Greater than 100% attribution doesn’t return much from a Google search beyond hits from Climate Etc, ATTP and Real Climate. Seems to be a new idea. A related question is what about efficiencies greater than 1? That may bring some problems with some important laws.
50% represents natural factors:
Now remove the natural negatives:
Naturals turn positive:
Seems natural factors are defining man made ones.
Two partners operate an income tax preparation business. In the second case one partners gets all the money. In the third, they split it evenly. In the first case, one partner keeps all the money and the other partner gives him $50,000. A partner paid out $50,000 in refunds for errors made but otherwise billed nothing. The net income is still $100,000. The successful partner got his $150,000 but there was only $100,000 earned. How do we allocate that income to the partners? One answer is <$50,000> and $150,000. Say the bad partner never existed. Our answers are then $150,000 with 100%, $100,000 with 100% and $50,000 with 100%. Replace the bad partner with a good partner clone. All percentages are now 50%. In no cases does the original good partner get any more or less then he earned himself. But his percentages are defined by his partner. In my example above, the bad partner netted to zero overall. And adding up all 3 scenarios means that on average, the good partner’s percentage was 100%. So when natural variability cancels out in the long run, the long term percentage is 100%. In another case, the partners kept no records of who did what, forgot what happened and only know there’s $100,000 in the bank account and it’s time to divide up the money. We know in theory one partner should’ve made so much as he has the plaques on the wall to prove it.