Search

Towards the end of June 2021, temperature records were broken by several degrees Celsius in several cities in the Pacific Northwest areas of the US and Canada, leading to spikes in sudden deaths and sharp increases in emergency calls and hospital visits for heat-related illnesses. Here we present a multi-model, multi-method attribution analysis to investigate the extent to which human-induced climate change has influenced the probability and intensity of extreme heat waves in this region. Based on observations, modelling and a classical statistical approach, the occurrence of a heat wave defined as the maximum daily temperature (TXx) observed in the area 45-52N, 119-123W, was found to be virtually impossible without human-caused climate change. The observed temperatures were so extreme that they lay far outside the range of historical temperature observations. This makes it hard to state with confidence how rare the event was. Using a statistical analysis that assumes that the heat wave is part of the same distribution as previous heat waves in this region led to a first-order estimation of the event frequency of the order of once in 1000 years under current climate conditions. Using this assumption and combining the results from the analysis of climate models and weather observations, we found that such a heat wave event would be at least 150 times less common without human-induced climate change. Also, this heat wave was about 2 C hotter than a 1-in-1000-year heat wave would have been in 1850-1900, when global mean temperatures were 1.2 C cooler than today. Looking into the future, in a world with 2 C of global warming (0.8 C warmer than today), a 1000-year event would be another degree hotter. Our results provide a strong warning: our rapidly warming climate is bringing us into uncharted territory with significant consequences for health, well-being and livelihoods. Adaptation and mitigation are urgently needed to prepare societies for a very different future.

The field of extreme event attribution (EEA) has rapidly developed over the last two decades. Various methods have been developed and implemented, physical modelling capabilities have generally improved, the field of impact attribution has emerged, and assessments serve as a popular communication tool for conveying how climate change is influencing weather and climate events in the lived experience. However, a number of non-trivial challenges still remain that must be addressed by the community to secure further advancement of the field whilst ensuring scientific rigour and the appropriate use of attribution findings by stakeholders and associated applications. As part of a concept series commissioned by the World Climate Research Programme, this article discusses contemporary developments and challenges over six key domains relevant to EEA, and provides recommendations of where focus in the EEA field should be concentrated over the coming decade. These six domains are: (1) observations in the context of EEA; (2) extreme event definitions; (3) statistical methods; (4) physical modelling methods; (5) impact attribution; and (6) communication. Broadly, recommendations call for increased EEA assessments and capacity building, particularly for more vulnerable regions; contemporary guidelines for assessing the suitability of physical climate models; establishing best-practice methodologies for EEA on compound and record-shattering extremes; co-ordinated interdisciplinary engagement to develop scaffolding for impact attribution assessments and their suitability for use in broader applications; and increased and ongoing investment in EEA communication. To address these recommendations requires significant developments in multiple fields that either underpin (e.g., observations and monitoring; climate modelling) or are closely related to (e.g., compound and record-shattering events; climate impacts) EEA, as well as working consistently with experts outside of attribution and climate science more generally. However, if approached with investment, dedication, and coordination, tackling these challenges over the next decade will ensure robust EEA analysis, with tangible benefits to the broader global community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in the field of extreme event attribution allow to estimate how anthropogenic global warming affects the odds of individual climate disasters, such as river floods. Extreme event attribution typically uses precipitation as proxy for flooding. However, hydrological processes and antecedent conditions make the relation between precipitation and floods highly nonlinear. In addition, hydrology acknowledges that changes in floods can be strongly driven by changes in land‐cover and by other human interventions in the hydrological system, such as irrigation and construction of dams. These drivers can either amplify, dampen or outweigh the effect of climate change on local flood occurrence. Neglecting these processes and drivers can lead to incorrect flood attribution. Including flooding explicitly, that is, using data and models of hydrology and hydrodynamics that can represent the relevant hydrological processes, will lead to more robust event attribution, and will account for the role of other drivers beyond climate change. Existing attempts are incomplete. We argue that the existing probabilistic framework for extreme event attribution can be extended to explicitly include floods for near‐natural cases, where flood occurrence was unlikely to be influenced by land‐cover change and human hydrological interventions. However, for the many cases where this assumption is not valid, a multi‐driver framework for conditional event attribution needs to be established. Explicit flood attribution will have to grapple with uncertainties from lack of observations and compounding from the many processes involved. Further, it requires collaboration between climatologists and hydrologists, and promises to better address the needs of flood risk management. This article is categorized under:Paleoclimates and Current Trends > Modern Climate ChangePaleoclimates and Current Trends > Detection and AttributionAssessing Impacts of Climate Change > Observed Impacts of Climate Change [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Central European winters have warmed markedly since the mid-20th century. Yet cold winters are still associated with severe societal impacts on energy systems, infrastructure and public health. It is therefore crucial to anticipate storylines of worst-case cold winter conditions, and to understand whether an extremely cold winter, such as the coldest winter in the historical record of Germany in 1963 (−6.3 °C or −3.4 σ seasonal DJF temperature anomaly relative to 1981–2010), is still possible in a warming climate. Here, we first show based on multiple attribution methods that a winter of similar circulation conditions to 1963 would still lead to an extreme seasonal cold anomaly of about −4.9 to −4.7 °C (best estimates across methods) under present-day climate. This would rank as second-coldest winter in the last 75 years. Second, we conceive storylines of worst-case cold winter conditions based on two independent rare event sampling methods (climate model boosting and empirical importance sampling): winter as cold as 1963 is still physically possible in Central Europe today, albeit very unlikely. While cold winter hazards become less frequent and less intense in a warming climate overall, it remains crucial to anticipate the possibility of an extreme cold winter to avoid potential maladaptation and increased vulnerability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In early April 2021 several days of harsh frost affected central Europe. This led to very severe damage in grapevine and fruit trees in France, in regions where young leaves had already unfolded due to unusually warm temperatures in the preceding month (March 2021). We analysed with observations and 172 climate model simulations how human-induced climate change affected this event over central France, where many vineyards are located. We found that, without human-caused climate change, such temperatures in April or later in spring would have been even lower by 1.2 ∘ C (0.75 to 1.7 ∘ C). However, climate change also caused an earlier occurrence of bud burst that we characterized in this study by a growing degree day index value. This shift leaves young leaves exposed to more winter-like conditions with lower minimum temperatures and longer nights, an effect that overcompensates the warming effect. Extreme cold temperatures occurring after the start of the growing season such as those of April 2021 are now 2 ∘ C colder (0.5 to 3.3 ∘ C) than in preindustrial conditions, according to observations. This observed intensification of growing-period frosts is attributable, at least in part, to human-caused climate change with each of the five climate model ensembles used here simulating a cooling of growing-period annual temperature minima of 0.41 ∘ C (0.22 to 0.60 ∘ C) since preindustrial conditions. The 2021 growing-period frost event has become 50 % more likely (10 %–110 %). Models accurately simulate the observed warming in extreme lowest spring temperatures but underestimate the observed trends in growing-period frost intensities, a fact that yet remains to be explained. Model ensembles all simulate a further intensification of yearly minimum temperatures occurring in the growing period for future decades and a significant probability increase for such events of about 30 % (20 %–40 %) in a climate with global warming of 2 ∘ C. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It sounds straightforward. As the Earth warms due to the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, global temperatures rise and so heatwaves become warmer as well. This means that a fixed temperature threshold is passed more often: the probability of extreme heat increases. However, land use changes, vegetation change, irrigation, air pollution, and other changes also drive local and regional trends in heatwaves. Sometimes they enhance heatwave intensity, but they can also counteract the effects of climate change, and in some regions, the mechanisms that impact on trends in heatwaves have not yet been fully identified. Climate models simulate heatwaves and the increased intensity and probability of extreme heat reasonably well on large scales. However, changes in annual daily maximum temperatures do not follow global warming over some regions, including the Eastern United States and parts of Asia, reflecting the influence of local drivers as well as natural variability. Also, temperature variability is unrealistic in many models, and can fail standard quality checks. Therefore, reliable attribution and projection of change in heatwaves remain a major scientific challenge in many regions, particularly where the moisture budget is not well simulated, and where land surface changes, changes in short‐lived forcers, and soil moisture interactions are important. Plain Language Summary: Heatwaves are arguably the most deadly weather phenomena. As the Earth warms due to higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, one would expect heatwaves to become worse as well, killing even more people unless they are better protected against the heat. However, it turns out that the world is not so simple and that many other factors also influence heatwaves. Land use changes, irrigation, air pollution, and other changes also drive trends in heatwaves. Some of these cause much larger trends while some have counteracted the climate change‐driven trends up to now. In some regions, the causes of high trends have not yet been identified. Current generation climate models often do not simulate all these mechanisms correctly so will have to be improved before we can more confidently trust their description of past trends and projections of future trends in heatwaves. Key Points: The IPCC AR6 WG1 states the "frequency and intensity of hot extremes have increased"The IPCC notes that the effect of increased greenhouse gas on high temperatures is moderated or amplified at local scales by other factorsConfident quantitative attribution statements of the human influence on heatwaves are limited by our understanding of these local processes [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In early April 2021 several days of harsh frost affected central Europe. This led to very severe damages in grapevine and fruit trees in France, in regions where young leaves had already unfolded due to unusually warm temperatures in the preceding month (march 2021. We analysed with observations and 172 climate model simulations how human-induced climate change affected this event over central France, where many vineyards are located. We found that, without human-caused climate change, such temperatures in April or later in spring would have been even lower by 1.2°C [0.75°C;1.7°C]. However, climate change also caused an earlier occurrence of bud burst, that we characterized in this study by a growing-degree-day index value. This shift leaves young leaves exposed to more winter-like conditions with lower minimum temperatures and longer nights, an effect that over-compensates the warming effect. Extreme cold temperatures occurring after the start of the growing season such as those of April 2021 are now 2°C colder [0.5°C to 3.3°C] than in pre-industrial conditions, according to observations. This observed intensification of growing-period frosts is attributable, at least in part, to human-caused climate change with each of 5 climate model ensembles used here simulating a cooling of growing-period annual temperature minima of 0.41°C [0.22°C to 0.60°C] since pre-industrial conditions. The 2021 growing- period frost event has become 50% more likely [10%-110%]. Models accurately simulate the observed warming in extreme lowest spring temperatures, but underestimate the observed trends in growing-period frost intensities, a fact that remains yet to be explained. Model ensembles all simulate a further intensification of yearly minimum temperatures occurring in the growing period for future decades, and a significant probability increase for such events of about 30% [20%-40%] in a climate with global warming of 2°C. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The science of event attribution has emerged to routinely answer the question whether and to what extent human-induced climate change altered the likelihood and intensity of recently observed extreme weather events. In Europe a pilot program to operationalize the method started in November 2019, highlighting the demand for timely information on the role of climate change when it is needed most: in the direct aftermath of an extreme event. Independent of whether studies are provided operationally or as academic studies, the necessity of good observational data and well-verified climate models imply most attributions are currently made for highly developed countries only. Current attribution assessments therefore provide very little information about those events and regions where the largest damages and socio-economic losses are incurred. Arguably, these larger damages signify a much greater need for information on how the likelihood and intensity of such high-impact events have been changing and are likely to change in a warmer world. In short, why do we not focus event attribution research efforts on the whole world, and particularly events in the developing world? The reasons are not just societal and political but also scientific. We simply cannot attribute these events in the same probabilistic framework employed in most studies today. We outline six focus areas to lessen these barriers, but we will not overcome them in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several major storms pounded western Europe in January 2018, generating large damages and casualties. The two most impactful ones, Eleanor and Friederike, are analysed here in the context of climate change. Near surface wind speed station observations exhibit a decreasing trend in the frequency of strong winds associated with such storms. High-resolution regional climate models, on the other hand, show no trend up to now and a small increase in storminess in future due to climate change. This shows that factors other than climate change, which are not in the climate models, caused the observed decline in storminess over land. A large part is probably due to increases in surface roughness, as shown for a small set of stations covering the Netherlands and in previous studies. This observed trend could therefore be independent from climate evolution. We concluded that human-induced climate change has had so far no significant influence on storms like the two mentioned. However, all simulations indicate that global warming could lead to a marginal increase (0 %–20 %) in the probability of extreme hourly winds until the middle of the century, consistent with previous modelling studies. This excludes other factors, such as surface roughness, aerosols, and decadal variability, which have up to now caused a much larger negative trend. Until these factors are correctly simulated by climate models, we cannot give credible projections of future storminess over land in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The extreme precipitation that resulted in historic flooding in central-northern France began 26 May 2016 and was linked to a large cutoff low. The floods caused some casualties and over a billion euros in damage. To objectively answer the question of whether anthropogenic climate change played a role, a near-real-time "rapid" attribution analysis was performed, using well-established event attribution methods, best available observational data, and as many climate simulations as possible within that time frame. This study confirms the results of the rapid attribution study. We estimate how anthropogenic climate change has affected the likelihood of exceedance of the observed amount of 3-day precipitation in April–June for the Seine and Loire basins. We find that the observed precipitation in the Seine basin was very rare, with a return period of hundreds of years. It was less rare on the Loire—roughly 1 in 20 years. We evaluated five climate model ensembles for 3-day basin-averaged precipitation extremes in April–June. The four ensembles that simulated the statistics agree well. Combining the results reduces the uncertainty and indicates that the probability of such rainfall has increased over the last century by about a factor of 2.2 (>1.4) on the Seine and 1.9 (>1.5) on the Loire due to anthropogenic emissions. These numbers are virtually the same as those in the near-real-time attribution study by van Oldenborgh et al. Together with the evaluation of the attribution of Storm Desmond by Otto et al., this shows that, for these types of events, near-real-time attribution studies are now possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing likelihoods of extreme weather events is the most noticeable and damaging manifestation of anthropogenic climate change. In the aftermath of an extreme event, policy makers are often called upon to make timely and sensitive decisions about rebuilding and managing present and future risks. Information regarding whether, where and how present-day and future risks are changing is needed to adequately inform these decisions. But, this information is often not available and when it is, it is often not presented in a systematic way. Here, we demonstrate a seamless approach to the science of extreme event attribution and future risk assessment by using the same set of model ensembles to provide such information on past, present and future hazard risks in four case studies on different types of events. Given the current relevance, we focus on estimating the change in future hazard risk under 1.5 °C and 2 °C of global mean temperature rise. We find that this approach not only addresses important decision-making gaps, but also improves the robustness of future risk assessment and attribution statements alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several major storms pounded Western Europe in January 2018, generating large damages and casualties. The two most impactful ones, Eleanor and Friederike, are analyzed here in the context of climate change. Near surface wind speed station observations exhibit a decreasing trend of the frequency of strong winds associated with such storms. High-resolution regional climate models on the other hand show no trend up to now and a small increase in the future due to climate change. This shows that that factors other than climate change, which are not represented (well) in the climate models, caused the observed decline in storminess over land. A large part is probably due to increases in surface roughness, as shown for a small set of stations covering The Netherlands and in previous studies. This trend could therefore be independent from climate evolution. We concluded that human-induced climate change has had so far no significant influence on storms like the two studied. However, all simulations indicate that global warming could lead to a marginal increase (0-20%) of the probability of extreme hourly winds until the middle of the century, consistent with previous modelling studies. However, this excludes other factors, such as roughness, aerosols, and decadal variability, which have up to now caused a much larger negative trend. Until these factors are simulated well by climate models they cannot give credible projections of future storminess over land in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT: In 2016 and continuing into 2017, Kenya experienced drought conditions, with over 3 million people in need of food aid due to low rainfall during 2016. Whenever extreme events like this happen, questions are raised about the role of climate change and how natural variability such as the El Niño ‐ Southern Oscillation influenced the likelihood and intensity of the event. Here we aim to quantify the relative contributions of different climate drivers to this drought by applying three independent methodologies of extreme event attribution. Analysing precipitation data for the South East and North West of Kenya we found no consistent signal from human‐induced climate change and thus conclude that it has not greatly affected the likelihood of low rainfall such as in 2016. However, 2016 was a La Niña year and we show that this event was indeed more likely because of the specific sea surface temperatures. There is a trend in temperatures in the region due to climate change that may have exacerbated the effects of this drought. By analysing precipitation minus evaporation and soil moisture, simulated by one climate model only, we did not see a reduction in moisture in simulations in the current climate compared with simulations without climate change. However, there are expected effects of higher temperatures that our simulations do not cover, such as increased demand on water resources and stress on livestock. Although we find no significant influence of climate change on precipitation, we cannot rule out that temperature‐related impacts of drought are linked to human‐induced climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In northern and central Ethiopia, 2015 was a very dry year. Rainfall was only from one-half to three-quarters of the usual amount, with both the “belg” (February–May) and “kiremt” rains (June–September) affected. The timing of the rains that did fall was also erratic. Many crops failed, causing food shortages for many millions of people. The role of climate change in the probability of a drought like this is investigated, focusing on the large-scale precipitation deficit in February–September 2015 in northern and central Ethiopia. Using a gridded analysis that combines station data with satellite observations, it is estimated that the return period of this drought was more than 60 years (lower bound 95% confidence interval), with a most likely value of several hundred years. No trend is detected in the observations, but the large natural variability and short time series means large trends could go undetected in the observations. Two out of three large climate model ensembles that simulated rainfall reasonably well show no trend while the third shows an increased probability of drought. Taking the model spread into account the drought still cannot be clearly attributed to anthropogenic climate change, with the 95% confidence interval ranging from a probability decrease between preindustrial and today of a factor of 0.3 and an increase of a factor of 5 for a drought like this one or worse. A soil moisture dataset also shows a nonsignificant drying trend. According to ENSO correlations in the observations, the strong 2015 El Niño did increase the severity of the drought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 19 May 2016 the afternoon temperature reached 51.0 °C in Phalodi in the northwest of India, a new record for the highest observed maximum temperature in India. The previous year, a widely-reported very lethal heat wave occurred in the southeast, in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, killing thousands of people. In both cases it was widely assumed that the probability and severity of heat waves in India are increasing due to global warming, as they do in other parts of the world. However, we do not find positive trends in the highest maximum temperature of the year in most of India since the 1970s (except spurious trends due to missing data). Decadal variability cannot explain this, but both increased air pollution with aerosols blocking sunlight and increased irrigation leading to evaporative cooling have counteracted the effect of greenhouse gases up to now. Current climate models do not represent these processes well and hence cannot be used to attribute heat waves in this area. The health effects of heat are often described better by a combination of temperature and humidity, such as a heat index or wet bulb temperature. Due to the increase in humidity from irrigation and higher SSTs these indices have increased over the last decades even when extreme temperatures have not. The extreme air pollution also exacerbates the health impacts of heat. From a health impact point of view, the severity of heat waves has increased in India. For the next decades we expect the trend due to global warming to continue, but the cooling effect of aerosols to diminish as air quality controls are implemented. The expansion of irrigation will likely continue, though at a slower pace, mitigating this trend somewhat. Humidity will probably continue to rise. The combination will give a strong rise of the temperature of heat waves. The high humidity will make health effects worse, whereas decreased air pollution would decrease the impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]