Equation 2 · Attribution: Tying One Event to a Changing Climate
What does this equation mean?
Read the formula alongside the article passage below. Each part has a deeper page with its role in the equation, the supporting passage and nearby citations.
This equation states an equality: the expressions on both sides have the same value under the article’s assumptions. Read the equation part by part below; each part has a contextual explanation and a link to its mathematical background.
Read it piece by piece
Symbol p_0
is part of the quantity the equation computes from the expression on the right.
=
The expressions on both sides represent the same quantity under the stated assumptions.
See an illustrated explanation →subscript
The lower label selects a particular version, component, or indexed member of the quantity. For example, x₀ and xₜ can be values at different positions.
How to interpret it
Read it with the definitions, units, and assumptions supplied by the article.
What the article says around this equation
The arithmetic also misbehaves exactly where the events are most interesting. As the counterfactual probability falls toward zero, . AR6 records that several studies of events from 2016 onward reported an infinite risk ratio, corresponding to a fraction of attributable risk of one, because the event’s occurrence probability was close to zero in simulations without anthropogenic influence — while noting in the same passage that the lower bound of the uncertainty range is difficult to estimate accurately in these cases [ 1 ] . Paciorek, Stone and Wehner develop a frequentist framework for exactly this sampling problem and argue that the bootstrap widely used in the…
Read the full surrounding passage
The arithmetic also misbehaves exactly where the events are most interesting. As the counterfactual probability falls toward zero, . AR6 records that several studies of events from 2016 onward reported an infinite risk ratio, corresponding to a fraction of attributable risk of one, because the event’s occurrence probability was close to zero in simulations without anthropogenic influence — while noting in the same passage that the lower bound of the uncertainty range is difficult to estimate accurately in these cases [ 1 ] . Paciorek, Stone and Wehner develop a frequentist framework for exactly this sampling problem and argue that the bootstrap widely used in the literature performs poorly for small estimated probabilities, recommending methods with better behaviour in repeated samples [ 11 ] .
Sources cited in the surrounding passage
- [1] Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate. In: Climate Change 2021 — The Physical Science Basis ↗
- [11] Quantifying statistical uncertainty in the attribution of human influence on severe weather ↗
These citations give research context. Read each source to check which claims it supports.
Return to Attribution: Tying One Event to a Changing Climate