2014
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12457-5_22
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Climate Change Impacts at the National Level: Known Trends, Unknown Tails, and Unknowables

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The use of modeling is a well-established scientific fact regarding the assessment of climate change impacts, and researchers usually apply “highly aggregated and sometimes highly simplified damage functions” (Steininger et al. , 2015), while an alternative approach employs “bottom-up, physical impact assessment and respective monetization ”.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The use of modeling is a well-established scientific fact regarding the assessment of climate change impacts, and researchers usually apply “highly aggregated and sometimes highly simplified damage functions” (Steininger et al. , 2015), while an alternative approach employs “bottom-up, physical impact assessment and respective monetization ”.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of modeling is a well-established scientific fact regarding the assessment of climate change impacts, and researchers usually apply "highly aggregated and sometimes highly simplified damage functions" (Steininger et al, 2015), while an alternative approach employs "bottom-up, physical impact assessment and respective monetization". The literature works on the development of integrated models (Kirchner et al, 2015), and alongside general models it considers the use of local indicators (Formayer et al, 2015), sometimes scholars use models of intertemporal general equilibrium analysis with incorporated forward-looking expectations (Elshennawy et al, 2016).…”
Section: Cluster Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%