Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Silly. The same IPCC shows that the impact of 6°C is likely equivalent to a loss of income of about 6-12% of GDP (in a world where we'll be 3-10x richer) Certainly, that's a problem. Of course, it is not the "extinction of humanity"https://twitter.com/Jumpsteady/status/1159597997988208641 …
Here is the update from IPCC by Nobel Laureate Nordhaus of cost of climate change https://www.nber.org/reporter/2017number3/nordhaus.html …pic.twitter.com/SYvCz1ef1b
How it will impact the fact that now several times more people dies from cold than from hot temp.? Even in Brasil more people dies from cold!
Do those numbers take account of the such intangible costs to humanity as the loss of the Amazon rainforest or the Great Barrier Reef?
( asking for information, not rhetorical 
)
Bjorn, what is the y-axis? Is it impact on global GDP in year 2100?
Impact at a given temperature, not year So, at 4°C (likely no-policy outcome by 2100), the cost is about 4% of GDP per year (we're on a GDP trajectory that is 4% lower in 2100)
But youre only looking at the economic cost of clinate change. Do you value nature for its own sake? Secondly, some problems have a worse prevention cost -to- cure cost ratio than others. Do you take this into account?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
