Summary/Abstract
Climate change detection and attribution (D&A) is concerned with determining the extent to which anthropogenic activities have influenced specific aspects of the global climate system. D&A fits within the broader field of causal inference, the collection of statistical methods that identify cause and effect relationships. There are a wide variety of methods for making attribution statements, each of which require different types of input data and focus on different types of weather and climate events and each of which are conditional to varying extents. Some methods are based on Pearl causality (direct experimental interference) while others leverage Granger (predictive) causality, and the causal framing provides important context for how the resulting attribution conclusion should be interpreted. However, while Granger-causal attribution analyses have become more common, there is no clear statement of their strengths and weaknesses relative to Pearl-causal attribution and no clear consensus on where and when Granger-causal perspectives are appropriate.
In this prospective paper, the authors provide a formal definition for Granger-based approaches to trend and event attribution and a clear comparison with more traditional methods for assessing the human influence on extreme weather and climate events. Broadly speaking, Granger-causal attribution statements can be constructed quickly from observations and do not require computationally-intesive dynamical experiments. These analyses also enable rapid attribution, which is useful in the aftermath of a severe weather event, and provide multiple lines of evidence for anthropogenic climate change when paired with Pearl-causal attribution. Confidence in attribution statements is increased when different methodologies arrive at similar conclusions. Moving forward, the authors encourage the D&A community to embrace hybrid approaches to climate change attribution that leverage the strengths of both Granger and Pearl causality.