May 28, 2026
Thanks to some very excellent work from early-career researchers Francine Machin and Hannah Bourbon (and co-authors), Australia has advanced our understanding of how extreme event attribution (EEA), a science that quantifies the influence of climate change on extreme events, can inform public climate risk decisions from mitigation to adaptation in Australia. This work highlights both what decisionmakers need from EEA and how the scientific community can work with decision-makers and communicators to meet those needs in practice.
Together, these two new research papers mark a material step forward in connecting robust climate science to the realities of government and extreme event preparedness and response.
What decision-makers said they need … and why it matters
This research sends a clear message: we can inform decisions using EEA science, but not without effective, tailored communication. This study focused on synthesised interviews and co-design with Australian government decision-makers across scales, sectors and geographies to clarify five requirements for usable attribution statements:
- Language (plain‑language framing and translating to First Nations languages)
- Methodology (explaining the methods used, enhancing credibility)
- Impact linkages (linking to event impacts, highlighting the need for climate action)
- Action-oriented communication (pairing attribution findings with action-oriented guidance, informing climate risk decisions)
- Scientific comprehension (accessible visuals that support scientific understanding).
The work emphasised that attribution is most valuable when it illuminates how an event’s likelihood or intensity has changed and how that impacts people and services, as well as what this implies for action, preparedness, investment and policy. In short, attribution statements should reduce ambiguity and encourage action at the point where decisions are made.
This emphasis is consistent with international reflections in the field, though no-one else has undertaken such an extensive analysis. Over the past decade, methodological developments provide confidence on how to quantify human influence on specific extremes, while groups running routine, rapid attribution analyses such as World Weather Attribution are highlighting the importance of clarity about methods, assumptions and confidence. These are precisely the ingredients decision-makers cited as essential for trust and use in Australia.
Can the scientific community deliver? New evidence from Australia and New Zealand
This work went from understanding what decision-makers need to then assessing whether scientists and communicators can currently meet the five needs through a two-day workshop. This workshop identified current abilities to meet decision-maker needs, as well as identifying what barriers inhibit and what enablers would support progress. The study found that there is current capability in three areas:
- Scientific comprehension was relatively strong, with more than half of the respondents reporting the current ability to alter attribution communication to facilitate decision-maker needs of conceptualising the science.
- Language capability was also solid, with more than half of respondents reporting a current ability to define terms such as ‘normal’ ‘event’ and ‘intensity’ in clearer, more accessible terms.
- Methodological capability was less established, however, overall participants agreed that they could currently meet the need to communicate methodological approaches and limitations to various audiences.
The assessment also identified two areas requiring targeted uplift:
- Action‑oriented communication was also weak, with limited ability to pair attribution findings with practical recommendations to support decision-making, due to challenges of internal structures and responsibilities within roles and organisations.
- Impact attribution was the lowest-scoring capability, with less than a third of respondents currently able to link attribution findings to human or economic impacts relevant to decision-makers. Participants reported barriers such as data source and model limitations, the novelty of impact attribution and resulting scientific uncertainties.
Crucially, participants identified enablers and pathways to meet all five needs including interdisciplinary collaboration and communication, targeted scientific advancements, and co‑designed knowledge production with users, an approach important to both scientific practice and service delivery.
These findings are policy relevant for two reasons. First, they demonstrate that most of what decision-makers require is already within reach; second, they provide a credible plan to close the remaining gaps, moving EEA towards an operational and repeatable service. This direction aligns with broader international calls, for example, from World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and European programmes, to connect EEA more tightly to use cases in mitigation, adaptation and Loss and Damage.
Australian climate scientists are applying the findings to develop robust processes and principles for producing credible climate change attribution messages, and ‘have a go’ at rapid extreme event attribution.
What this means for Australian decision-makers
For emergency managers, infrastructure owners and policy agencies, the practical upshot is that attribution can do more than answer the familiar ‘was it climate change?’ question; it can inform and strengthen decisions. Where evidence supports it, EEA can justify earlier triggers, and the need for mitigation and adaptation, through targeted, tailored communication and co-design between decision-makers, scientists and communicators. It inspires confidence that Australian institutions can produce the clearer, impact-aware and action-oriented attribution outputs that decision makers say they need and do so with transparent methods and appropriate caveats.
Where to next
The pathway becomes clearer. Agencies can commission and apply EEA with sharper briefs; research groups can target training and partnerships that lift capability where it matters most (impact linkages and action-oriented communication); and communicators can align framing with the five needs identified in the Australian consultations. Implementing this agenda will help ensure that, when extremes occur, attribution statements are not only scientifically defensible but directly support and build confidence in those who must act.
Many thanks to Francine and Hannah’s co-authors Dr Pandora Hope, Eric Lede, Dr Brenda Mackie and Dr Dáithí Stone. Thanks also to the NESP Climate Systems Hub Knowledge Brokers who helped connect with the decision makers. Thanks to the Australian Climate Service for contributing support of the workshop.
