« Extreme Weather Events And Economic Accounting | Main | Humans Wake Up Dazed And Confused After Overnight Clue Miracle »

03/31/2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alexander Ač

Dave,

count me in! In Flatland economics is still a serious science...

Oliver

If you want some priceless entertainment, read the comments from the 'readers' of the following Guardian article:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/31/ipcc-report-world-lose-habitats-climate-change

If they represent the future of the human race, we may as well all hold hands and jump into the acidic junk-filled Southern Ocean en masse.

Andy

why is this the best TED talk ever?
Because nobody is talking!

Mike Roberts

Answer: because not only did it not contain any talk but, as an added bonus, it was filled with good music!

Was that Michael Mann on guitar?

That was really a segue to the IPCC report. I was worried that (i.e. knew that) a partial sentence (0.2% to 2.0% global economic losses) would be one of the main quotes from the SPM. In context, it is virtually meaningless, so I don't know why it was included (maybe at the insistence of some countries' approvers). If anything had to be written, then the takeaway is that all that can be said about estimated economic losses is that they are likely to be more than 2% for an additional warming of 2 degrees (which would be 2.85 or 2.89 degrees above preindustrial - I don't know where the 2.5C figure comes from). But that's not even what the supposed target is.

Alexander Ač

Dave and others,

well, if you want to have even more "fun" with economist's wrong-doings, read the following debunking of prof. Richard Tol here:

"However, when I examined Professor Tol’s paper in detail, I discovered that he had made a number of errors, wrongly plotting studies which had found net negative impacts as if they were positive benefits. Of the 14 data listed in Table 1 and plotted in Figure 1 of the paper, at least four were wrong."

"For this reason, I remain concerned about the following statement from the Summary for Policymakers from the report: “the incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of ~2°C are between 0.2 and 2% of income (±1 standard deviation around the mean)”. These figures are drawn entirely from Professor Tol’s 2013 paper, and without independent verification of the data currently being possible, I do not regard them to have been proven robust."

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2014/March/Errors-in-estimates-of-the-aggregate-economic-impacts-of-climate-change.aspx

It is not even 1st April...

The comments to this entry are closed.