Attribution of human-induced dynamical and thermodynamical contributions in extreme weather events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a new method that allows a separation of the attribution of human influence in extreme events into changes in atmospheric flows and changes in other processes. Assuming two data sets of model simulations or observations representing a natural, or 'counter-factual' climate, and the actual, or 'factual' climate, we show how flow analogs used across data sets can provide quantitative estimates of each contribution to the changes in probabilities of extreme events. We apply this method to the extreme January precipitation amounts in Southern UK such as were observed in the winter of 2013/2014. Using large ensembles of an atmospheric model forced by factual and counterfactual sea surface temperatures, we demonstrate that about a third of the increase in January precipitation amounts can be attributed to changes in weather circulation patterns and two thirds of the increase to thermodynamic changes. This method can be generalized to many classes of events and regions and provides, in the above case study, similar results to those obtained in Schaller et al (2016 Nat. Clim. Change 6 627–34 ) who used a simple circulation index, describing only a local feature of the circulation, as in other methods using circulation indices (van Ulden and van Oldenborgh 2006 Atmos. Chem. Phys. 6 863–81 ).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".