In the article “Globally unequal effect of extreme heat on economic growth,” the authors discovered a code error underlying Fig. 4, which does not change the conclusions of the paper. However, the correction to the code did change some values reported in the Abstract, the Results, Fig. 4, and figure S11.
In the Abstract, the following values were updated (corrections are in brackets):
— “Cumulative 1992–2013 losses from anthropogenic extreme heat likely fall between $5 [read: $16] trillion and $29.3 [read: $50] trillion globally. Losses amount to 6.7% [read: 8%] of Gross Domestic Product per capita per year for regions in the bottom income decile, but only 1.5% [read: 3.5%] for regions in the top income decile.”
On page 5 of the PDF file, in the Results section “Global economic effects of anthropogenic extreme heat,” the following values have changed in these sentences (corrections are in brackets):
—“GDPpc is >5% [read: >7%] per year lower than it would have been without anthropogenic effects on extreme heat in tropical countries such as Brazil, Venezuela, and Mali.”
—“In high-latitude nations such as Canada and Finland, anthropogenic extreme heat changes have depressed GDPpc by ~1% [read: ~3%] per year.”
—“While the damages we find here are smaller than previous estimates using average temperature alone (29), they are economically significant: cumulative losses over 1992–2013 total $39 [read: $52] billion (2010-equivalent dollars) in the average region in Brazil, more than half [read: three quarters] of the 2010 GDP in the average Brazilian region, and $6.5 [read: $8.8] billion in the average Indonesian region, >44% [read: >50%] of the 2010 GDP in the average Indonesian region (Fig. 4B).”
—“These region-level losses aggregate into a clear global picture: Cumulative global losses due to extreme heat average more than $16 [read: $33] trillion in 2013 (Fig. 4C).”
—“On the basis of our uncertainty analysis and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uncertainty terminology (62), it is virtually certain that the cumulative global effects of extreme heat fall between losses of $65 [read: $101] trillion and gains of $16 [read: $1.9] trillion, very likely that they fall between losses of $43 trillion [read $71] and gains of $1.1 [read: $7] trillion, and likely that they fall between losses of $29.3 [read: $50] trillion and $5 [read: $16] trillion (Fig. 4C).”
—“For example, regions in the lowest income decile have experienced losses of 6.7% [read: 8%] of GDPpc per year, compared to 1.5% [read: 3.5%] in the top income decile.”
—“In the lower five income deciles [read: In all but the top income decile], even the 99% range does not encompass zero (Fig. 4D).”
Additionally, on page 7, in the final sentence of the Results section, the following has changed: “However, changes in extreme heat intensity account for almost 10% [read: ~18%] of the overall damages despite being based on <2% of days in the year, indicating that the hottest few days of the year have an outsize influence on the economic effects of warming.”
Finally, Fig. 4 and figure S11 have been updated to reflect these numerical changes.
The PDF, HTML, SM, and Fig. 4 have been updated.