There is no result that disqualifies climate economics more than this one. 8°C warming = loss of ~10% of GDP???? As a reminder, the last ice age was about 6°C cooler than today. Now imagine changes as big as those occurring over the next century or two. This result is absurd.
https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1341700351603437570
This plot shows GDP curves (growing at 2.5% and 2.46%) that differ by 4% in 2100. This is analogous to Lomborg's worlds with no global warming and a world that warms by 8°C in 2100! 
8°C is getting close to temperatures during the Eocene, when there was no permanent ice on the planet.
NH land will warm more than the global average, so 8°C global avg. probably corresponds to something like 12°C (22°F) over NH land (and even more in the Arctic).
NH land will warm more than the global average, so 8°C global avg. probably corresponds to something like 12°C (22°F) over NH land (and even more in the Arctic).
If summertime warming over NH land is 15°F (b/c winter will warm more than summer), places where summer temps average 90°F today will average 105°F with 8°C of warming. Heat waves would be far, far worse.
Sea level rise with 8°C of warming will be hundreds of feet. The only good news is that such warming will take centuries/millennia, so Lomborg can discount those impacts to zero.
https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1308817742586355712?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
