Extreme event attribution characterizes how anthropogenic climate change may have influenced the probability and magnitude of selected individual extreme weather and climate events. Attribution statements often involve quantification of the fraction of attributable risk (FAR) or the risk ratio (RR) and associated confidence intervals. Many such analyses use climate model output to characterize extreme event behavior with and without anthropogenic influence. However, such climate models may have biases in their representation of extreme events. To account for discrepancies in the probabilities of extreme events between observational datasets and model datasets, we demonstrate an appropriate rescaling of the model output based on the quantiles of the datasets to estimate an adjusted risk ratio. Our methodology accounts for various components of uncertainty in estimation of the risk ratio. In particular, we present an approach to construct a one-sided confidence interval on the lower bound of the risk ratio when the estimated risk ratio is infinity. We demonstrate the methodology using the summer 2011 central US heatwave and output from the Community Earth System Model. In this example, we find that the lower bound of the risk ratio is relatively insensitive to the magnitude and probability of the actual event.

The Weather Risk Attribution Forecast (WRAF) is a forecasting tool that uses output from global climate models to make simultaneous attribution statements about whether and how greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to extreme weather across the globe. However, in conducting a large number of simultaneous hypothesis tests, the WRAF is prone to identifying false “discoveries.” A common technique for addressing this multiple testing problem is to adjust the procedure in a way that controls the proportion of true null hypotheses that are incorrectly rejected, or the false discovery rate (FDR). Unfortunately, generic FDR procedures suffer from low power when the hypotheses are dependent, and techniques designed to account for dependence are sensitive to misspecification of the underlying statistical model. In this article, we develop a Bayesian decision-theoretical approach for dependent multiple testing and a nonparametric hierarchical statistical model that flexibly controls false discovery and is robust to model misspecification. We illustrate the robustness of our procedure to model error with a simulation study, using a framework that accounts for generic spatial dependence and allows the practitioner to flexibly specify the decision criteria. Finally, we apply our procedure to several seasonal forecasts and discuss implementation for the WRAF workflow. Supplementary materials for this article, including a standardized description of the materials available for reproducing the work, are available as an online supplement.

Event attribution in the context of climate change seeks to understand the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions on extreme weather events, either specific events or classes of events. A common approach to event attribution uses climate model output under factual (real-world) and counterfactual (world that might have been without anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions) scenarios to estimate the probabilities of the event of interest under the two scenarios. Event attribution is then quantified by the ratio of the two probabilities. While this approach has been applied many times in the last 15 years, the statistical techniques used to estimate the risk ratio based on climate model ensembles have not drawn on the full set of methods available in the statistical literature and have in some cases used and interpreted the bootstrap method in non-standard ways. We present a precise frequentist statistical framework for quantifying the effect of sampling uncertainty on estimation of the risk ratio, propose the use of statistical methods that are new to event attribution, and evaluate a variety of methods using statistical simulations. We conclude that existing statistical methods not yet in use for event attribution have several advantages over the widely-used bootstrap, including better statistical performance in repeated samples and robustness to small estimated probabilities. Software for using the methods is available through the climextRemes package available for R or Python. While we focus on frequentist statistical methods, Bayesian methods are likely to be particularly useful when considering sources of uncertainty beyond sampling uncertainty.

The gridding of daily accumulated precipitation—especially extremes—from ground-based station observations is problematic due to the fractal nature of precipitation, and therefore estimates of long period return values and their changes based on such gridded daily datasets are generally underestimated. In this paper, we characterize high-resolution changes in observed extreme precipitation from 1950 to 2017 for the contiguous United States (CONUS) based on in situ measurements only. Our analysis utilizes spatial statistical methods that allow us to derive gridded estimates that do not smooth extreme daily measurements and are consistent with statistics from the original station data while increasing the resulting signal-to-noise ratio. Furthermore, we use a robust statistical technique to identify significant pointwise changes in the climatology of extreme precipitation while carefully controlling the rate of false positives. We present and discuss seasonal changes in the statistics of extreme precipitation: the largest and most spatially coherent pointwise changes are in fall (SON), with approximately 33% of CONUS exhibiting significant changes (in an absolute sense). Other seasons display very few meaningful pointwise changes (in either a relative or absolute sense), illustrating the difficulty in detecting pointwise changes in extreme precipitation based on in situ measurements. While our main result involves seasonal changes, we also present and discuss annual changes in the statistics of extreme precipitation. In this paper we only seek to detect changes over time and leave attribution of the underlying causes of these changes for future work.

The Colorado floods of September 2013 caused severe damage and fatalities, and resulted from prolonged heavy rainfall unusual for that time of year – both in its record-breaking amounts and associated weather systems. We investigate the possible role of anthropogenic climate change in this extreme event. The unusual hydrometeorology of the event, however, challenges standard frameworks for attributing extreme events to anthropogenic climate change, because they typically struggle to simulate and connect the large-scale meteorology associated with local weather processes. Therefore we instead employ a part dynamical modelling- part observational- based event attribution approach, which simulates regional Colorado rainfall conditional on boundary conditions prescribed from the observed synoptic-scale meteorology in September 2013 – and assumes these conditions would have been similar in the absence of anthropogenic forcing. Using this ‘conditional event attribution’ approach we find that our regional climate model simulations indicate that anthropogenic drivers increased the magnitude of heavy northeast Colorado rainfall for the wet week in September 2013 by 30%, with the occurrence probability of a week at least that wet increasing by at least a factor of 1.3. By comparing the convective and large-scale components of rainfall, we find that this increase resulted in part from the additional moisture-carrying capacity of a warmer atmosphere – allowing more intense local convective rainfall that induced a dynamical positive feedback in the existing larger scale moisture flow – and also in part from additional moisture transport associated with larger scale circulation change. Our approach precludes assessment of changes in the frequency of the observed synoptic meteorological conditions themselves, and thus does not assess the effect of anthropogenic climate drivers on the statistics of heavy Colorado rainfall events. However, tailoring analysis tools to diagnose particular aspects of localized extreme weather events, conditional on the observed large-scale meteorology, can prove useful for diagnosing the physical effects of anthropogenic climate change on severe weather events – especially given large uncertainties in assessments of anthropogenic driven changes in atmospheric circulation.

Item response theory (IRT) models typically rely on a normality assumption for subject-specific latent traits, which is often unrealistic in practice. Semiparametric extensions based on Dirichlet process mixtures (DPMs) offer a more flexible representation of the unknown distribution of the latent trait. However, the use of such models in the IRT literature has been extremely limited, in good part because of the lack of comprehensive studies and accessible software tools. This article provides guidance for practitioners on semiparametric IRT models and their implementation. In particular, we rely on NIMBLE, a flexible software system for hierarchical models that enables the use of DPMs. We highlight efficient sampling strategies for model estimation and compare inferential results under parametric and semiparametric models.

Gridded data products, for example interpolated daily measurements of precipitation from weather stations, are commonly used as a convenient substitute for direct observations because these products provide a spatially and temporally continuous and complete source of data. However, when the goal is to characterize climatological features of extreme precipitation over a spatial domain (e.g., a map of return values) at the native spatial scales of these phenomena, then gridded products may lead to incorrect conclusions because daily precipitation is a fractal field and hence any smoothing technique will dampen local extremes. To address this issue, we create a new “probabilistic” gridded product specifically designed to characterize the climatological properties of extreme precipitation by applying spatial statistical analysis to daily measurements of precipitation from the Global Historical Climatology Network over the contiguous United States. The essence of our method is to first estimate the climatology of extreme precipitation based on station data and then use a data-driven statistical approach to interpolate these estimates to a fine grid. We argue that our method yields an improved characterization of the climatology within a grid cell because the probabilistic behavior of extreme precipitation is much better behaved (i.e., smoother) than daily weather. Furthermore, the spatial smoothing innate to our approach significantly increases the signal-to-noise ratio in the estimated extreme statistics relative to an analysis without smoothing. Finally, by deriving a data-driven approach for translating extreme statistics to a spatially complete grid, the methodology outlined in this paper resolves the issue of how to properly compare station data with output from earth system models. We conclude the paper by comparing our probabilistic gridded product with a standard extreme value analysis of the Livneh gridded daily precipitation product. Our new data product is freely available on the Harvard Dataverse (https://bit.ly/2CXdnuj).

In recent years, the climate change research community has become highly interested in describing the anthropogenic influence on extreme weather events, commonly termed “event attribution.” Limitations in the observational record and in computational resources motivate the use of uncoupled, atmosphere/land-only climate models with prescribed ocean conditions run over a short period, leading up to and including an event of interest. In this approach, large ensembles of high-resolution simulations can be generated under factual observed conditions and counterfactual conditions that might have been observed in the absence of human interference; these can be used to estimate the change in probability of the given event due to anthropogenic influence. However, using a prescribed ocean state ignores the possibility that estimates of attributable risk might be a function of the ocean state. Thus, the uncertainty in attributable risk is likely underestimated, implying an over-confidence in anthropogenic influence. In this work, we estimate the year-to-year variability in calculations of the anthropogenic contribution to extreme weather based on large ensembles of atmospheric model simulations. Our results both quantify the magnitude of year-to-year variability and categorize the degree to which conclusions of attributable risk are qualitatively affected. The methodology is illustrated by exploring extreme temperature and precipitation events for the northwest coast of South America and northern-central Siberia; we also provides results for regions around the globe. While it remains preferable to perform a full multi-year analysis, the results presented here can serve as an indication of where and when attribution researchers should be concerned about the use of atmosphere-only simulations.