Экономический ущерб от потепления
Aug. 2nd, 2023 02:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ny_quantВсе кто читают центральные газеты знают, что до того как мы все умрем от жары, сначала будет обнищание и разруха. Я подумал, что читателям будет интересно узнать, что об этом думает правительство США на самом деле. Чтобы не быть голословным, приведу цитату и картинку из работы COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS & OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (pdf). Spoiler alert: ущерб оценивается примерно в 1%.
Figure 1 above shows the estimated U.S. GDP response reported by each study and an aggregate across these 12 studies, plotted as a function of changes in global mean surface temperature relative to the 1851–1900 average. For each study, we plot all reported damages and corresponding temperatures and fit a smooth, continuous function through these values. All studies report estimates of damages throughout the range of the x-axis in Figure 1. To calculate our aggregate estimate of the relationship between the level of climate change and the change in U.S. output over time, we generate a large number of equally spaced points along each of these damage functions and fit a penalized spline through the complete set of these points. The aggregate function is shown with a solid black line in Figure 1 above.
Чтоб 2 раза не вставать, Ломборг пишет, что ООН дает оценку в 3% хотя я сам эту цитату не нашел:
Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today's welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%.
Climate policies also have costs that often vastly outweigh their climate benefits. The Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will cost $819–$1,890 billion per year in 2030, yet will reduce emissions by just 1% of what is needed to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Each dollar spent on Paris will likely produce climate benefits worth 11¢.
Figure 1 above shows the estimated U.S. GDP response reported by each study and an aggregate across these 12 studies, plotted as a function of changes in global mean surface temperature relative to the 1851–1900 average. For each study, we plot all reported damages and corresponding temperatures and fit a smooth, continuous function through these values. All studies report estimates of damages throughout the range of the x-axis in Figure 1. To calculate our aggregate estimate of the relationship between the level of climate change and the change in U.S. output over time, we generate a large number of equally spaced points along each of these damage functions and fit a penalized spline through the complete set of these points. The aggregate function is shown with a solid black line in Figure 1 above.
Чтоб 2 раза не вставать, Ломборг пишет, что ООН дает оценку в 3% хотя я сам эту цитату не нашел:
Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today's welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%.
Climate policies also have costs that often vastly outweigh their climate benefits. The Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will cost $819–$1,890 billion per year in 2030, yet will reduce emissions by just 1% of what is needed to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Each dollar spent on Paris will likely produce climate benefits worth 11¢.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2023-08-02 06:26 pm (UTC)"На идеологии мы не экономим"
no subject
Date: 2023-08-02 06:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-08-02 07:15 pm (UTC)другое дело, что 1) откуда вы взяли, что "мы все умрем", если этого не сделать?
2) как выше написано, не так уж много мы на этот доллар (или 89 центов) спасем
no subject
Date: 2023-08-02 08:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-08-03 01:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-08-02 08:28 pm (UTC)"здоровье дороже! если мы этого не сделаем, то мы все умрем в страшным мучениях, так что потеря ЧУЖИХ $0.89 на доллар, чтобы от этого спасти мир - не такая уж большая плата".
no subject
Date: 2023-08-03 01:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-08-02 08:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-08-02 08:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-08-02 09:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-08-02 11:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-08-03 06:41 am (UTC)Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ... In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Plagiarism;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.
no subject
Date: 2023-08-03 03:00 pm (UTC)Я не поленился открыть этот DCSD report
https://web.archive.org/web/20081217162831/http://en.fi.dk/publications/2004/annual-report-2003-danish-committees-scientific-dishonesty/annual-report-2003-danish-committees-scientific-dishones.pdf
Там нет вообще никакой конкретики, просто нечего обсуждать по существу. Зато есть состав этого комитета - кучка гуманитариев, которые вообще в этой тематике ни ухом ни рылом.
Но похоже что он задел их за живое, ишь как зашевелились:
The Lomborg Deception, a 2010 Yale University Press book by Howard Friel, analyzed the ways in which Lomborg has "selectively used (and sometimes distorted) the available evidence",[5] and alleged that the sources Lomborg provided in the footnotes did not support and, in some cases directly contradicted, Lomborg's assertions in the text of the book.[26] Lomborg denied those claims in a 27-page argument-by-argument response.[27] Friel wrote a reply to that response, in which he admitted two errors but otherwise rejected Lomborg's argument