Many of the climate change discussions here rely on attribution science, the question of whether extreme weather events are due to climate change. The National Academy of Sciences has released a new report on Extreme Event Attribution which has generated backlash from the usual suspects.
The report website says
Decades of data and research indicate that human-caused climate change is altering the frequency and intensity of several types of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, record-breaking heat waves, and extreme rainfall.
E&E News
The fossil fuel industry has targeted attribution science for nearly a decade, claiming it is solely designed to help propel lawsuits that seek compensation from polluters for the costs of climate change.
NY Times
Attribution science is advancing quickly, researchers said. That could support lawsuits seeking damages for severe events worsened by global warming.
Ars Technica has a nice article
According to a report released by the US National Academies of Science on Thursday, the field of climate attribution is growing increasingly mature and can answer some questions for us with far greater confidence than it could just a decade ago. The report also notes that there are still important limits and suggests steps to address them. Overall, this makes it clear that climate attribution is normal, mainstream science. And the fossil fuel industry views that as a problem, as it could make it easier to hold companies liable for damages. This has triggered a backlash that has Republicans in Congress and state governments threatening the National Academies’ funding.
Well, the data on the earth are observational (no experiments) and have sample size of 1 (only one earth).
So attribution will have to rely on models informed by observational data and other knowledge (atmospheric physics).
We know enough.
There are 8+ billion humans altering the earth in various ways. We know the basic physics. We know a lot about the atmospheric and geophysical patterns. We are accumulating more observational data all of the time.
We know enough to draw reasonable conclusions about human impact on the earth, such as heat transfer and its impacts on climate and weather.
Heck, even with well-designed clinical trials people question the results.
“Researchers use a combination of observational data, weather and climate models, and statistical models to make these comparisons and quantify the effect of climate change on the extreme event.”
“Over the past decade, increased scientific understanding of the physical drivers of extreme events, expanded observational data, new statistical techniques, and improved models have together contributed to advances in EEA capability, the report says. For example, radar, satellite, and on-site observations have expanded in terms of area and length of time covered, resulting in additional data to support EEA analyses for many regions. And, the use of larger ensembles of climate model simulations is enabling researchers to more effectively separate the human-caused climate signal from natural variability.”
That depends on the question. We do know enough about the big picture We know that we’re changing the climate, it will continue to get more expensive in lives and treasure until we reach net zero, and the climate will stabilize wherever we are at the time. Clean energy is a no-brainer and has been for quite a while.
If we need to build a new storm drain with a 50 year lifetime in a particular neighborhood, engineers need to know how large floods will be in that neighborhood in the 2070’s. For that, we do need more science.
More than fair. An article on the floods from Hurricane Helene in North Carolina says
"A study by independent group Climate Central found that at our current rate of warming, flooding will cost North Carolina around 34% more by 2050. "
This is the kind of quantification we can get from extreme weather attribution.
