Detection and attribution of climate change: a regional perspective

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report, published in 2007 came to a more confident assessment of the causes of global temperature change than previous reports and concluded that ‘it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica.’ Since then, warming over Antarctica has also been attributed to human influence, and further evidence has accumulated attributing a much wider range of climate changes to human activities. Such changes are broadly consistent with theoretical understanding, and climate model simulations, of how the planet is expected to respond. This paper reviews this evidence from a regional perspective to reflect a growing interest in understanding the regional effects of climate change, which can differ markedly across the globe. We set out the methodological basis for detection and attribution and discuss the spatial scales on which it is possible to make robust attribution statements. We review the evidence showing significant human-induced changes in regional temperatures, and for the effects of external forcings on changes in the hydrological cycle, the cryosphere, circulation changes, oceanic changes, and changes in extremes. We then discuss future challenges for the science of attribution. To better assess the pace of change, and to understand more about the regional changes to which societies need to adapt, we will need to refine our understanding of the effects of external forcing and internal variability

The effect of nonlinearity in CO2 heating rates on the attribution of stratospheric ozone and temperature changes

An analysis of the attribution of past and future changes in stratospheric ozone and temperature to anthropogenic forcings is presented. The analysis is an extension of the study of Shepherd and Jonsson (2008) who analyzed chemistry-climate simulations from the Canadian Middle Atmosphere Model (CMAM) and attributed both past and future changes to changes in the external forcings, i.e. the abundances of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and well-mixed greenhouse gases. The current study is based on a new CMAM dataset and includes two important changes. First, we account for the nonlinear radiative response to changes in CO2. It is shown that over centennial time scales the radiative response in the upper stratosphere to CO2 changes is significantly nonlinear and that failure to account for this effect leads to a significant error in the attribution. To our knowledge this nonlinearity has not been considered before in attribution analysis, including multiple linear regression studies. For the regression analysis presented here the nonlinearity was taken into account by using CO2 heating rate, rather than CO2 abundance, as the explanatory variable. This approach yields considerable corrections to the results of the previous study and can be recommended to other researchers. Second, an error in the way the CO2 forcing changes are implemented in the CMAM was corrected, which significantly affects the results for the recent past. As the radiation scheme, based on Fomichev et al. (1998), is used in several other models we provide some description of the problem and how it was fixed.

On the attribution of stratospheric ozone and temperature changes to changes in ozone-depleting substances and well-mixed greenhouse gases

The vertical profile of global-mean stratospheric temperature changes has traditionally represented an important diagnostic for the attribution of the cooling effects of stratospheric ozone depletion and CO2 increases. However, CO2-induced cooling alters ozone abundance by perturbing ozone chemistry, thereby coupling the stratospheric ozone and temperature responses to changes in CO2 and ozone-depleting substances (ODSs). Here we untangle the ozone-temperature coupling and show that the attribution of global-mean stratospheric temperature changes to CO2 and ODS changes (which are the true anthropogenic forcing agents) can be quite different from the traditional attribution to CO2 and ozone changes. The significance of these effects is quantified empirically using simulations from a three-dimensional chemistry-climate model. The results confirm the essential validity of the traditional approach in attributing changes during the past period of rapid ODS increases, although we find that about 10% of the upper stratospheric ozone decrease from ODS increases over the period 1975–1995 was offset by the increase in CO2, and the CO2-induced cooling in the upper stratosphere has been somewhat overestimated. When considering ozone recovery, however, the ozone-temperature coupling is a first-order effect; fully 2/5 of the upper stratospheric ozone increase projected to occur from 2010–2040 is attributable to CO2 increases. Thus, it has now become necessary to base attribution of global-mean stratospheric temperature changes on CO2 and ODS changes rather than on CO2 and ozone changes.

Automatic ability attribution after failure: a dual process view of achievement attribution

Causal attribution has been one of the most influential frameworks in the literature of achievement motivation, but previous studies considered achievement attribution as relatively deliberate and effortful processes. In the current study, we tested the hypothesis that people automatically attribute their achievement failure to their ability, but reduce the ability attribution in a controlled manner. To address this hypothesis, we measured participants’ causal attribution belief for their task failure either under the cognitive load (load condition) or with full attention (no-load condition). Across two studies, participants attributed task performance to their ability more in the load than in the no-load condition. The increased ability attribution under cognitive load further affected intrinsic motivation. These results indicate that cognitive resources available after feedback play crucial roles in determining causal attribution belief, as well as achievement motivations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)(journal abstract)

Attribution of the spatial pattern of CO2-forced sea level change to ocean surface flux changes

Climate models taking part in the coupled model intercomparison project phase 5 (CMIP5) all predict a global mean sea level rise for the 21st century. Yet the sea level change is not spatially uniform and differs among models. Here we evaluate the role of air–sea fluxes of heat, water and momentum (windstress) to find the spatial pattern associated to each of them as well as the spread they can account for. Using one AOGCM to which we apply the surface flux changes from other AOGCMs, we show that the heat flux and windstress changes dominate both the pattern and the spread, but taking the freshwater flux into account as well yields a sea level change pattern in better agreement with the CMIP5 ensemble mean. Differences among the CMIP5 control ocean temperature fields have a smaller impact on the sea level change pattern.

Attribution of extreme weather events in Africa: A preliminary exploration of the science and policy implications

At the most recent session of the Conference of the Parties (COP19) in Warsaw (November 2013) the Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts was established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The mechanism aims at promoting the implementation of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change. Specifically, it aims to enhance understanding of risk management approaches to address loss and damage. Understanding risks associated with impacts due to highly predictable (slow onset) events like sea-level rise is relatively straightforward whereas assessing the effects of climate change on extreme weather events and their impacts is much more difficult. However, extreme weather events are a significant cause of loss of life and livelihoods, particularly in vulnerable countries and communities in Africa. The emerging science of probabilistic event attribution is relevant as it provides scientific evidence on the contribution of anthropogenic climate change to changes in risk of extreme events. It thus provides the opportunity to explore scientifically-backed assessments of the human influence on such events. However, different ways of framing attribution questions can lead to very different assessments of change in risk. Here we explain the methods of, and implications of different approaches to attributing extreme weather events with a focus on Africa. Crucially, it demonstrates that defining the most appropriate attribution question to ask is not a science decision but needs to be made in dialogue with those stakeholders who will use the answers.

Implications of event attribution for loss and damage policy

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has established the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) to deal with loss and damage associated with climate change impacts, including extreme events, in developing countries. It is not yet known whether events will need to be attributed to anthropogenic climate change to be considered under the WIM. Attribution is possible for some extreme events- a climate model assessment can estimate how greenhouse gas emissions have affected the likelihood of their occurrence. Dialogue between scientists and stakeholders is required to establish whether, and how, this science could play a role in the WIM.

Attribution of climate extreme events

There is a tremendous desire to attribute causes to weather and climate events that is often challenging from a physical standpoint. Headlines attributing an event solely to either human-induced climate change or natural variability can be misleading when both are invariably in play. The conventional attribution framework struggles with dynamically driven extremes because of the small signal-to-noise ratios and often uncertain nature of the forced changes. Here, we suggest that a different framing is desirable, which asks why such extremes unfold the way they do. Specifically, we suggest that it is more useful to regard the extreme circulation regime or weather event as being largely unaffected by climate change, and question whether known changes in the climate system's thermodynamic state affected the impact of the particular event. Some examples briefly illustrated include 'snowmaggedon' in February 2010, superstorm Sandy in October 2012 and supertyphoon Haiyan in November 2013, and, in more detail, the Boulder floods of September 2013, all of which were influenced by high sea surface temperatures that had a discernible human component.

Stakeholder perceptions of event attribution in the loss and damage debate

In 2013 the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for loss and damage (L&D) associated with climate change impacts was established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). For scientists, L&D raises ques- tions around the extent that such impacts can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change, which may generate complex results and be controversial in the policy arena. This is particularly true in the case of probabilistic event attribution (PEA) science, a new and rapidly evolving field that assesses whether changes in the probabilities of extreme events are attributable to GHG emissions. If the potential applications of PEA are to be considered responsibly, dialogue between scientists and policy makers is fundamental. Two key questions are considered here through a literature review and key stakeholder interviews with representatives from the science and policy sectors underpinning L&D. These provided the opportunity for in-depth insights into stakeholders’ views on firstly, how much is known and understood about PEA by those associated with the L&D debate? Secondly, how might PEA inform L&D and wider climate policy? Results show debate within the climate science community, and limited understanding among other stakeholders, around the sense in which extreme events can be attributed to climate change. However, stake- holders do identify and discuss potential uses for PEA in the WIM and wider policy, but it remains difficult to explore precise applications given the ambiguity surrounding L&D. This implies a need for stakeholders to develop greater understandings of alternative conceptions of L&D and the role of science, and also identify how PEA can best be used to support policy, and address associated challenges.

On the detection and attribution of gravity waves generated by the 20 March 2015 solar eclipse

Internal gravity waves are generated as adjustment radiation whenever a sudden change in forcing causes the atmosphere to depart from its large-scale balanced state. Such a forcing anomaly occurs during a solar eclipse, when the Moon’s shadow cools part of the Earth’s surface. The resulting atmospheric gravity waves are associated with pressure and temperature perturbations, which in principle are detectable both at the surface and aloft. In this study, surface pressure and temperature data from two UK sites at Reading and Lerwick are analysed for eclipse-driven gravity-wave perturbations during the 20 March 2015 solar eclipse over north-west Europe. Radiosonde wind data from the same two sites are also analysed using a moving parcel analysis method, to determine the periodicities of the waves aloft. On this occasion, the perturbations both at the surface and aloft are found not to be confidently attributable to eclipse-driven gravity waves. We conclude that the complex synoptic weather conditions over the UK at the time of this particular eclipse helped to mask any eclipse-driven gravity waves.

A common framework for approaches to extreme event attribution

The extent to which a given extreme weather or climate event is attributable to anthropogenic climate change is a question of considerable public interest. From a scientific perspective, the question can be framed in various ways, and the answer depends very much on the framing. One such framing is a risk-based approach, which answers the question probabilistically, in terms of a change in likelihood of a class of event similar to the one in question, and natural variability is treated as noise. A rather different framing is a storyline approach, which examines the role of the various factors contributing to the event as it unfolded, including the anomalous aspects of natural variability, and answers the question deterministically. It is argued that these two apparently irreconcilable approaches can be viewed within a common framework, where the most useful level of conditioning will depend on the question being asked and the uncertainties involved.

Interactions between climate change and land use change on biodiversity: attribution problems, risks, and opportunities

Global change drivers are known to interact in their effects on biodiversity, but much research to date ignores this complexity. As a consequence, there are problems in the attribution of biodiversity change to different drivers and, therefore, our ability to manage habitats and landscapes appropriately. Few studies explicitly acknowledge and account for interactive (i.e., nonadditive) effects of land use and climate change on biodiversity. One reason is that the mechanisms by which drivers interact are poorly understood. We evaluate such mechanisms, including interactions between demographic parameters, evolutionary trade-offs and synergies and threshold effects of population size and patch occupancy on population persistence. Other reasons for the lack of appropriate research are limited data availability and analytical issues in addressing interaction effects. We highlight the influence that attribution errors can have on biodiversity projections and discuss experimental designs and analytical tools suited to this challenge. Finally, we summarize the risks and opportunities provided by the existence of interaction effects. Risks include ineffective conservation management; but opportunities also arise, whereby the negative impacts of climate change on biodiversity can be reduced through appropriate land management as an adaptation measure. We hope that increasing the understanding of key mechanisms underlying interaction effects and discussing appropriate experimental and analytical designs for attribution will help researchers, policy makers, and conservation practitioners to better minimize risks and exploit opportunities provided by land use-climate change interactions.

Detection and attribution of human influence on regional precipitation

Understanding how human influence on climate is affecting precipitation around the world is immensely important for defining mitigation policies, and for adaptation planning. Yet despite increasing evidence for the influence of climate change on global patterns of precipitation, and expectations that significant changes in regional precipitation should have already occurred as a result of human influence on climate, compelling evidence of anthropogenic fingerprints on regional precipitation is obscured by observational and modelling uncertainties and is likely to remain so using current methods for years to come. This is in spite of substantial ongoing improvements in models, new reanalyses and a satellite record that spans over thirty years. If we are to quantify how human-induced climate change is affecting the regional water cycle, we need to consider novel ways of identifying the effects of natural and anthropogenic influences on precipitation that take full advantage of our physical expectations.

Attribution i moral och etik : hur tillskriver människor orsaker till beteenden?

Rapporten handlar om hur människor attribuerar, det vill säga tillskriver, orsaker till beteenden i moralbaserade situationer och om det finns skillnad i hur män och kvinnor attribuerar beteenden. För att undersöka hur människor attribuerar har man i denna undersökning låtit män och kvinnor göra bedömningar om varför man själv eller ”någon av samma ålder och kön” gör som de gör i specifika situationer. Detta gjordes i en enkät innehållande två situationer med vardera fyra orsaker som rangordnas efter hur troliga de är som anledning till vad som hände i situationen. Enligt resultaten finns det en signifikant skillnad i hur människor attribuerar beteenden men det beror på vilken situation de befinner sig i. Resultaten påvisar inte någon signifikant skillnad i hur män och kvinnor attribuerar sitt och andras beteenden.

Mapping Attribution Metadata to the Open Provenance Model

A description of a data item's provenance can be provided in dierent forms, and which form is best depends on the intended use of that description. Because of this, dierent communities have made quite distinct underlying assumptions in their models for electronically representing provenance. Approaches deriving from the library and archiving communities emphasise agreed vocabulary by which resources can be described and, in particular, assert their attribution (who created the resource, who modied it, where it was stored etc.) The primary purpose here is to provide intuitive metadata by which users can search for and index resources. In comparison, models for representing the results of scientific workflows have been developed with the assumption that each event or piece of intermediary data in a process' execution can and should be documented, to give a full account of the experiment undertaken. These occurrences are connected together by stating where one derived from, triggered, or otherwise caused another, and so form a causal graph. Mapping between the two approaches would be benecial in integrating systems and exploiting the strengths of each. In this paper, we specify such a mapping between Dublin Core and the Open Provenance Model. We further explain the technical issues to overcome and the rationale behind the approach, to allow the same method to apply in mapping similar schemes.