Attribution: how is it relevant for loss and damage policy and practice?

Attribution has become a recurring issue in discussions about Loss and Damage (L&D). In this highly-politicised context, attribution is often associated with responsibility and blame; and linked to debates about liability and compensation. The aim of attribution science, however, is not to establish responsibility, but to further scientific understanding of causal links between elements of the Earth System and society. This research into causality could inform the management of climate-related risks through improved understanding of drivers of relevant hazards, or, more widely, vulnerability and exposure; with potential benefits regardless of political positions on L&D. Experience shows that it is nevertheless difficult to have open discussions about the science in the policy sphere. This is not only a missed opportunity, but also problematic in that it could inhibit understanding of scientific results and uncertainties, potentially leading to policy planning which does not have sufficient scientific evidence to support it. In this chapter, we first explore this dilemma for science-policy dialogue, summarising several years of research into stakeholder perspectives of attribution in the context of L&D. We then aim to provide clarity about the scientific research available, through an overview of research which might contribute evidence about the causal connections between anthropogenic climate change and losses and damages, including climate science, but also other fields which examine other drivers of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Finally, we explore potential applications of attribution research, suggesting that an integrated and nuanced approach has potential to inform planning to avert, minimise and address losses and damages. The key messages are In the political context of climate negotiations, questions about whether losses and damages can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change are often linked to issues of responsibility, blame, and liability. Attribution science does not aim to establish responsibility or blame, but rather to investigate drivers of change. Attribution science is advancing rapidly, and has potential to increase understanding of how climate variability and change is influencing slow onset and extreme weather events, and how this interacts with other drivers of risk, including socio-economic drivers, to influence losses and damages. Over time, some uncertainties in the science will be reduced, as the anthropogenic climate change signal becomes stronger, and understanding of climate variability and change develops. However, some uncertainties will not be eliminated. Uncertainty is common in science, and does not prevent useful applications in policy, but might determine which applications are appropriate. It is important to highlight that in attribution studies, the strength of evidence varies substantially between different kinds of slow onset and extreme weather events, and between regions. Policy-makers should not expect the later emergence of conclusive evidence about the influence of climate variability and change on specific incidences of losses and damages; and, in particular, should not expect the strength of evidence to be equal between events, and between countries. Rather than waiting for further confidence in attribution studies, there is potential to start working now to integrate science into policy and practice, to help understand and tackle drivers of losses and damages, informing prevention, recovery, rehabilitation, and transformation

Enhanced future changes in wet and dry extremes over Africa at convection-permitting scale

African society is particularly vulnerable to climate change. The representation of convection in climate models has so far restricted our ability to accurately simulate African weather extremes, limiting climate change predictions. Here we show results from climate change experiments with a convection-permitting (4.5 km grid-spacing) model, for the first time over an Africa-wide domain (CP4A). The model realistically captures hourly rainfall characteristics, unlike coarser resolution models. CP4A shows greater future increases in extreme 3-hourly precipitation compared to a convection-parameterised 25 km model (R25). CP4A also shows future increases in dry spell length during the wet season over western and central Africa, weaker or not apparent in R25. These differences relate to the more realistic representation of convection in CP4A, and its response to increasing atmospheric moisture and stability. We conclude that, with the more accurate representation of convection, projected changes in both wet and dry extremes over Africa may be more severe

An overview of synthetic‐type control charts: Techniques and methodology

In this paper, we provide an overview of a class of control charts called the synthetic charts. Synthetic charts are a combination of a traditional chart (such as a Shewhart, CUSUM, or EWMA chart) and a conforming run‐length (CRL) chart. These charts have been considered in order to maintain the simplicity and improve the performance of small and medium‐sized shift detection of the traditional Shewhart charts. We distinguish between different types of synthetic‐type charts currently available in the literature and highlight how each is designed and implemented in practice. More than 100 publications on univariate and multivariate synthetic‐type charts are reviewed here. We end with some concluding remarks and a list of some future research ideas.The South African Researchers Chair Initiative (SARCHI) Chair at the University of Pretoria.http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/qre2020-11-01hj2020Science, Mathematics and Technology EducationStatistic