A Common Framework for Approaches to Extreme Event Attribution

Current Climate Change Reports

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 28-38

  Shepherd, Theodore G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attribution; Climate change; Dynamics; Extremes; Meteorology; Weather

Indexed keywords

EID: 84983542964     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21986061     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40641-016-0033-y     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Lorenz EN. Available potential energy and the maintenance of the general circulation. Tellus. 1955;7:157–67
2. Pithan F, Mauritsen T. Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models. Nat Geosci. 2014;7:181–4
3. Shepherd TG. Dynamics of temperature extremes. Nature. 2015;522:425–7
4. Coumou D, Robinson A, Rahmstorf S. Global increase in record-breaking monthly-mean temperatures. Clim Chang. 2013;118:771–82
5. Sippel S, Zscheischler J, Heimann M, Otto FEL, Peters J, Mahecha MD. Quantifying changes in climate variability and extremes: pitfalls and their overcoming. Geophys Res Lett. 2015;42:1–9
6. Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R. Perception of climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:E2415–23
7. Hegerl GC, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Casassa G, Hoerling M, Kovats S, Parmesan C, Pierce D, Stott P. Good practice guidance paper on detection and attribution related to anthropogenic climate change. In: Stocker T, Field F, Dahe Q, Barros V, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Midgley P, Ebi K. Report of the IPCC Expert Meeting on Detection and Attribution Related to Anthropogenic Climate Change. 2010 Geneva, Switzerland
8. Otto FEL, Massey N, van Oldenborgh GJ, Jones RG, Allen MR. Reconciling two approaches to attribution of the 2010 Russian heat wave. Geophys Res Lett. 2012;39:L04702. A landmark paper which resolved the apparent discrepancy between two published studies of the 2010 Russian heat wave, one of which focused on changes in frequency of occurrence and found an anthropogenic effect, the other which focused on effect magnitude and found natural variability to be the dominant driver. Should be required reading because recent studies of extreme events still seem to fall into this trap
9. Hoskins BJ, James IN. Fluid dynamics of the mid-latitude atmosphere. 2014. Wiley-Blackwell, 432 pp
10. Alexander LV, Jones PD. Updated precipitation series for the UK and discussion of recent extremes. Atmos Sci Lett. 2001. doi:10.1006/asle.2001.0025
11. Allen MR. Liability for climate change. Nature. 2003;421:891–2
12. Stott PA, Stone DA, Allen MR. Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003. Nature. 2004;432:610–4
13. Hoerling M, Kumar A, Dole R, Nielsen-Gammon JW, Eischeid J, Perlwitz J, et al. Anatomy of an extreme event. J Clim. 2013;26:2811–32. A pioneering study which is an exemplar of the storyline approach applied to extreme meteorological events, here the 2011 Texas drought/heat wave. Although the authors emphasize the role of natural variability, they also make plausible estimates of the anthropogenic contribution
14. Shepherd TG. Atmospheric circulation as a source of uncertainty in climate change projections. Nat Geosci. 2014;7:703–8. An exposition of the basic reasons why dynamic aspects of climate change are so much more uncertain than thermodynamic aspects
15. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al. Climate change 2013. Cambridge: The Physical Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2014. As with all IPCC Reports, this represents the latest scientific consensus on the level of confidence that can be expressed concerning the various aspects of climate change, past and future, and is thus a key reference point
16. Trenberth KE, Fasullo JT, Shepherd TG. Attribution of climate extreme events. Nat Clim Chang. 2015;5:725–30. Argues that the risk-based approach to extreme event attribution is prone to type II errors of inference (i.e. false negatives) and thus that the null hypothesis should instead be known thermodynamic aspects of climate change. Thereby argues for the storyline approach as the most effective way to quantify the climate-change contribution to particular meteorological extreme events
17. Otto FEL, Boyd E, Jones RG, Cornforth RJ, James R, Parker HR, et al. Attribution of extreme weather events in Africa: a preliminary exploration of the science and policy implications. Clim Chang. 2015. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1432-0. Argues that the user perspective should drive the framing of event attribution studies, since different framings can lead to very different framings of the change in risk. Although their focus is on Africa, the findings are of course more general
18. Demory ME, Vidale PL, Roberts MJ, Berrisford P, Stachan J, Schiemann R, et al. The role of horizontal resolution in simulating drivers of the global hydrological cycle. Clim Dyn. 2014;42:2201–25
19. King AD, van Oldenborgh GJ, Karoly DJ, Lewis SC, Cullen H. Attribution of the record high Central England temperature of 2014 to anthropogenic influences. Environ Res Lett. 2015;10:054002
20. Pearl J. Causality: models, reasoning and inference. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009. 484 pp
21. Barriopedro D, Fischer EM, Luterbacher J, Trigo RM, García-Herrera R. The hot summer of 2010: redrawing the temperature record map of Europe. Science. 2011;332:220–4
22. Hannart A, Pearl J, Otto FEL, Naveau P, Ghil M. Causal counterfactual theory for the attribution of weather and climate-related events. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2015. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00034.1. A lucid explanation of how Pearl’s theory of causal inference is relevant to extreme event attribution, with the commonly used FAR approach being a special case within a more general framework. Emphasizes the crucial distinction between necessary and sufficient causation, and in particular that several causal factors can have a FAR approaching unity (thus, a FAR approaching unity should not be interpreted as sufficient causation). Applies the concepts to the 2003 European heat wave
23. Deser C, Phillips A, Bourdette V, Teng HY. Uncertainty in climate change projections: the role of internal variability. Clim Dyn. 2012;38:527–46. A landmark paper which emphasized the potentially enormous role of natural variability for regional aspects of climate change even over multi-decadal timescales, and the generally small signal-to-noise ratio of dynamically driven changes. This implies that the understanding of any dynamically driven extreme must take into account the role of natural variability
24. Zappa G, Hoskins BJ, Shepherd TG. Improving climate change detection through optimal seasonal averaging: the case of the North Atlantic jet and European precipitation. J Clim. 2015;28:6381–97
25. Barnes EA, Polvani LM. CMIP5 projections of Arctic amplification, of the North America/North Atlantic circulation, and of their relationship. J Clim. 2015;28:5254–71
26. Deser C, Magnusdottir G, Saravanan R, Phillips A. The effects of North Atlantic SST and sea ice anomalies on the winter circulation in CCM3. Part II: direct and indirect components of the response. J Clim. 2004;17:877–89
27. Hoskins BJ, Woollings T. Persistent extratropical regimes and climate extremes. Curr Clim Change Rep. 2015;1:115–24
28. Cattiaux J, Vautard R, Cassou C, Yiou P, Masson-Delmotte V, Codron F. Winter 2010 in Europe: a cold extreme in a warming climate. Geophys Res Lett. 2010;37:L20704. A landmark paper which used a ‘circulation analogue’ approach to condition observed temperature variations on the atmospheric circulation, thereby greatly increasing the signal-to-noise of detected warming. In particular, they showed that the cold European winter of 2010 was warmer than it would have been without climate change. Thus an early example of the storyline approach to extreme event attribution
29. Diffenbaugh NS, Swain DL, Touma D. Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112:3931–6. A nice study of the recent California drought, which argues from a risk perspective based on the relatively certain nature of thermodynamic aspects of climate change, and the relatively uncertain nature of the dynamic aspects
30. Chang EKM, Zheng C, Lanigan P, Yau AMW, Neelin JD. Significant modulation of variability and projected change in California winter precipitation by extratropical cyclone activity. Geophys Res Lett. 2015;42:5983–91
31. Herring SC, Hoerling MP, Kossin JP, Peterson TC, Stott PA. Explaining extreme events of 2014 from a climate perspective. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2015;96(12):S1–172
32. Nicholls N. The insignificance of significance testing. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2001;81:981–6
33. Shepherd TG, Plummer DA, Scinocca JF, Hegglin MI, Fioletov VE, Reader MC, et al. Reconciliation of halogen-induced ozone loss with the total-column ozone record. Nat Geosci. 2014;7:443–9
34. Magnusson L, Bidlot J-R, Lang STK, Thorpe A, Wedi N. Evaluation of medium-range forecasts for Hurricane Sandy. Mon Weather Rev. 2014;142:1962–81
35. Lackmann GM. Hurricane Sandy before 1900 and after 2100. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2015;96:547–59
36. Meredith EP, Semenov VA, Maraun D, Park W, Chernokulsky AV. Crucial role of Black Sea warming in amplifying the 2012 Krymsk precipitation extreme. Nat Geosci. 2015;8:615–20. An interesting study of an intense rainfall event, which uses a weather model conditioned on the large-scale circulation to argue that warming of the Black Sea has revealed a tipping point in the local mesoscale meteorology. Whether or not the study stands up, it shows the powerful potential of this kind of approach
37. Yiou P, Vautard R, Naveau P, Cassou C. Inconsistency between atmospheric dynamics and temperatures during the exceptional 2006/2007 fall/winter and recent warming in Europe. Geophys Res Lett. 2007;34:L21808
38. Zappa G, Hoskins BJ, Shepherd TG. The dependence of wintertime Mediterranean precipitation on the atmospheric circulation response to climate change. Environ Res Lett. 2015;10:104012
39. Silver N The signal and the noise. 2012. Penguin, 545 pp
40. Smith LA, Stern N. Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy. Phil Trans R Soc A. 2011;369:1–24
41. Knutti R, Masson D, Gettelman A. Climate model genealogy: generation CMIP5 and how we got there. Geophys Res Lett. 2013;40:1194–9
42. Stainforth DA, Allen MR, Tredger ER, Smith LA. Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions. Phil Trans R Soc A. 2007;365:2145–61
43. Dessai S, Hulme M, Lempert R, Pielke Jr R. Do we need better predictions to adapt to a changing climate? Eos. 2009;90:111–2
44. James R, Otto F, Parker H, Boyd E, Cornforth R, Mitchell D, et al. Characterizing loss and damage from climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 2014;4:938–9
45. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011. 512 pp
46. Hazeleger W, van den Hurk BJJM, Min E, van Oldenborgh GJ, Petersen AC, Stainforth DA, et al. Tales of future weather. Nat Clim Chang. 2015;5:107–13. Makes the case for a storyline approach to future weather (which they call ‘Tales’), in light of the manifold uncertainties which severely challenge a probabilistic approach, but also discusses its possible application to past events. Further argues for a transdisciplinary dialogue concerning weather events, since different users may have very different perspectives on what is ‘extreme’