Comparing the climate effect of emissions of short- and long-lived climate agents

Multi-gas climate agreements require a metric by which emissions of gases with different lifetimes and radiative properties can be placed on a common scale. The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change uses the global warming potential (GWP) as such a metric. The GWP has attracted particular criticism as being inappropriate in the context of climate policy which seeks to restrict warming below a given target, because it gives equal weight to emissions irrespective of the target and the proximity to the target. The use of an alternative metric, the time-dependent global temperature change potential (GTP), is examined for its suitability and the prospects for it including very short-lived species. It retains the transparency and relative ease of use, which are attractive features of the GWP, but explicitly includes a dependence on the target of climate policy. The weighting of emissions using the GTP is found to be significantly dependent on the scenarios of future emissions and the sensitivity of the climate system. This may indicate that the use of any GTP-based weighting in future policymaking would necessitate regular revisions, as the global-mean temperature moves towards a specified target.

[1]  M. Schlesinger,et al.  Implication of Anthropogenic Atmospheric Sulphate for the Sensitivity of the Climate System , 1992 .

[2]  P. Michaelis.  Global warming: Efficient policies in the case of multiple pollutants , 1992 .

[3]  J. Hansen,et al.  Radiative forcing and climate response , 1997 .

[4]  J. Hansen,et al.  Global warming in the twenty-first century: an alternative scenario. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  Brian C. O'Neill,et al.  The Jury is Still Out on Global Warming Potentials , 2000 .

[6]  Jan S. Fuglestvedt,et al.  Climate implications of GWP‐based reductions in greenhouse gas emissions , 2000 .

[7]  Steven J. Smith,et al.  Global Warming Potentials: 1. Climatic Implications of Emissions Reductions , 2000 .

[8]  Alan S. Manne,et al.  An alternative approach to establishing trade-offs among greenhouse gases , 2001, Nature.

[9]  Zong-ci Zhao,et al.  Climate change 2001, the scientific basis, chap. 8: model evaluation. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC , 2001 .

[10]  J. Houghton,et al.  Climate change 2001 : the scientific basis , 2001 .

[11]  M. Jacobson.  Control of fossil‐fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming , 2002 .

[12]  Richard G. Derwent,et al.  The Oxidation of Organic Compounds in the Troposphere and their Global Warming Potentials , 2002 .

[13]  Robert Sausen,et al.  Metrics of Climate Change: Assessing Radiative Forcing and Emission Indices , 2003 .

[14]  E. Highwood,et al.  Climate response to tropospheric absorbing aerosols in an intermediate general‐circulation model , 2004 .

[15]  Tami C Bond,et al.  Can reducing black carbon emissions counteract global warming? , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[16]  R. Sausen,et al.  Scientific issues in the design of metrics for inclusion of oxides of nitrogen in global climate agreements. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  Meinrat O. Andreae,et al.  Strong present-day aerosol cooling implies a hot future , 2005, Nature.

[18]  R. Sausen,et al.  Response of climate to regional emissions of ozone precursors: sensitivities and warming potentials , 2005 .

[19]  J. Fuglestvedt,et al.  Alternatives to the Global Warming Potential for Comparing Climate Impacts of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases , 2005 .

[20]  John P. Weyant,et al.  Multi-gas scenarios to stabilize radiative forcing , 2006 .