← Back to article

Equation 2 · Attribution: Tying One Event to a Changing Climate

What does this equation mean?

lim⁡p0→0PR=∞,lim⁡p0→0FAR=1.\lim_{p_0 \to 0} \mathrm{PR} = \infty, \qquad \lim_{p_0 \to 0} \mathrm{FAR} = 1.

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.

Inputs and operationsinfty, qquad lim_p_0 to 0 FAR = 1
Result or conditionlim_p_0 to 0 PR
How to read the two sides of this formula. Follow the article passage for the meaning of each quantity.

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

p0p_0

Symbol p_0

p0p_0 is part of the quantity the equation computes from the expression on the right.

Understand this part →

=

=

The expressions on both sides represent the same quantity under the stated assumptions.

Understand this part →

See an illustrated explanation →
subscript

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.

Understand this part →

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, lim⁡p0→0PR=∞,lim⁡p0→0FAR=1\lim_{p_0 \to 0} \mathrm{PR} = \infty, \qquad \lim_{p_0 \to 0} \mathrm{FAR} = 1. 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, lim⁡p0→0PR=∞,lim⁡p0→0FAR=1\lim_{p_0 \to 0} \mathrm{PR} = \infty, \qquad \lim_{p_0 \to 0} \mathrm{FAR} = 1. 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 ] .

Read the equation in its article →

Sources cited in the surrounding passage

These citations give research context. Read each source to check which claims it supports.

Return to Attribution: Tying One Event to a Changing Climate

See this formula across 1 published context →

Browse the mathematical compendium →