Deutsch
 
Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

 
 
DownloadE-Mail
  Reply to Comment on 'High-income does not protect against hurricane losses'

Geiger, T., Frieler, K., Levermann, A. (2017): Reply to Comment on 'High-income does not protect against hurricane losses'. - Environmental Research Letters, 12, 9, 098002.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa88d6

Item is

Dateien

einblenden: Dateien
ausblenden: Dateien
:
7742oa.pdf (Verlagsversion), 531KB
Name:
7742oa.pdf
Beschreibung:
-
Sichtbarkeit:
Öffentlich
MIME-Typ / Prüfsumme:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technische Metadaten:
Copyright Datum:
-
Copyright Info:
-

Externe Referenzen

einblenden:

Urheber

einblenden:
ausblenden:
 Urheber:
Geiger, Tobias1, Autor              
Frieler, Katja1, Autor              
Levermann, Anders1, Autor              
Affiliations:
1Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, ou_persistent13              

Inhalt

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Schlagwörter: -
 Zusammenfassung: Recently a multitude of empirically derived damage models have been applied to project future tropical cyclone (TC) losses for the United States. In their study (Geiger et al 2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 084012) compared two approaches that differ in the scaling of losses with socio-economic drivers: the commonly-used approach resulting in a sub-linear scaling of historical TC losses with a nation's affected gross domestic product (GDP), and the disentangled approach that shows a sub-linear increase with affected population and a super-linear scaling of relative losses with per capita income. Statistics cannot determine which approach is preferable but since process understanding demands that there is a dependence of the loss on both GDP per capita and population, an approach that accounts for both separately is preferable to one which assumes a specific relation between the two dependencies. In the accompanying comment, Rybski et al argued that there is no rigorous evidence to reach the conclusion that high-income does not protect against hurricane losses. Here we affirm that our conclusion is drawn correctly and reply to further remarks raised in the comment, highlighting the adequateness of our approach but also the potential for future extension of our research.

Details

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Sprache(n):
 Datum: 2017
 Publikationsstatus: Final veröffentlicht
 Seiten: -
 Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: -
 Inhaltsverzeichnis: -
 Art der Begutachtung: Expertenbegutachtung
 Identifikatoren: DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa88d6
PIKDOMAIN: Climate Impacts & Vulnerabilities - Research Domain II
PIKDOMAIN: Sustainable Solutions - Research Domain III
eDoc: 7742
Research topic keyword: Climate impacts
Research topic keyword: Economics
Research topic keyword: Extremes
Research topic keyword: Atmosphere
Research topic keyword: Weather
Regional keyword: North America
Organisational keyword: RD2 - Climate Resilience
Organisational keyword: RD3 - Transformation Pathways
Working Group: Event-based modeling of economic impacts of climate change
Working Group: Impacts of Climate Change on Human Population Dynamics
 Art des Abschluß: -

Veranstaltung

einblenden:

Entscheidung

einblenden:

Projektinformation

einblenden:

Quelle 1

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Titel: Environmental Research Letters
Genre der Quelle: Zeitschrift, SCI, Scopus, p3, oa
 Urheber:
Affiliations:
Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: -
Seiten: - Band / Heft: 12 (9) Artikelnummer: 098002 Start- / Endseite: - Identifikator: CoNE: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/cone/journals/resource/150326