Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumThis Bullshit Won The Nobel Prize? Nordhaus' Economic Projection Calls 4C "Optimal", More Comedy
EDIT
EDIT
In his Nobel Prize lecture, Nordhaus described a 4°C increase in global average temperature as optimal that is, the point at which the costs and benefits of mitigating climate change are balanced. In a subsequent academic paper based on this lecture, he stated that damages are estimated to be 2 percent of output at a 3°C global warming and 8 percent of output with 6°C warming. This is a trivial level of damage, equivalent for the 6°C warming case to a fall in the rate of economic growth over the next century of less than 0.1% per year.
Nordhauss conclusions are based in part on the simple but wayward assumption that the weak relationship between temperature and GDP within the US today can be used to assume how future global temperature rises will affect the economy. For example, the coldest state in mainland US is North Dakota, with an average temperature of 4.9°C and a high GDP per head US$67,000 in 2018. Slightly warmer states such as New York (9.0°C, US$73,000) tend to have higher GDPs, while the hottest state Florida, at 22.1°C has a lower GDP (US$43,000). This implies that past a certain point, higher temperatures reduce GDP, but the relationship is very weak: huge changes in temperature result in relatively small changes in income.
If it were true that this weak relationship could be applied to global temperature change, then global warming would indeed be nothing to worry about. However, the relationship between temperature and GDP within one country today tells you absolutely nothing about how the world will change if global temperatures rise by 10°C. This can be hard to grasp, since were talking about the truly unknown humanity has never experienced global temperatures that high. But we can assess how unrealistic Nordhauss work is because it predicts exactly the same damages for a fall in global temperature as it does for a rise. It predicts, for example, that both a 4°C rise and a 4°C fall in temperature would reduce global GDP by 3.6%.
The average global temperature during the last Ice Age was 4°C cooler than today. Theres no way we can accurately predict what GDP would be in such a cool world today, but we know that most of Europe north of Berlin, and of America north of New York, would be under a kilometre of ice. To argue that this would cut GDP by just 3.6% is simply absurd.
EDIT
https://theconversation.com/4-c-of-global-warming-is-optimal-even-nobel-prize-winners-are-getting-things-catastrophically-wrong-125802
Response to hatrack (Original post)
eppur_se_muova This message was self-deleted by its author.
hatrack
(59,584 posts)Response to hatrack (Original post)
jfz9580m This message was self-deleted by its author.