Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

A growing field of research aims to characterise the contribution of anthropogenic emissions to the likelihood of extreme weather and climate events. These analyses can be sensitive to the shapes of the tails of simulated distributions. If tails are found to be unrealistically short or long, the anthropogenic signal emerges more or less clearly, respectively, from the noise of possible weather. Here we compare the chance of daily land-surface precipitation and near-surface temperature extremes generated by three Atmospheric Global Climate Models typically used for event attribution, with distributions from six reanalysis products. The likelihoods of extremes are compared for area-averages over grid cell and regional sized spatial domains. Results suggest a bias favouring overly strong attribution estimates for hot and cold events over many regions of Africa and Australia, and a bias favouring overly weak attribution estimates over regions of North America and Asia. For rainfall, results are more sensitive to geographic location. Although the three models show similar results over many regions, they do disagree over others. Equally, results highlight the discrepancy amongst reanalyses products. This emphasises the importance of using multiple reanalysis and/or observation products, as well as multiple models in event attribution studies.