Natural hazards in Australia: heatwaves

As part of a special issue on natural hazards, this paper reviews the current state of scientific knowledge of Australian heatwaves. Over recent years, progress has been made in understanding both the causes of and changes to heatwaves. Relationships between atmospheric heatwaves and large-scale and synoptic variability have been identified, with increasing trends in heatwave intensity, frequency and duration projected to continue throughout the 21st century. However, more research is required to further our understanding of the dynamical interactions of atmospheric heatwaves, particularly with the land surface. Research into marine heatwaves is still in its infancy, with little known about driving mechanisms, and observed and future changes. In order to address these knowledge gaps, recommendations include: focusing on a comprehensive assessment of atmospheric heatwave dynamics; understanding links with droughts; working towards a unified measurement framework; and investigating observed and future trends in marine heatwaves. Such work requires comprehensive and long-term collaboration activities. However, benefits will extend to the international community, thus addressing global grand challenges surrounding these extreme events

Understanding and Reducing Future Uncertainty in Midlatitude Daily Heat Extremes Via Land Surface Feedback Constraints

Climate simulations of future hot extremes exhibit large uncertainties regarding the magnitude of projected warming. We identify two mechanisms that influence how strongly future heat extremes intensify in climate models. First, the magnitude of extreme temperature increases is determined by changes in preceding seasonal precipitation, connected to amplified warming via soil moisture decreases. Second, there are large differences in how models respond to moisture variability; those with a stronger response under current climate simulate larger future increases in hot extremes. We build on this mechanistic understanding of future uncertainty and develop a novel constraint, the observed precipitation-hot temperature relationship, focused on the conditions on the actual hottest day, to identify climate models with realistic land-atmosphere feedbacks on hot extremes. Applying this constraint to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 ensemble reduces the probability of the largest increases in projected heat extremes, particularly over Europe and North America

Attribution of the July-August 2013 heat event in Central and Eastern China to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions

In the midsummer of 2013, Central and Eastern China (CEC) was hit by an extraordinary heat event, with the region experiencing the warmest July-August on record. To explore how human-induced greenhouse gas emissions and natural internal variability contributed to this heat event, we compare observed July-August mean surface air temperature with that simulated by climate models. We find that both atmospheric natural variability and anthropogenic factors contributed to this heat event. This extreme warm midsummer was associated with a positive high-pressure anomaly that was closely related to the stochastic behavior of atmospheric circulation. Diagnosis of CMIP5 models and large ensembles of two atmospheric models indicates that human influence has substantially increased the chance of warm mid-summers such as 2013 in CEC, although the exact estimated increase depends on the selection of climate models

Quantifying the effect of interannual ocean variability on the attribution of extreme climate events to human influence

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

Attribution of the July-August 2013 heat event in Central and Eastern China to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions

© 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd. In the midsummer of 2013, Central and Eastern China (CEC) was hit by an extraordinary heat event, with the region experiencing the warmest July-August on record. To explore how human-induced greenhouse gas emissions and natural internal variability contributed to this heat event, we compare observed July-August mean surface air temperature with that simulated by climate models. We find that both atmospheric natural variability and anthropogenic factors contributed to this heat event. This extreme warm midsummer was associated with a positive high-pressure anomaly that was closely related to the stochastic behavior of atmospheric circulation. Diagnosis of CMIP5 models and large ensembles of two atmospheric models indicates that human influence has substantially increased the chance of warm mid-summers such as 2013 in CEC, although the exact estimated increase depends on the selection of climate models

Evaluating the Contribution of Land-Atmosphere Coupling to Heat Extremes in CMIP5 Models

Land-atmosphere coupling can amplify heat extremes under declining soil moisture. Here we evaluate this coupling in 25 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 models using flux tower observations over Europe and North America. We compared heat extremes (2.5% of the hottest days of the year) and the evaporative fraction (EF; a measure of land surface dryness) on the day the heat extremes occurred. We found a negative relationship between the magnitude of heat extremes and EF in both models and observations in transitional regions, with the hottest temperatures occurring during the driest days, with a similar but less certain relationship in dry regions. Surprisingly, many models also showed an amplification of heat extremes by low EF in wet regions, a finding not supported by observations. Many models may therefore overamplify heat extremes over wet regions by overestimating the strength of land-atmosphere coupling, with consequences for future projections of heat extremes

Attribution of extreme weather to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions: Sensitivity to spatial and temporal scales

Recent studies have examined the anthropogenic contribution to specific extreme weather events, such as the European (2003) and Russian (2010) heat waves. While these targeted studies examine the attributable risk of an event occurring over a specified temporal and spatial domain, it is unclear how effectively their attribution statements can serve as a proxy for similar events occurring at different temporal and spatial scales. Here we test the sensitivity of attribution results to the temporal and spatial scales of extreme precipitation and temperature events by applying a probabilistic event attribution framework to the output of two global climate models, each run with and without anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Attributable risk tends to be more sensitive to the temporal than spatial scale of the event, increasing as event duration increases. Globally, correlations between attribution statements at different spatial scales are very strong for temperature extremes and moderate for heavy precipitation extremes. © 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved

An independent assessment of anthropogenic attribution statements for recent extreme temperature and rainfall events

The annual "State of the Climate" report, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS), has included a supplement since 2011 composed of brief analyses of the human influence on recent major extreme weather events. There are now several dozen extreme weather events examined in these supplements, but these studies have all differed in their data sources as well as their approaches to defining the events, analyzing the events, and the consideration of the role of anthropogenic emissions. This study reexamines most of these events using a single analytical approach and a single set of climate model and observational data sources. In response to recent studies recommending the importance of using multiple methods for extreme weather event attribution, results are compared from these analyses to those reported in the BAMS supplements collectively, with the aim of characterizing the degree to which the lack of a common methodological framework may or may not influence overall conclusions. Results are broadly similar to those reported earlier for extreme temperature events but disagree for a number of extreme precipitation events. Based on this, it is advised that the lack of comprehensive uncertainty analysis in recent extreme weather attribution studies is important and should be considered when interpreting results, but as yet it has not introduced a systematic bias across these studies