As far as I can see, the far right data point (5% damage for a temperature increase of 10C) is a good illustration of why the claim below is almost certainly wrong.https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1102985181026238465 …
-
My prior is essentially that a 10C rise in global surface temperatures would be utterly catastrophic. I would certainly be interested in an informed argument as to why this is unlikely to be the case.
Yes, the study is also ranked low credibility (small circle), and Nordhaus' best estimate pass 6% at 6°C But your comment was meant to contest my point that realistic warming at ~4°C would cost 2-4%, which is exactly what the graph shows (and Nordhaus finds)
-
-
My point was mostly to do with when should we trust these estimates, & when not. Nordhaus's paper says "One important feature of damage studies is that they are generally limited to global temperature increases of up to 3C, with the upper limits shown in Fig. 2 not well-studied."
-
If you believe the model ensemble, which happens to be running hot and therefore gives a safety margin, then the question becomes what's the CO2 concentration we can reasonably expect based on the market forces on the economic system over the next 80 years. I say 630 ppm.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Oh. I interpreted the circles size as uncertainty.
-
Based on the Nordhaus article from which the figure comes, it looks like the standard deviation is maybe typically around a few percent.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.