@Anduril100 @eaaasheim Resultatet til Nordhaus (og alle andre modeller) baserer seg på en antatt skadefunksjon. Gi meg din skadefunksjon, og jeg gir deg ditt BNP-tap. Her er en (anerkjent) metastudie på skadefunksjoner: https://t.co/AWFi4luKZ7 https://t.c
@anlomedad @beimwort Falls echtes Interesse besteht. Hier aktuellere Schätzungen: https://t.co/O5bIitiTAO Hier seine Diskussion dazu: https://t.co/4YGppBf5Z5 Und ein aktuelles Interview: https://t.co/WyvDm3461q Und es gab in den frühen 90ern kaum jemanden,
RT @MarkVinPaul: The body of literature estimating the economic damages associated with the climate crisis continues to grow. Here's a nice…
RT @MarkVinPaul: The body of literature estimating the economic damages associated with the climate crisis continues to grow. Here's a nice…
RT @MarkVinPaul: The body of literature estimating the economic damages associated with the climate crisis continues to grow. Here's a nice…
RT @MarkVinPaul: The body of literature estimating the economic damages associated with the climate crisis continues to grow. Here's a nice…
The body of literature estimating the economic damages associated with the climate crisis continues to grow. Here's a nice meta-study. But this lit misses many key points, including that a stable environment underpins our very existence. https://t.co/VYjZ5
RT @RogerPielkeJr: @hausfath @AkshatRathi @benmsanderson There are even estimates that GDP growth has been boosted by warming to date https…
@hausfath @AkshatRathi @benmsanderson There are even estimates that GDP growth has been boosted by warming to date https://t.co/uJhGrpcHmn https://t.co/gUJ5YE1mqL
@AndrewDessler @bapeterj Those are not the damage functions used in the literature. For a recent meta-review, see https://t.co/5fymw6b9w5 For an example in a DICE model, see https://t.co/pDFMY3vKeC In short, 3°C --> 6.5% GDP; 8°C ---> 45% of GDP http
@AndrewDessler @GernotWagner @nephologue @rustneversleepz this is a nice one https://t.co/ZQTsw4RBkT
@tonyscalari @cmnit @hmqxvcn @Popinga1 @andsnz @DanVisioni @Climalteranti Una delle grandi fonti di incertezza negli IAM sono le stime dei danni, qui una review che mi è sembrata interessante. https://t.co/8FYoFwYJ1Z Il modello di Nordhaus è chiaramente in
@keithalexander See my caveats thread that discusses this: https://t.co/koq2Bw9eTE
Second, DICE-EMR takes the rest of DICE as given without updating other factors besides mortality. Studies have identified other shortcomings, including other issues with the damage function https://t.co/lTUHI8n4x2 and issues with the climate module https:
@Fabriziofer1994 @dale_cooper73 @ramella_f @VisonaNicola @giagnoni_luca @stebaraz Più che SSC, una fonte di incertezza sono le damage function. Quella di Nordhaus citata nell'articolo è sicuramente molto discutibile, ad esempio questa review mostra come fu
@QPerrier Je ne vois pas pourquoi ce devrait être symétrique 😅 par ailleurs un certain nb d'impacts à long terme ne sont pas évalués, et ç'aurait été mieux de citer des estimations plus récentes comme https://t.co/deBgFh37wU ou https://t.co/62tJJhKifM
@nephologue For a much better review of recent damage estimates : https://t.co/deBgFhkIos
KOSTEN ADAPTATIE: @Leefomgeving wees me op deze meta-studie over de schade door adaptatie uit 2017 (note: een meta-studie is een samenvatting, analyse en vergelijking van alle toonaangevende studies op dit onderwerp). https://t.co/GaBnXYvKUR 12/19
@AkselSterri @KHoltsmark Kritikk av skadefunksjonen har allereie blitt ført fram i økonomitidsskrift. 2/2 https://t.co/VMKdmMqKNk
Næsten hele resultat fra Nature artiklen kommer fra *drastisk* forøgelse af skaderne ifht mainstream (FUND, PAGE og DICE) De bruger kun denne artikel: https://t.co/DtCZ9Qu8hn Den bruger næsten de samme referencer *men tilføjer 11 ikke-videnskabeligt pu
@jb_sallee Howard, Peter H., et Thomas Sterner. 2017. « Few and Not So Far Between: A Meta-Analysis of Climate Damage Estimates ». Environmental and Resource Economics, juin. https://t.co/FV8S8Vmyg3.
RT @BjornLomborg: And here is the new articles damage estimate which is a bit more than 3x worse, from the reference they use, https://t.co…
RT @BjornLomborg: And here is the new articles damage estimate which is a bit more than 3x worse, from the reference they use, https://t.co…
And here is the new articles damage estimate which is a bit more than 3x worse, from the reference they use, https://t.co/DtCZ9Qu8hn Clearly not really representative of the peer-reviewed studies https://t.co/vbML26khIv
@VAhoniemi @jlehtira @VilleRiihonen Tässäkin malliskenaarioita: https://t.co/PR1rAXBd32 Tässä luvussa 3.2 kritiikkiä siitä, miten mallit perustuvat aika puhtaaseen spekulaatioon: https://t.co/WeV90QquG1 Spekuloijat usein yksittäisiä ekonomisteja. Kiinno
@RonjaKarkinen Jotain esimerkkejä arvioidusta epälineaarisuudesta. Nämä on toki aina vain yksittäisten mallintajien arvioita (joita kritsoidaan usein liian optimistisiksi), ja tässä arvioitu vain vaikutusta talouteen, ei esim. biodiversiteettiin. https:/
@Faktantarkasta1 En tunne mallia, mutta ton kakkoskuvan perusteella tuossa mentäisiin kai yli 2 asteen lämpenemisen. Sellaisesta on muitakin arvioita, että vaikutukset olisivat tuota luokkaa, esim: https://t.co/PR1rAXBd32 https://t.co/g5yY4fHWRp
@ilmastoblogi Tärkeä muistaa, että lämpenemisen haitalliset vaikutukset ovat luultavasti epälineaarisia ja kiihtyviä suhteessa lämpötilaan. Nykyisestä siirtolaisuudesta ei kannata vetää liikaa johtopäätöksiä vrt tulevaisuus, kun ilmastovahingot luult. moni
@ProfSteveKeen Have you read Howard & Sterner 2017? It does point to several of the climate damage est. errors (eg duplication) that you have id'd, but fails to see your space vs. time issue, or equilibrium econ probs. [Am at Sterner event from 3pm tod
@jerry_jtaylor IPCC climate damage estimates are biased low. They're based on 3 big Integrated Assessment Models (DICE, PAGE, FUND). Those models assume long-term GDP growth outstrips climate damage. Only PAGE accounts for amplifying climate feedback. http
RT @KenCaldeira: @thomas_lord @mtobis @ClimateFdbk Show me the analysis. There is no high-quality science that predicts 6 billion starvati…
@thomas_lord @mtobis @ClimateFdbk Show me the analysis. There is no high-quality science that predicts 6 billion starvation deaths this century is a likely consequence of climate change. The most extreme analyses in the quality peer-reviewed literature p
RT @epopppp: Great thread on thinking through the economics and politics of competing climate policies. https://t.co/KXM1MXoJON
Great thread on thinking through the economics and politics of competing climate policies.
RT @arvindpawan1: This is such an important point that many carbon tax proponents don't consider. Ultimately, policies should be decided on…
RT @arvindpawan1: This is such an important point that many carbon tax proponents don't consider. Ultimately, policies should be decided on…
This is such an important point that many carbon tax proponents don't consider. Ultimately, policies should be decided on emissions reduction effectiveness. It's okay if a policy ends up more expensive than estimated. But it is a disaster if we don't red
Her er nogle flere beregninger, der finder langt højere omkostninger ved at udlede CO2, hvilket ville betyde, at situationen i dag var alarmerende: https://t.co/9Pax0SsbZg 26/n
@NicolaiFoss Her er ét eksempel på økonomer som finder potentielt langt højere estimater for klimaskader, https://t.co/ubidfI3uPm
@nielswesty Her er ét eksempel på økonomer som viser usikkerhederne i Nordhaus' estimater og finder potentielt langt højere estimater for klimaskader, https://t.co/ubidfI3uPm
@MartinCEPOS Du tager fejl. Han fik prisen for sin model, ikke for de parameterestimater, som giver de vanvittige resultater. Her er ét eksempel på økonomer som viser usikkerhederne i Nordhaus' estimater og finder potentielt langt højere estimater for klim
@OttoBrons Du tager fejl. Her er et eksempel på økonomer som finder potentielt langt højere estimater for klimaskader, https://t.co/ubidfI3uPm
RT @Seppala_VilleEN: @jmkorhonen Yeah. IAMs get a lot of justified criticism, but the positive second derivative for the damage function in…
RT @Seppala_VilleEN: @jmkorhonen Yeah. IAMs get a lot of justified criticism, but the positive second derivative for the damage function in…
RT @Seppala_VilleEN: @jmkorhonen Yeah. IAMs get a lot of justified criticism, but the positive second derivative for the damage function in…
@dwallacewells David, Thanks for your terrific overview of IPCC #SP15. Small quibble: You suggest that 4 deg C warming will be "twice as bad" as 2. But damage rises much faster than T. (Roughly as the square of T rise.) And that's only if we don't hit tipp
RT @Seppala_VilleEN: @jmkorhonen Yeah. IAMs get a lot of justified criticism, but the positive second derivative for the damage function in…
RT @Seppala_VilleEN: @jmkorhonen Yeah. IAMs get a lot of justified criticism, but the positive second derivative for the damage function in…
@jmkorhonen Yeah. IAMs get a lot of justified criticism, but the positive second derivative for the damage function in most models is a good assumption. Accelerating damages and linear mindsets are a bad combination for timely climate change mitigation. Im
RT @sterndavidi: New (open access) meta-analysis of climate damage estimates: https://t.co/vjju2UdXTT
RT @sterndavidi: New (open access) meta-analysis of climate damage estimates: https://t.co/vjju2UdXTT
RT @sterndavidi: New (open access) meta-analysis of climate damage estimates: https://t.co/vjju2UdXTT
New (open access) meta-analysis of climate damage estimates: https://t.co/vjju2UdXTT
RT @karenstreet: @pquirion1 Article: meta-analysis on #climatechange damages by PH Howard & T Sterner https://t.co/nqTRjy9CRV
@pquirion1 Article: meta-analysis on #climatechange damages by PH Howard & T Sterner https://t.co/nqTRjy9CRV
Few and Not So Far Between: A Meta-analysis of Climate Damage Estimates https://t.co/ckCJBqbFTH