We estimate heat-stress labor impacts at $41 per ton (90% CI $1-$108). This places it second behind mortality in our set of SCC damages.

Our estimate is also *remarkably* similar to "labor disutility" costs by Rode et al., using a completely different approach.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Damages go into the GIVE IAM, which was previously missing labor costs, thanks to @lisarennels.bsky.social.

We split out ag damages, allowing the ag sector to decline as economies grow. Uncertainty in climate models and impact functions are also propagated through.

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Introducing labor shocks into the GTAP computable general equilibrium model produces economic damage functions allowing for equilibrium adjustments in production, consumption and trade.

Hot and humid regions heavily reliant on agriculture are most severely affected.

Many regions already experience substantial heat stress during parts of the year. Climate change increases the duration and intensity of these dangerously hot periods.

The intra-annual manufacturing labor shocks for select regions and multiple warming levels are shown here.

Working conditions matter for heat stress. We characterize job-specific productivity losses for 4 labor types in 7 sectors in 160 regions based on AC penetration, outdoor exposure, and strenuousness.

Construction and ag are particularly exposed because they typically involve heavy outdoor labor

This builds on amazing prior work by co-authors @climatedynamics.bsky.social and Qin Kong to develop bias-corrected projections of WBGT at high spatial and temporal resolution, important for capturing short, local excursions beyond dangerous thresholds.

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Biggest contribution is developing a brand new damage module on the labor productivity impacts of growing heat stress. We use wet bulb globe temperature to account for both heat and humidity changes and 2 impact functions (ISO and Lancet) to capture highly non-linear labor productivity effects

to feed the A.I. mania.

Swiss project here: nccr-genesis.ch

F&K put it "From cool climates of the early Oligocene, global climates warmed during the late Oligocene and reached a climatic optimum in the late early Miocene (the warmest interval of the Neogene and the warmest since the late Eocene), then underwent rapid cooling during the middle Miocene"

The MCO was first properly contextualized I believe by Flower and Kennett 1994 (although it was identified in various ways a century earlier) www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

This is why we don't call it the MMCO in the various papers (Steinthorsdottir/Burls). It's the MCO. Of course to Ray's point, it's stupid to call these things optima, but ultimately the long shadow of high latitude scientists is cast & Arrhenius, etc are at least partially to blame for the mindset.

This is matthew huber. I'm not commonly associated with wall street. I'm well aware of MMCO and how the misnomer came into use (unfortunately I helped with that in my 2009 paper, but ultimately it was Zachos' mistake). Anyway, Amelia has strong feelings about this&I've learned to agree with her.