sense of in a broad avenue or this division have been published including by alexander otto and his colleagues in the journal nature as well as nick lewis in the journal of climate as well as many others. if you look at this table for example, if you compare the outdated distribution to the up-to-date this tradition you can see some dramatic differences. the first column concerns the probability that a temperature will exceed a particular route and disciplined columns depict the actual to build according to the particular distribution. if you look at the ipod the increasing about the 3.5 degrees celsius, you will notice probably a slightly over a third under the distribution compared to drastically lower public under the more up-to-date distribution specified by alexander otto and his colleagues as well as nick lewis lewis. in fact,lewis. in fact, under the listed should be about probability a slightly under one and a thousand. you notice is the potential as well. if that distressed by the attempt acceding 3.5 degrees celsius. let's take a step back and see what this tells us. essential this t

compared to drastically lower probabilities under the more up to date distribution specified by alexander otto and his colleagues as well as lewis. under the lewis distribution, that probability is slightly under one in a thousand. you'll and you'll notice this for the other temperatures as well. it's not just true for the probability of the temperature exceeding 3.5 degrees celsius. so let's take a step back and think about what this tells us. essentially this tells us that the iwg's assumptions vastly overstated the probabilities of extreme global warming in their computations of the social cost of carbon. so now what happens if we tweak these assumptions? what if we tweak the discount rate, the time horizon or the ecs distribution? let's take a look at what happens and i'd like to think my intern kirby lawrence for putting these together. we can see the s.e.c. estimated a variety of discount rates and, ecs distributions. if we increase the discount rate under both the dyson fund models we see drastically lower estimates, from going as high as $56 or so under the dice model to as low as arou

compared to drastically lower probabilities under the more up to date distribution specified by alexander otto and his colleagues as well as lewis. under the lewis distribution, that probability is slightly under one in a thousand. you'll and you'll notice this for the other temperatures as well. it's not just true for the probability of the temperature exceeding 3.5 degrees celsius. so let's take a step back and think about what this tells us. essentially this tells us that the iwg's assumptions vastly overstated the probabilities of extreme global warming in their computations of the social cost of carbon. so now what happens if we tweak these assumptions? what if we tweak the discount rate, the time horizon or the ecs distribution? let's take a look at what happens and i'd like to think my intern kirby lawrence for putting these together. we can see the s.e.c. estimated a variety of discount rates and, ecs distributions. if we increase the discount rate under both the dyson fund models we see drastically lower estimates, from going as high as $56 or so under the dice model to as low as arou