Table 1.
Summary table of input arguments and options related to the function get_gfed4.
Table 2.
Summary table of input arguments and options related to the function import_GEFF_data_from_tar.
Table 3.
Summary table of input arguments and options related to the function decompress_gz.
Table 4.
Summary table of input arguments and options related to the function stack_netcdf_files.
Table 5.
Summary table of input arguments and options related to the function get_percentile_raster.
Fig 1.
Comparison between raster plot method (top) and the caliver plot_percentile_raster function (bottom).
Table 6.
Summary table of input arguments and options related to the function mask_crop_subset.
Table 7.
Summary table of input arguments and options related to the function plot_percentile_raster.
Table 8.
Summary table of input arguments and options related to the function get_fire_season.
Table 9.
Summary table of input arguments and options related to the function get_fire_danger_levels.
Table 10.
FWI danger levels for selected areas.
Values in bold are used for validation. The first row refers to thresholds defined by EFFIS, the remaining rows list the levels defined by caliver.
Table 11.
Summary table of input arguments and options related to the function validate_fire_danger_levels.
Fig 2.
ROC curves and AUC scores derived from the validation of EFFIS standard thresholds (black) and caliver (red) newly calibrated thresholds.
Table 12.
Comparison of hits and misses using various danger levels: EFFIS, caliver’s levels over Europe and caliver’s country-specific levels.
Caliver’s methodology systematically returns higher number of hits and lower number of misses. The last column shows hits and misses considering Europe as the sum of its parts.