The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has published a report that finds the science of linking particular extreme weather events to human-caused climate change has grown significantly more rigorous over the past decade. The committee, chaired by James Hurrell of Colorado State University, sets out how attribution studies can inform planning, risk management and resilience efforts as global temperatures rise.
Attribution: a tool for decisions
Attribution science—formally called extreme event attribution (EEA)—aims to estimate how the probability or severity of a specific weather-related event (such as a heatwave, flood or hurricane) would have differed in a world without the influence of human activities. The new report, published by the National Academies, finds that although uncertainties remain, researchers are increasingly able to estimate how the same event might have unfolded in the absence of anthropogenic warming.
The committee framed attribution as more than retrospective explanation. Its findings emphasise that attribution studies:
- improve understanding of the physical processes that generate extremes;
- offer actionable information for governments, insurers and infrastructure planners; and
- help emergency managers and businesses make decisions to reduce future risk.
“Although uncertainty remains, scientists are increasingly able to estimate how the same event might have unfolded in a world without human influence.” — James Hurrell
Who stands to benefit
The report explicitly connects advances in attribution science to practical uses. Its authors underline that better attribution results can guide a wide range of stakeholders, including:
- national and local governments tasked with adapting infrastructure and services;
- insurers and financial institutions assessing liability and coverage;
- emergency managers refining preparedness and response strategies;
- businesses planning for climate-related supply-chain disruptions.
James Hurrell, the Scott Presidential Chair of Environmental Science and Engineering at Colorado State University and chair of the committee, told AMS Headlines that his role involved guiding deliberations and building consensus among experts from many disciplines. He emphasised that the report reflects the collective judgement of the committee rather than any single member.
Strengths and limits
The committee acknowledges the science has become stronger, but it also highlights ongoing limitations. Attribution often relies on observational records, climate models, and statistical methods, each of which brings uncertainties. The report urges continued investment in observations, model development and methodological improvements so attribution studies can deliver more confident and regionally relevant assessments.
Better attribution helps not only in explaining an event after it happens but also in improving projections of how the characteristics, frequency and impacts of different types of extremes will change under future warming scenarios. That dual role—explanation and improved forecasting—was a central message of the committee.
Report details
| Report | Committee chair |
|---|---|
| Attribution of Extreme Weather Events and Their Impacts in the Context of Climate Change | James Hurrell (Colorado State University) |
The publication comes as public interest in event attribution grows. Policymakers, insurers and the public are increasingly using attribution findings in debates about responsibility, adaptation funding and climate resilience. The National Academies report recommends ongoing support for the scientific infrastructure and cross-disciplinary collaboration needed to make attribution an increasingly reliable element of national and international climate planning.
As attribution methods continue to mature, they are likely to play a larger role in how societies assess climate-related risks, design resilient systems and allocate resources to manage the consequences of a warmer world.
