MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220692907 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-5949

Towards forecast-based attribution of isolated extreme events: perturbed initial condition simulations of the Pacific Northwest heatwave

2022· preprint· en· W4220692907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas Leach, Christopher D. Roberts, T. S. Palmer, Myles Allen, Antje Weisheimer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsAttributionClimatologyCounterfactual thinkingClimate modelEnvironmental scienceExtreme weatherGeneral Circulation ModelMeteorologyClimate changeRobustness (evolution)GeographyOceanographyChemistryGeologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we explore the use of “counterfactual” weather forecasts, using perturbed initial condition runs of a state-of-the-art high-resolution coupled ocean-atmosphere-sea-ice ensemble NWP system, for the attribution of extreme weather events to anthropogenic climate change. We use the “record-shattering” heatwave experienced by Western North America during summer 2021 as a case study - though our forecast-based approach is applicable to other events. Since we cannot make direct observations of a world without human influence on climate, all approaches to extreme event attribution involve some kind of modelling, either statistical or numerical. Both approaches struggle with the most extreme weather events, which are poorly represented in both observational records and the climate models normally used for attribution studies. Recognising the compromises involved, researchers have traditionally relied on comparing results from several different approaches to assess the robustness of conclusions. We argue that a better approach would be to use initialised numerical models that have demonstrated their ability to simulate the event in question through a successful forecast. This work represents a continuation of a previous EGU talk and published study (https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU21/EGU21-5731.html & https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2112087118), in which we used demonstrably successful weather forecasts to estimate the direct impact of increased CO2 concentrations (one component, but not the entirety, of human influence) on the 2019 European winter heatwave. In the previous and current work we use the operational ECMWF ensemble prediction system. This state-of-the-art weather forecast system is run at a much higher resolution (Tco639 / 18km) than most climate model simulations - important as even small reductions in resolution often change the representation of extreme events in numerical models. Using a reliable forecast ensemble allows us to quantify the associated uncertainties in our attribution analyses. We have built on this work with the aim of providing a more complete estimate of the human influence on an isolated extreme event. In addition to the reduction of CO2 concentrations back to pre-industrial levels, we now also remove an estimate of the human influence on 3D ocean temperatures since the pre-industrial period from the initial state of the forecast model. These changes allow the model to provide a “counterfactual” picture of what an extreme event might have looked like if it had occurred before human influence on the climate. Using this perturbed initial condition approach, we produce counterfactual forecasts of the Pacific Northwest heatwave at the end of June 2021. This event broke records throughout Western North America, including a new Canadian high temperature record of 49.6°C, shattering the previous record by almost 5°C. The heatwave was driven by a combination of meteorological factors, including an omega block and water vapour transport at the synoptic scale, and high solar irradiation and subsidence at the meso-scale (research into the drivers is ongoing). Crucially, the event was well-predicted by weather forecast models over a week in advance. We estimate the human contribution to this exceptional heatwave by comparing our counterfactual forecasts to the operational forecasts that successfully predicted the event.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations→French-language works237,207→