The results of probabilistic event attribution studies depend on the choice of the extreme value statistics used in the analysis, particularly with the arbitrariness in the selection of appropriate thresholds to define extremes. We bypass this issue by using the Extended Generalized Pareto Distribution (ExtGPD), which jointly models low precipitation with a generalized Pareto distribution and extremes with a different Pareto tail, to conduct daily precipitation attribution across the contiguous United States (CONUS). We apply the ExtGPD to 12 general circulation models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 and compare counterfactual scenarios with and without anthropogenic emissions. Observed precipitation by the Climate Prediction Center is used for evaluating the GCMs. We find that greenhouse gases rather than natural variability can explain the observed magnitude of extreme daily precipitation, especially in the temperate regions. Our results highlight an unambiguous linkage of anthropogenic emissions to daily precipitation extremes across CONUS.

We investigate how human-induced emissions affect daily rainfall extremes across the United States. The attribution of an extreme event to human-induced emissions depends on the selected extreme event statistics, with setting a threshold to define what counts as an extreme event remaining a major challenge. To overcome this, we used the Extended Generalized Pareto Distribution (ExtGPD) that jointly models both low and heavy rainfall events without defining a threshold, providing a more complete picture of the full distribution including extremes. We fitted the ExtGPD to 12 general circulation models and compared scenarios with and without human-induced emissions. Our findings suggest that human emissions are responsible for the observed intensity of daily rainfall extremes across the United States, especially in regions with temperate climates, and that these extremes would have been smaller without greenhouse gases.