--- title: The One Silver Lining in the Bleak IPCC Report on Climate description: Climate scientists are more confident in blaming weather disasters on climate change. That could be a weapon in the fight to cut emissions canonical: https://time.com/6088545/ipcc-report-rapid-attribution/ author: Alejandro de la Garza article:opinion: false article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2021-08-09T11:00:47.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-02-24T10:12:46.494Z article:section: Science og:title: The One Silver Lining in the Bleak IPCC Report og:description: Climate scientists are blaming weather disasters on climate change. That could be a weapon in the fight to cut emissions og:url: https://time.com/6088545/ipcc-report-rapid-attribution/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1a9fee978c0d4303/698a1bd0096a94e0e16ab874/flood-dam-wall-germany.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 1024 og:image:height: 576 og:image:alt: Thunderstorms in North Rhine-Westphalia og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: The One Silver Lining in the Bleak IPCC Report twitter:description: Climate scientists are blaming weather disasters on climate change. That could be a weapon in the fight to cut emissions twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1a9fee978c0d4303/698a1bd0096a94e0e16ab874/flood-dam-wall-germany.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # The One Silver Lining in the Bleak IPCC Report > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=1d8e58e0-b310-4223-99e4-773617183a01&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Weekdays | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Weekly | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Twice a week | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | Source: TIME, August 2026. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=1d8e58e0-b310-4223-99e4-773617183a01&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=1d8e58e0-b310-4223-99e4-773617183a01&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (health, weekdays), Worth Your Time (culture, weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, twice weekly), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=1d8e58e0-b310-4223-99e4-773617183a01&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1)  by [Alejandro de la Garza](https://time.com/author/alejandro-de-la-garza/)  ## Alejandro de la Garza Aug 9, 2021 11:00 AM UTC  The dam wall of the Steinbach reservoir in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, following floods in mid-July, 2021. The dam wall of the Steinbach reservoir in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, following floods in mid-July, 2021. Jonas Güttler—picture alliance/Getty Images  by [Alejandro de la Garza](https://time.com/author/alejandro-de-la-garza/)  ## Alejandro de la Garza Aug 9, 2021 11:00 AM UTC As heat waves, hurricanes and other extreme weather events around the world hit harder and more often in recent years, scientists have become more confident than ever before in placing the blame unequivocally on human-made climate change. That shift was reflected in a starkly updated section of the latest version of the [International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Assessment Report](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/), published Aug. 9, which compiles years of climate science into what is widely considered the definitive document outlining the current state of knowledge on the atmospheric changes happening around us, and what the future may hold. The overall message of the new report—the sixth iteration of the document—was worrying, describing large average global temperature rises in recent decades and a shrinking window to reduce emissions and avert worst-scenario outcomes. But the scientists’ increased confidence in linking current extreme weather to climate change may be a notable bright spot, offering a potentially crucial weapon that climate activists and communities affected by heat waves and flooding can use to pressure politicians and industry to take action before it’s too late. On worldwide extreme weather, the difference between the new IPCC assessment and the last such document, published in 2014, is dramatic, reflecting a rapid coalescence of scientific understanding that has taken place in recent years. The [2014 report](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/) took a fairly cautious tone in describing how climate change was affecting extreme weather, stating primarily that “some” changes in extreme weather in recent decades had been “linked to human influences.” In a scientific report, that sort of language is a kind of hedge, the authors perhaps having suspected that climate change was the primary cause of worsening heat waves around the world, but not having enough evidence to say it definitively. But over the past seven years, a slow trickle of scientific papers linking such weather events to human-caused climate change has become a torrent, and the new report’s summary for policymakers offers a radical update to the old IPCC line, expressing “high confidence,” for instance, that human emissions were the “main driver” of more frequent and extreme heat waves around the world. (The last such summary only stated that emissions “contributed” to worldwide extreme heat.) The worst of those heat waves, the report states, are now likely to occur almost five times as often as before. And the new report goes well beyond heat waves. For example, it states that human influence was likely the main cause of increased extreme rainfall in many regions, and that it “contributed” to more droughts in some parts of the world as well. The 2014 assessment only stated that heavy rains were “linked” to emissions. Describing the new international consensus on extreme weather, the IPCC authors were unequivocal. “Extreme weather is occurring with more frequency across the entire planet,” said Paola Andrea Arias Gómez, an author of the report’s policymakers’ summary and professor at the School of the Environment at the University of Antioquia in Colombia, speaking at an Aug. 8 press conference. “We can now attribute that these changes are mainly driven by human activity.” That updated perspective reflects radical changes in the scientific study of extreme weather events and climate change in recent years. Since the 2014 report, new methods that attempt to quantify how emissions have contributed to specific extreme weather, known as [extreme event attribution](https://time.com/6079744/climate-weather-attribution/), have been accepted into the scientific mainstream, while faster climate models and improved forecasts, among other advances, have allowed scientists to conduct more studies comparing the probability of a given event in climate models with or without greenhouse gas emissions factored in, in shorter time frames. Scientific collaborations like the World Weather Attribution initiative have streamlined such efforts, organizing scientists around the world to study how climate change may have impacted the likelihood and severity of recent extreme events, with their results sometimes being published within days. “I was involved in debates among climate scientists advising \[the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\] saying, ‘Wouldn’t it be nice if we could do these attributions quickly?’” says Jonathan Overpeck, a professor of environmental education at the University of Michigan. “That was 10 years ago. The scientific community now, 10 years later, is pretty comfortable with what some of these groups are able to do.” Taken together, those advancements have shifted the narrative. Formerly, climate scientists who spoke confidently on global temperature trends could find themselves on shaky ground if the conversation came around to recent extreme weather. Now such disasters are driving the discussion, with scientists able to use quantitative methods to show if and how global warming has made such events more likely—in some cases, as in the recent heat wave in the Pacific Northwest, this line of research has given experts the evidence they need to go so far as to say certain extreme weather events would have been all but impossible without the effects of climate change. Discussion of such advancements may be mostly confined to an academic realm, but their overarching conclusions carry deep importance. To combat decades of disinformation and deep-pocketed PR machines of corporate players with a short-term interest in burning more fossil fuels, advocates and politicians need clear, unimpeachable scientific statements on which to base their policy proposals and arguments. That’s why the prominent inclusion of the new science of extreme event attribution in the new IPCC report is so important. Such definitive assessments of the role of climate change in creating wildfire conditions, for instance, could offer a political cudgel for climate activists who have struggled for years to communicate the pressing nature of climate change impacts when forced to rely on relatively vague-sounding scientific predictions around sea level rise and rising global temperatures. Now, with the weight of the most respected climate establishment behind arguments that climate change is worsening heat waves, flooding, wildfires and other disasters right now, those activists might have a better shot at moving the world to cut emissions, and keep those crises from getting worse in the decades ahead. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/6088545/ipcc-report-rapid-attribution/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/6088545/ipcc-report-rapid-attribution/"},"headline":"The One Silver Lining in the Bleak IPCC Report","datePublished":"2021-08-09T11:00:47.000Z","dateModified":"2026-02-24T10:12:46.494Z","description":"Climate scientists are blaming weather disasters on climate change. That could be a weapon in the fight to cut emissions","url":"https://time.com/6088545/ipcc-report-rapid-attribution/","keywords":["climate change","healthscienceclimate"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1a9fee978c0d4303/698a1bd0096a94e0e16ab874/flood-dam-wall-germany.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Alejandro de la Garza","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/alejandro-de-la-garza/"}],"articleSection":"Science","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1a9fee978c0d4303/698a1bd0096a94e0e16ab874/flood-dam-wall-germany.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Thunderstorms in North Rhine-Westphalia","caption":"Thunderstorms in North Rhine-Westphalia","creditText":"Jonas Güttler—picture alliance/Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/science/","name":"Science"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/climate-change/","name":"climate change"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/6088545/ipcc-report-rapid-attribution/","name":"The One Silver Lining in the Bleak IPCC Report"}}]}] ```