Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Curing a wrist ache by cutting off your arm: Let's rip out the economic engine that over the last 200 years have lifted 85% of the global population out of poverty, hunger, and deprivation to avoid part of a 0.2-2% income reduction in 50 yearshttps://twitter.com/novaramedia/status/1116652253589450752 …
UN estimate that the total cost of global warming by the 2070s will be equivalent to a loss of 0.2-2% of income https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf …pic.twitter.com/DF2skcOhbe
By then, the average person in the developing world will be 3-7x richer than today Of course, they don't want to rip out this enginepic.twitter.com/VcqhDGuOQt
As a former student of yours, please explain this to me: How can anyone define increasingCO2 as a social cost!? This basic misenterpretation of the most fundamental food source on earth CO2 can only be a social benefit, more CO2=> more plants=> more resiliency=>prosperity!!!
The problem are 1)who can believe them 2) the time frame is such that it is not believable- both based on their past results of prediction.
Here's the whole paragraph, it becomes clear why you only highlighted one line. Additionally, increases of 2 degrees are what we get if we act, if we don't "rip out the engine" it will be much more.pic.twitter.com/uzEMc9fWpO
I don't know why you are quoting from the 2014 report? Does it say the same in the most recent IPCC report? I think time scales and risks have changed significantly
2014 is the last Assessment Report to be completed. 2022 will see the 6th Assessment Report published.
The chappie on the left may have to make do with Windows; the chappie on the right may die without ever seeing an 
or a 
pic.twitter.com/Y6Hm8cyXQp
„Relative to a world that did not warm …, we project 15%–25% reductions in per capita output by 2100 for the 2.5–3 °C of global warming …, and reductions of more than 30% for 4 °C warming.“ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0071-9 … However an annual growth of >1,5% (p.558) still outperforms that
That damage estimate is a massive outlier. Most estimates are less than 5% of GDP for 2-4C of warming. But as you note, even your outlier high estimate is swamped by plausible economic growth.
@HenryFingleton just for the record, here is the FULL PARAGRAPHpic.twitter.com/OK8rreC7rV
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
