idealized conditions.Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14 (14), 7573–7583 (2014)

2014
[15]

Thurston, K

W. Thurston, K. J. Tory, R. J. B. Fawcett, J. D. Kepert, Large-eddy simulations of pyro- convection and its sensitivity to moisture (2016)

2016
[16]

R. L. Badlan, J. J. Sharples, J. P. Evans, R. H. D. McRae, Factors influencing the development of violent pyroconvection. Part I: fire size and stability. Int. J. Wildland Fire 30 (7), 484–497 (2021)

2021
[17]

Peace, H

M. Peace, H. Ye, J. Greenslade, J. D. Kepert, The destructive Sir Ivan fire in New South Wales, Australia; Simulations using a coupled fire—atmosphere model. Fire 6 (11), 438 (2023)

2023
[18]

J. M. Lee, et al., Sensitivity of pyrocumulus convection to tree mortality during the 2020 creek fire in California. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50 (16) (2023)

2023
[19]

F. A. Turney,et al., Sensitivity of burned area and fire radiative power predictions to containment efforts, fuel density, and fuel moisture using WRF-fire. J. Geophys. Res. 128 (18) (2023)

2023
[20]

Cunningham, M

P. Cunningham, M. J. Reeder, Severe convective storms initiated by intense wildfires: Numerical simulations of pyro-convection and pyro-tornadogenesis.Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 (12) (2009)

2009
[21]

Luderer, J

G. Luderer, J. Trentmann, M. O. Andreae, A new look at the role of fire-released moisture on the dynamics of atmospheric pyro-convection. Int. J. Wildland Fire 18 (5), 554 (2009)

2009
[22]

J. M. Reisner, et al., Informed multi-scale approach applied to the British Columbia fires of late summer 2017. Journal of geophysical research128 (5) (2023), doi:10.1029/2022jd037238

2023 doi
[23]

Q. Wang, M. Ihme, Y.-F. Chen, J. Anderson, A TensorFlow simulation framework for scientific computing of fluid flows on tensor processing units. Comput. Phys. Commun. 274, 108292 (2022). 15

2022
[24]

Wang, et al., A high-resolution large-eddy simulation framework for wildland fire predictions using TensorFlow

Q. Wang, et al., A high-resolution large-eddy simulation framework for wildland fire predictions using TensorFlow. Int. J. Wildland Fire 32 (12), 1711–1725 (2023)

2023
[25]

Chammas, et al., Accelerating large-eddy simulations of clouds with tensor processing units

S. Chammas, et al., Accelerating large-eddy simulations of clouds with tensor processing units. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 15 (10), e2023MS003619 (2023)

2023
[26]

K. A. Schiro, F. Ahmed, S. E. Giangrande, J. D. Neelin, GoAmazon2014/5 campaign points to deep-inflow approach to deep convection across scales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 4577–4582 (2018)

2018
[27]

L. Orf, E. Kantor, E. Savory, Simulation of a downburst-producing thunderstorm using a very high-resolution three-dimensional cloud model. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 104-106, 547–557 (2012), doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2012.02.020

2012 doi
[28]

Andrews, The Rothermel surface fire spread model and associated developments: A com- prehensive explanation, Tech

P. Andrews, The Rothermel surface fire spread model and associated developments: A com- prehensive explanation, Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-371, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO (2018)

2018
[29]

Dupuy, D

J.-L. Dupuy, D. Morvan, Numerical study of a crown fire spreading toward a fuel break using a multiphase physical model. Int. J. Wildland Fire 14 (2), 141 (2005)

2005
[30]

Department of Interior, Geological Survey, and U.S

U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, and U.S. Department of Agriculture., LAND- FIRE: LANDFIRE (LF) 2016 Remap, https://www.landfire.gov/viewer/, accessed June 2023

2016
[31]

Q. Wang, M. Ihme, C. Gazen, Y.-F. Chen, J. Anderson, A high-fidelity ensemble simula- tion framework for interrogating wildland-fire behaviour and benchmarking machine learning models. Int. J. Wildland Fire 33 (12), 1–15 (2024)

2024
[32]

J. B. Klemp, R. B. Wilhelmson, The Simulation of Three-Dimensional Convective Storm Dynamics. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 35 (6), 1070–1096 (1978)

1978
[33]

R. R. Linn, P. Cunningham, Numerical simulations of grass fires using a coupled atmo- sphere–fire model: Basic fire behavior and dependence on wind speed. J. Geophys. Res. 110 (D13), 287 (2005). 16

2005
[34]

K. G. Pressel, C. M. Kaul, T. Schneider, Z. Tan, S. Mishra, Large-eddy simulation in an anelastic framework with closed water and entropy balances. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 7 (3), 1425–1456 (2015)

2015
[35]

Climate Modeling Alliance, CloudMicrophysics.jl [Software]
[36]

Kessler, On the distribution and continuity of water substance in atmospheric circula- tions, vol

E. Kessler, On the distribution and continuity of water substance in atmospheric circula- tions, vol. 10 ofMeteorological Monographs(American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA) (1969), doi:10.1007/978-1-935704-36-2\ 1

1969 doi
[37]

W. W. Grabowski, Toward Cloud Resolving Modeling of Large-Scale Tropical Circulations: A Simple Cloud Microphysics Parameterization. J. Atmos. Sci. 55, 3283–3298 (1998)

1998
[38]

C. M. Kaul, J. Teixeira, K. Suzuki, Sensitivities in Large-Eddy Simulations of Mixed-Phase Arctic Stratocumulus Clouds Using a Simple Microphysics Approach. Mon. Weather Rev. 143 (11), 4393–4421 (2015)

2015
[39]

W.-K. Tao, J. Simpson, M. McCumber, An ice-water saturation adjustment.Mon. Weather Rev. 117 (1), 231–235 (1989)

1989
[40]

R. R. Linn, A transport model for prediction of wildfire behavior, Tech. Rep. LA-13334-T, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM (1997)

1997
[41]

Cunningham, M

P. Cunningham, M. J. Reeder, Severe Convective Storms Initiated by Intense Wildfires: Numer- ical Simulations of Pyro-convection and Pyro-tornadogenesis. Geophysical Research Letters 36 (12), 2009GL039262 (2009)

2009
[42]

H. F. Trotter, On the Product of Semi-Groups of Operators. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 10 (4), 545–551 (1959)

1959
[43]

M. Z. Jacobson, Fundamentals of atmospheric modeling(Cambridge University Press) (1999). Acknowledgments We thank Anudhyan Boral, James Lotte, Rasmus Larsen, and Sameer Agarwal for technical help in the LES development; Fei Sha for his editorial suggestions; Tyler Russell and ...

1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Fromm, A

M. Fromm, A. Tupper, D. Rosenfeld, R. Servranckx, R. McRae, Violent pyro-convective storm devastates Australia’s capital and pollutes the stratosphere.Geophysical Research Letters33 (5), 2005GL025161 (2006)

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Rosenfeld, et al., The Chisholm firestorm: observed microstructure, precipitation and light- ning activity of a pyro-cumulonimbus

D. Rosenfeld, et al., The Chisholm firestorm: observed microstructure, precipitation and light- ning activity of a pyro-cumulonimbus. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 7 (3), 645–659 (2007)

work page 2007

[3] [3]

N. P. Lareau, C. B. Clements, Environmental controls on pyrocumulus and pyrocumulonim- businitiation and development. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16 (6), 4005–4022 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [4]

K. J. Tory, W. Thurston, J. D. Kepert, Thermodynamics of Pyrocumulus: A Conceptual Study. Mon. Weather Rev.146 (8), 2579–2598 (2018)

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Fromm, R

M. Fromm, R. Servranckx, B. J. Stocks, D. A. Peterson, Understanding the critical elements of the pyrocumulonimbus storm sparked by high-intensity wildland fire. Communications Earth & Environment 3 (1), 243 (2022)

work page 2022

[6] [6]

D. A. Peterson, et al., Wildfire-driven thunderstorms cause a volcano-like stratospheric injection of smoke. Npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 1 (1), 1–8 (2018)

work page 2018

[7] [7]

D. A. Ridley, et al., Total volcanic stratospheric aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change. Geophysical Research Letters41 (22), 7763–7769 (2014)

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Yu, et al., Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume

P. Yu, et al., Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume. Science 365 (6453), 587–590 (2019)

work page 2019