A new report says the ability to link weather damages to climate change is improving. Climate change, driven largely by greenhouse gases, raises the odds of extreme events such as heat waves, droughts and heavy precipitation. The question remains: how can we tell if a disaster has been made more likely by warming?

The U.S. National Academies of Science (يق) released a study that shows climate attribution science has matured enough to answer many questions with far greater confidence than a decade ago. It also identifies limits and suggests steps to address them. The mainstream science status of attribution is a problem for the fossil‑fuel industry, which fears easier liability for damages. This has triggered a backlash, with Republicans in Congress and state governments threatening funding for the Academies.

Attribution works by comparing the frequency of key atmospheric features in climate models run with current greenhouse‑gas levels and run without them. The difference gives a measure of climate influence. Beyond satisfying curiosity, this informs infrastructure and regulatory updates—such as drainage capacity and road‑material tolerances.

The report highlights advances in models, data, and machine‑learning techniques, yet notes gaps where historical data are sparse or events are too small‑scale for current models, creating a confidence gap in attributing certain extremes.