[1][2][3][4] Researchers who collaborated with Nordhaus to develop the model include David Popp, Zili Yang, and Joseph Boyer.
[11][12] Nordhaus published an improved version of the model in the October 1994 book Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change,[13] with the first chapter as well as an appendix containing a computer program both freely available online.
[17] In 1998, Nordhaus published a revised version of the DICE model in multiple papers, one of which was coauthored with Joseph Boyer in order to understand the effects of the proposed Kyoto Protocol.
[26][27] In 2013, the book The Climate Casino by Nordhaus, with updated discussion of the DICE and RICE models and the broader policy implications, was published by Yale University Press.
[34] According to the original formulation of DICE, staying below the 2 °C as agreed by the Paris agreement would cost more in mitigation investments than would be saved in damage from climate change.
A 2020 paper by Glanemann, Willner and Levermann, which used an updated damage function, revised this conclusion, showing that a warming of around 2 °C would be "optimal", depending on the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases.
[38][39] The model has been criticised by Steve Keen for a priori assuming that 87% of the economy will be unaffected by climate change, misrepresenting contributions from natural scientists on tipping points, and selecting a high discount rate.
[41] A report from The Heritage Foundation, a conservative and climate change denying think tank in the United States, called the DICE model "flawed beyond use for policymaking" on account of its extreme sensitivity to initial assumptions.