How Attribution Science Can Help Reporters on the Heat Beat

Warmer central Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures during the 2015-2016 El Niño are seen causing overshooting cloud tops, which can be connected to extreme weather on the ground. Photo: NASA/ESA via Flickr Creative Commons (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Feature: How Attribution Science Can Help Reporters on the Heat Beat

By Ethan Brown

Weather forecasters are growing more and more confident that this summer’s anticipated El Niño will be record-shattering. If that proves true, news outlets will have their climate science chops put to the test. 

Some editors may be tempted to use flashy, oversimplified headlines to describe daily temperature records, new extreme weather events and the strong possibility that the world temporarily surpasses 1.5 C of warming from preindustrial times. 

Others may resist making links to climate change at all, facing the challenges of understanding and explaining complex science, navigating political pressures or only having time for more pressing reporting needs, such as emergency guidance.

Neither instinct properly serves communities. 

Treating every record as an irreversible climate catastrophe ignores El Niño’s role in producing outliers and risks, feeding a doom narrative that can lead audiences to disengage. Excluding climate change’s role leaves communities in the dark about the primary factor that is worsening many extreme events. 

 

Imprecise climate coverage results

in audiences less prepared to

understand risk, ask questions

and respond to a changing world.

 

Whether it produces despair, omission or confusion, imprecise climate coverage results in audiences less prepared to understand risk, ask questions and respond to a changing world.

Climate attribution science offers journalists a way through that tension. 

This emerging field uses data and modeling to determine whether — and by how much — climate change influences specific extreme weather events, from heat waves to hurricanes. 

It provides a powerful tool for producing the climate journalism that best serves audiences — by thoughtfully supplementing critical emergency information and community impacts with precise language that describes how a warming world is changing the likelihood and intensity of extreme weather events. 

Oscillations call for careful reporting

The El Niño-Southern Oscillation, referred to as ENSO, is a natural climate pattern in the tropical Pacific, characterized by alternating episodes known as La Niña and El Niño. 

During La Niña, stronger trade winds push warm surface water westward and allow colder water to rise in the eastern Pacific, slightly cooling global temperatures. 

During El Niño, those trade winds weaken, leaving more warm surface water in the eastern Pacific and allowing more heat to radiate into the atmosphere. The result is a temporary boost to global temperatures layered on top of human-caused climate change, driving more extreme heat and shifting patterns for droughts, floods, hurricanes and more. 

Scientists have suggested climate change could be correlated with more extreme ENSO cycles, but generally, ENSO is considered a natural phenomenon.

As I wrote during the 2023 El Niño, journalists must tread carefully during these oscillations and avoid blaming day-to-day temperature records or other extreme weather shifts on climate change alone. 

Of course, human-caused climate change is by far the primary driver of a given heat record. Often, attribution science finds a given temperature would be virtually impossible without human-caused climate change. But it is El Niño providing the nudge to turn many hot days into record-breakers. 

 

Communicating one force

without the other provides

incomplete information.

 

Communicating one force without the other provides incomplete information. It also sends a message that climate change is the sole driver of record-breaking weather, which may leave audiences confused or skeptical during La Niña events when such records suddenly seldom occur.

This confusion can be damaging. In 2012, three years into an extreme La Niña event, climate deniers capitalized on the finding that temperatures that year matched the global average from 1998 — a severe El Niño year. 

Several news outlets and politicians spread the falsehood that the world was in a “global warming hiatus,” having seen no warming in fourteen years! After drafts of the 2013 IPCC report that hadn’t yet nailed down language to explain the natural variability were leaked, some mainstream reporters further mischaracterized the story by claiming that even the scientists were perplexed. 

Just as climate deniers were wrong to claim an extreme La Niña was evidence of a global warming pause, climate-concerned communicators would be wrong to claim an extreme El Niño is climate change inexplicably spiraling out of control for a year or two. 

That’s where the precise, peer-reviewed findings of attribution science prove incredibly beneficial.

How attribution science refines the climate connection

Attribution science works by comparing two worlds: the carbon-polluted world we live in with a simulated world without carbon pollution. 

Using observations and extensively peer-reviewed computer models that rely on physics and chemistry, scientists can run scenarios in both worlds to determine the likelihood of certain daily temperatures or extreme weather events in both the carbon-polluted climate and the unpolluted simulated climate. 

In both worlds, a heat wave will probably be a heat wave and a hurricane will probably be a hurricane. But the specific temperature, precipitation or wind speed will differ from one world to the other. Those differences are the fingerprints of climate change, and through these simulations, scientists can measure precisely how much more likely or intense a given event is in today’s climate than in the hypothetical unwarmed world.

 

Watch a video on how scientists connect climate change to extreme weather, with Climate Central’s Shel Winkley, who presented at the recent Society of Environmental Journalists’ annual conference in Chicago in April. Source: Climate Central (CC BY 4.0).

 

Attribution science is not brand new, but the breakthrough remains monumental for journalists covering a changing climate. 

Not long ago, scientists were reluctant to claim climate change influenced any single event, relying on broad, vague statements like “on the whole, climate change leads to more extreme events.” While accurate at the time, these sorts of quotes couldn’t offer audiences any personal connection to the climate crisis. 

But now, journalists can use scientifically vetted language to communicate exactly how climate change impacts their communities on any given day. 

Integrating attribution science into your reporting 

Each new attribution science development answers questions communities increasingly ask around severe weather and gives journalists new tools to tell local climate stories with accuracy and accountability.

Some types of weather events are easier to attribute to climate change than others. 

Extreme heat and marine heat waves, signatures of El Niño, are events where scientists can almost always measure climate change fingerprints with high confidence. With hurricane intensity, drought, extreme rainfall or fire weather, scientists can often make a climate connection. 

With thunderstorms or tornadoes, scientists cannot yet identify a climate link for individual storms with high confidence, though research into these questions is underway. 

 

Attribution does not say if climate change

caused an extreme weather event, but

rather to what degree climate change

influenced its likelihood or intensity.

 

Importantly, attribution does not say if climate change caused an extreme weather event, but rather to what degree climate change influenced its likelihood or intensity.

Climate Central offers phenomenal resources for journalists looking to integrate attribution science into their reporting. 

Its Climate Shift Index offers daily maps quantifying how climate change has influenced the temperature at every location in the world. Its Ocean CSI and Tropical Cyclone CSI offer similar systems tracking daily sea surface temperatures and tropical storm intensity, respectively. 

These three tools provide immediate answers for journalists, offering peer-reviewed science on that day’s events quickly enough for a breaking news story.

For medium- or long-term research, World Weather Attribution offers rapid analyses and published journal articles detailing more specific climate fingerprints on the most extreme individual events. Though not suited for breaking news, these resources offer important opportunities for journalists to cover climate connections in the aftermath of an event and provide their communities with more comprehensive science.

Helping audiences understand targets and trend lines

El Niño drives more than day-to-day records. The latest El Niño, in 2023-24, was long and hot enough to make 2024 the first calendar year to exceed 1.5 C of warming above preindustrial levels. 

With the Paris Agreement establishing a goal of keeping global warming below 1.5 C by 2100 and scientists noting the possibility of reaching some climate tipping points at 1.5 C, crossing that threshold in a given year lends itself to plenty of apocalyptic headlines. 

But like daily records during El Niños, annual records should be communicated with care.

 

The Paris Agreement is not a pass-fail exam.

The 1.5 C target refers to the long-term

trend line, not a blip in a given year.

 

The Paris Agreement is not a pass-fail exam. The 1.5 C target refers to the long-term trend line, not a blip in a given year. Even if the trend line crosses 1.5 C, there remains the possibility of a carbon-negative world where temperatures bend back down under the threshold by the end of the century.

And most importantly, though the target isn’t entirely arbitrary, every tenth-of-a-degree of global warming averted saves lives, defends critical ecosystems, and reduces loss and damage.

When the treaty was signed in 2015, the world was projected to warm by nearly 4 C. Today, based only on policies currently in place, that projection is down to 2.6 C. 

While that’s still a trajectory carrying major cause for concern, these global improvements are substantial. As I wrote in 2024, this progress has effectively fended off the risk of reaching several hypothetical climate tipping points this century, including a West African monsoon shift, East Antarctic glacier collapse, northern permafrost collapse and Amazon rainforest dieback.

Opinions of global treaty success are subjective, but emphasizing the headline number oversimplifies natural variability, obscures the agreement’s actual phrasing and misses an essential solutions story.

These distinctions may sound technical, but they shape people’s entire understanding of the state of the climate crisis. 

If the public believes that “we failed” on climate change or it’s “running amok” — especially due to one data point inflated by El Niño — they lose all reason to keep engaging. 

People will be far better positioned to make informed decisions in their communities if they understand the nuance: 2026 is expected to break heat records; climate change will play a significant role; scientists can actually measure it through attribution; and climate mitigation and adaptation remain urgent and worthwhile.

El Niño will likely give journalists around the world a slew of record-breaking weather events to cover this year. In these moments, reporters must avoid temptations to either leave out climate change or claim the sky is falling faster or more irreversibly than it is. 

Rather, they should remember that the best climate journalism recognizes that community needs come first, science must be communicated precisely and holistically, and flashy headlines only degrade trust in the long run.

 

Five questions to ask while covering the next record-breaking climate event   1. Am I using the best available attribution science language? Only 61% of Americans believe the effects of global warming have already begun, and only 45% believe it will pose a serious threat to them or their way of life in their lifetime, according to Gallup polling in April. This result reveals a major need for journalism that directly links climate change to the individual weather events impacting Americans.  In making the climate connection, it’s critical to get it right. Accurate phrasings typically revolve around climate change shaping likelihood and intensity, and avoid claiming that climate change “caused” an event.  Download and review Climate Central’s “Statements you can make about climate change and extreme weather events” two-pager and World Weather Attribution’s reporting guide for journalists. Both offer scientific language as short as one sentence that can be inserted into any extreme weather story.  If time permits, interviewing a scientist studying attribution is also a good practice to ensure accuracy. Research from Civic Science found that direct quotes from a researcher garnered higher trust scores with readers than scientific summaries without a quote. 2. Am I communicating the roles of both human-caused climate change and natural weather variability? These are not equal influences. Human-caused climate change is the predominant force exacerbating extreme heat and many other events. But excluding El Niño leaves audiences with incomplete information and could spark confusion, distrust or despair.  In addition to using climate attribution language, stories on record-breaking heat, cyclones, droughts or other events must allude to the impact of El Niño and clearly communicate that El Niño is part of a natural cycle.  People enjoy learning science and can handle nuance. Communities will be best equipped to make climate decisions if they understand the full picture. 3. Am I framing data and uncertainty with language that promotes trust in science? In science, uncertainty is a feature, not a bug. Most scientific findings or forecasts are presented as a range of possibilities, often with a level of confidence that signals the likelihood the true result lies inside the given range.  For example, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts recently predicted that sea surface temperatures in the central tropical Pacific Ocean could warm about 2 to 3 degrees C by fall. Journalists might be tempted to focus on the scarier number, with language like “could warm as much as 3 degrees.” But this would be cherry-picking, and feed public perceptions that “the scientists are exaggerating,” if the scary number doesn’t transpire. Similarly, if sea surface temperatures hit a number just outside the predicted range — for instance, 3.2 C — language such as “the scientists are shocked” or “it’s worse than the scientists thought” would erode trust.  Scientists are always transparent about the challenges of forecasting and the extent to which their findings contain uncertainty. They can be wrong and engage in healthy scholarly debate routinely, but results slightly off from expectations are part of the process.  Stories should communicate how uncertainty strengthens scientific transparency, not frame it as scientists “not knowing.” 4. Am I grounding the story in my community’s needs, practical and emotional? Whatever kind of extreme event you’re reporting on, keep the story grounded in community impacts and needs, be it emergency information, cleanup efforts or personal stories.  It’s important to communicate the science, but it does not need to dominate coverage of an event. It can be one paragraph, one sentence or even be saved for follow-up reporting. Audience emotions matter as well. Studies show intense feelings of fear and anxiety can lead people to disengage from a cause. While these emotions are very rational, especially during extreme weather, stoking them through sensational quotes or cherry-picking the worst data may prove counterproductive. But these emotions, in moderation and coupled with self-efficacy, can actually catalyze pro-environmental actions.  Communicating nuance, noting where scientists were right, and dedicating space for solutions and progress stories strikes a more constructive tone, and develops trust and engagement with communities. 5. Is my newsroom prepared to continue covering this extreme event in its aftermath, and others in the future? Extreme weather impacts all beats, from breaking news to public policy to housing. With climate change increasing the intensity and sometimes frequency of these events, a single siloed meteorologist or environment beat reporter is often no longer enough.  Some strategic planning to help reporters and editors across the organization learn about attribution science, gain easy access to resources and feel confident making brief climate connections in their stories ensures the newsroom can produce more robust and streamlined climate coverage when it’s most needed.

Back to top

[Editor’s Note: Material for this story was drawn from a panel moderated by Brown at the Society of Environmental Journalists’ annual conference in Chicago, in April 2026, whose sponsors are listed here. Listen to the panel audio recording here (see Room H; SEJ members only). 

For more on this topic, see a previous Feature on how climate attribution science went mainstream, and what it means, plus our Topic on the Beat pages on climate change and disasters, including dozens of SEJournal stories, special reports and other resources, and related headlines from EJToday.]

Ethan Brown is training program coordinator at the University of Rhode Island’s Metcalf Institute. He is an award-winning climate writer and commentator with a bachelor’s degree in environmental analysis and policy from Boston University. He publishes a monthly climate newsletter called The Pebble.

---

* From the weekly news magazine SEJournal Online, Vol. 11, No. 22. Content from each new issue of SEJournal Online is available to the public via the SEJournal Online main page. Subscribe to the e-newsletter here. And see past issues of the SEJournal archived here.