3 ms·
Yes, it's backwards. The most common way this is quantified is using Fraction of Attributable Risk (FAR) [0]. Even if the mean of the temperature distribution i
by throwawayuw 5y ago
Yes, it's backwards. The most common way this is quantified is using Fraction of Attributable Risk (FAR) [0]. Even if the mean of the temperature distribution is just shifted slightly upward with no change in shape, the higher the threshold, the larger the fraction of risk that is attributable to the change in mean. This holds for all but pathological distributions, and doesn't even require increased variability or anything like that.
[0] Figure 1.1f here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/05_SROCC_Ch01_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/05_S...
- lovemenot 5y agoThank you. This makes sense now and seems to me the right way of looking at the matter. I think I now understand what Mass was doing. Something like: "The bigger my overall remuneration (salary + bonus) the smaller the relative contribution made by my fixed salary." Right answer, wrong question.