3 ms·

Economist Steve Keen debunks misleading studies on global warming impact

16 points by danuker 4y ago

danuker 4y ago
Economists have fit ludicrously inadequate functions to model the effects of temperature increase on GDP. They disregarded rainfall and physics in general. I feel betrayed by the IPCC for treating these studies seriously. This is particularly of concern, since the IPCC was created specifically as a non-industry scientific body to help policymakers. I apologize for further propagating the false sense of security in a previous Ask HN[1]. But I thank elviejo[2] for linking me to this video. I published it again, because I think it is the most important discussion of the century. 1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33999229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33999229 2 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33999547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33999547
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  For those who prefer text, the paper is here: https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The_appallingly_bad_neoclassical_economics_of_clim-1.pdf https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The_app... danukar, you deserve respect for so publicly questioning and then changing direction on your prior assumptions.
  - danuker 4y ago
    I also thank the HN community (and dang) for enabling such discussion. I tried to voice my concerns in /r/AskScience, but my post was not phrased in a sufficiently scientific manner. I asked why we ought to combat climate change, rather than scientifically answerable issues about the damage models.
rayiner 4y ago
Who is this guy? He is contradicting economic analysis that’s been incorporated into IPCC reports. He uses the phrase “so called Nobel Prize.” He isn’t even currently a professor at any institution. He’s apparently supporting his research with “crowd sourced funding.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Keen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Keen Apart from that, the gist of his critique seems to be that economists are using linear extrapolations and aren’t incorporating “tipping points” into their analysis. But its the climate scientists at the IPCC itself who have consistently declined to give tipping points and runaway effects significant weight. That’s true even in the latest 2022 IPCC report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6.... The strongest thing the executive summary says about “tipping points” is that certain ones “cannot be ruled out.”
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  The Economics Nobel isn't considered a real "Nobel Prize": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom... He's right to question Nordhaus, but I don't think the rest of his stuff is particularly out of the mainstream of economics, though he quotes a kook on minerals, he still ends up with carbon pricing as the fix. Also, IPCC scientists aren't dismissing tipping points, they're just hard to model and unnecessary, as even without them (for good and bad, e.g. cheap solar tipping points), dealing with climate change makes financial sense.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    Why is he right to question Nordhaus? Nordhaus literally won a Nobel prize for studying the economics of climate change.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DICE_model#Assumptions_and_outcomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DICE_model#Assumptions_and_out...
      - rayiner 4y ago
        Those assumptions seem reasonable to me. What’s the gist of the criticism?
        danuker 4y ago
        For one, the "integrated" damage model does not use any climate data other than temperature. Rainfall, for instance, is crucial for agriculture, but is ignored. Note the parameters of the model: https://web.archive.org/web/20141014141710/http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/DICE_documentation_111706.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20141014141710/http://www.econ.y... Secondly, the damage function is a quadratic polynomial (see the parameters a1 and a2 in the formula). But that is an unreasonable assumption, as heating can induce exponential or logistic effects (or worse). More explanations about this by prof. Keen starting 14:42 in the video: https://youtu.be/5LvyxH3O7kE?t=882 https://youtu.be/5LvyxH3O7kE?t=882 Take, for instance, a phase change. Water boils at 100°C extremely nonlinearly compared to temperature. In fact, in a stepwise manner.
iAm25626 4y ago
Steve Keen on Lex Fridman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XGiTDWfdpM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XGiTDWfdpM We should be able to hold multiple contradicting ideas in our head even the one that doesn't fit our preferred narrative.

16 points by danuker 4y ago

Economists have fit ludicrously inadequate functions to model the effects of temperature increase on GDP. They disregarded rainfall and physics in general. I feel betrayed by the IPCC for treating these studies seriously. This is particularly of concern, since the IPCC was created specifically as a non-industry scientific body to help policymakers. I apologize for further propagating the false sense of security in a previous Ask HN[1]. But I thank elviejo[2] for linking me to this video. I published it again, because I think it is the most important discussion of the century. 1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33999229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33999229 2 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33999547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33999547

anigbrowl 4y ago
For those who prefer text, the paper is here: https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The_appallingly_bad_neoclassical_economics_of_clim-1.pdf https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The_app... danukar, you deserve respect for so publicly questioning and then changing direction on your prior assumptions.
- danuker 4y ago
  I also thank the HN community (and dang) for enabling such discussion. I tried to voice my concerns in /r/AskScience, but my post was not phrased in a sufficiently scientific manner. I asked why we ought to combat climate change, rather than scientifically answerable issues about the damage models.

rayiner 4y ago

Who is this guy? He is contradicting economic analysis that’s been incorporated into IPCC reports. He uses the phrase “so called Nobel Prize.” He isn’t even currently a professor at any institution. He’s apparently supporting his research with “crowd sourced funding.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Keen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Keen Apart from that, the gist of his critique seems to be that economists are using linear extrapolations and aren’t incorporating “tipping points” into their analysis. But its the climate scientists at the IPCC itself who have consistently declined to give tipping points and runaway effects significant weight. That’s true even in the latest 2022 IPCC report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6.... The strongest thing the executive summary says about “tipping points” is that certain ones “cannot be ruled out.”

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
The Economics Nobel isn't considered a real "Nobel Prize": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom... He's right to question Nordhaus, but I don't think the rest of his stuff is particularly out of the mainstream of economics, though he quotes a kook on minerals, he still ends up with carbon pricing as the fix. Also, IPCC scientists aren't dismissing tipping points, they're just hard to model and unnecessary, as even without them (for good and bad, e.g. cheap solar tipping points), dealing with climate change makes financial sense.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Why is he right to question Nordhaus? Nordhaus literally won a Nobel prize for studying the economics of climate change.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DICE_model#Assumptions_and_outcomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DICE_model#Assumptions_and_out...
    - rayiner 4y ago
      Those assumptions seem reasonable to me. What’s the gist of the criticism?
      - danuker 4y ago
        For one, the "integrated" damage model does not use any climate data other than temperature. Rainfall, for instance, is crucial for agriculture, but is ignored. Note the parameters of the model: https://web.archive.org/web/20141014141710/http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/DICE_documentation_111706.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20141014141710/http://www.econ.y... Secondly, the damage function is a quadratic polynomial (see the parameters a1 and a2 in the formula). But that is an unreasonable assumption, as heating can induce exponential or logistic effects (or worse). More explanations about this by prof. Keen starting 14:42 in the video: https://youtu.be/5LvyxH3O7kE?t=882 https://youtu.be/5LvyxH3O7kE?t=882 Take, for instance, a phase change. Water boils at 100°C extremely nonlinearly compared to temperature. In fact, in a stepwise manner.

iAm25626 4y ago

Steve Keen on Lex Fridman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XGiTDWfdpM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XGiTDWfdpM We should be able to hold multiple contradicting ideas in our head even the one that doesn't fit our preferred narrative.