The deeper you dig into climate models, the more uncertainty you find.
-
What do you think of this analysis? https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/weitzman/files/fattaileduncertaintyeconomics.pdf … For given average level of climate change, if the effects of GHG are less certain, that means more risk of catastrophe (since costs grow disproportionately with more warming)
How does this paper conflict at all with what I said? Geoengineering caps the tail risk. More uncertainty also means lower likelihood that GHGs are a major problem a at all. Overall, less of a case for decarbonization, which would be massively disruptive for unclear gain.
-
-
More uncertainty about the effects of GHGs and the various feedback mechanisms means that there’s *more* of a chance that GHG‘s are a catastrophic risk.
-
There’s a separate question of what is the best way to address the risks. But I think it’s clear that a mean-preserving spread in the risk leads to a higher chance of catastrophe (as well as a higher chance of no risk at all)
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.