Importance of Framing for Extreme Event Attribution: The Role of Spatial and Temporal Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Event attribution, which determines how anthropogenic climate change has affected the likelihood of certain types of extreme events, is of broad interest to industries, governments, and the public. Attribution results can be highly dependent on the definition of the event and the characteristics assessed, which are part of framing the attribution question. Despite a widely acknowledged sensitivity to framing, little work has been done to document the impacts on attribution and the resulting implications. Here, we use a perfect‐model approach and large ensembles of coupled climate‐model simulations to demonstrate how event attribution depends on the spatial and temporal scales used to define the event. In general, stronger attribution is found for events defined over longer time scales and larger spatial scales due to enhanced signal‐to‐noise ratios. With strong warming trends, most regions see large changes in the likelihood of temperature extremes at all scales, even at low levels of global mean temperature increase. For precipitation extremes, spatial scale plays a strong role. It may be possible to attribute changes in likelihood for extreme precipitation events defined over larger scales, but greater levels of global warming are often required before it is possible to attribute changes in the likelihood of smaller‐scale precipitation events. Care must be taken to understand the scales used in event attribution, in order to properly understand the results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".