Status of research Vienna 29 August 2007 Niklas Höhne, [email protected]

Status of researchVienna

29 August 2007

Niklas Höhne, [email protected]

Overview

1. Introduction to the MATCH process

2. Preliminary results

3. Preliminary conclusions

Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change

Main question


What are the contributions of regions, nations or sectors to man-made climate change?

MATCH process

UNFCCC / Kyoto Protocol

2002• 1997: “Brazilian Proposal”:

Industrialized countries should reduce emissions proportional to contribution to temperature increase

• Ad-hoc group• Initiated by Brazil and UK


SBSTA 17 (Oct 2002)• Work should be continued by the scientific community, in particular to

improve the robustness of the preliminary results and to explore the uncertainty and sensitivity

• Be of a standard consistent with the practices of peer-reviewed published science.

• The process should be inclusive, open and transparent.

• Capacity building: strongly encouraged Parties and institutions to facilitate capacity-building in developing countries, including by hosting scientists from developing countries

• Invited the scientific community, including IGBP, WCRP, IHDP and IPCC to provide information on how they could contribute

• Encouraged scientists to undertake further work, to make the results of their work publicly available and to report progress at SBSTA 20, June 2004 (side event).

• SBSTA decided to review the progress at its 23rd session (Nov 2005).


MATCH process• Assess methods for calculating the contribution of different emission

sources (e.g. regional, national or sectoral) to climate change

• Provide clear guidance on the implications of the use of the different scientific methods, models, and methodological choices

• Where scientific arguments allow, recommend one method/model/choice

• Expert meetings, workshops and a coordinated modelling exercise

• Prepare papers to be published in peer reviewed scientific journals

• Open and transparent, www.match-info.net

• Scientific coordination committee

• Funds for developing country experts (provided by Norway, Germany and UK)

• Support unit Ecofys (funded by UK)


MATCH processScientific coordination committee


Guoquan Hu National Climate Center, China

Michel den Elzen RIVM, Netherlands

Jan Fuglestvedt (Co-chair)

CICERO, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo, Norway

Jason Lowe Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, UK

Joyce Penner (Co-chair University of Michigan, USA

Michael Prather University of California at Irvine, USA

Cathy Trudinger CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Australia

Murari Lal IIT, India

José Domingos Gonzalez Miguez

Interministerial Committee on Global Climate Change, Brazil

Niklas Höhne (secretary) Ecofys, Germany

Participation in addition to SCC


Atsushi Kurosawa Institute of Applied Energy, Tokyo, Japan Atul Jain University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA Bård Romstad CICERO, Oslo, Norway Ben Matthews Universite catholique de Louvain, Belgium Brian O’Neil IIASA, Laxenburgm Austria Christiano Pires de Campos University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Fabian Wagner IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria Gregory Bodeker National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand Guoquan HU China Meteorological Administration, Beijing, China Ian Enting The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia John van Aardenne Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra, Italy Luiz Gylvan Meira Filho University of Sao Paulo, Brazil Luiz Pinguelli Rosa University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Malte Meinshausen Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany Maria Silvia Muylaert de Araujo University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Michael Schlesinger University of Illinois, Urbana, USA Michiel Schaeffer MNP/RIVM, Bilthoven, Netherlands Natalia Andronova University of Illinois, Urbana, US Peter Stott Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, Exeter, UK Promode Kant Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy, Dehradun, India Sarah Raper University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Suzana Kahn Ribeiro University of Rio De Janeiro, Brazil Stephen W. Wood National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand Wandera Ogana University of Nairobi, Kenya

Individual scientific papers• Pinguelli Rosa, Ribeiro, 1997: “The share of responsibility between developed and developing countries in

climate change, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation”. In Proceedings from the International Energy Agency Conference on GHG

• Pinguelli Rosa, Ribeiro, 2001: “The present, past, and future contributions to global warming of CO2 emissions from fuels”, Climatic Change

• den Elzen, Schaeffer 2002: “Responsibility for past and future global warming: Uncertainties in attributing anthropogenic climate change”, Climatic Change

• Andronova, Schlesinger 2004: “Importance of Sulfate Aerosol in Evaluating the Relative Contributions of Regional Emissions to the Historical Global Temperature Change”, Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies for Global Change

• Pinguelli Rosa, Ribeiro, Muylaert, Campos, 2004: “Comments on the Brazilian Proposal and contributions to global temperature increase with different climate responses - CO2 emissions due to fossil fuels, CO2 emissions due to land use change”, Energy Policy

• Muylaert, Cohen, Pinguelli Rosa, Pereira, 2004: “ Equity, responsibility and climate change” Climate Research• Muylaert, Campos, Pinguelli Rosa, 2005: “GHG historical contribution by sectors, sustainable development and

equity” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews• Campos, Muylaert, Pinguelli Rosa, 2005: “Historical CO2 emission and concentrations due to land use change of

croplands and pastures by country”, Science of the Total Environment • Trudinger, Enting, 2005: “Comparison of formalisms for attributing responsibility for climate change: Non-

linearities in the Brazilian Proposal approach”, Climatic Change• den Elzen, Schaeffer, Lucas, 2005: “Differentiating Future Commitments on the Basis of Countries’ Relative

Historical Responsibility for Climate Change: Uncertainties in the ‘Brazilian Proposal’ in the Context of a Policy Implementation”, Climatic Change

• Rive, Torvanger, Fuglestvedt 2005: “Climate agreements based on responsibility for global warming: periodic updating, policy choices, and regional costs”, Global Environmental Change

• Höhne, Blok, 2005: “Calculating historical contributions to climate change – discussing the ‘Brazilian Proposal’”, Climatic Change


TimelineMay 2006:SBSTA 26 renewed mandate and agreed on timeline

24-25 September 2007: MATCH meeting to finalize work and to prepare report for UNFCCC

31 October 2007: Submission of the final report to SBSTA

December 2007: In-session special side event at SBSTA 27 to present the work to UNFCCC delegations

7 March 2008: Countries submit their views on the matterJune 2008 or soon after: Official consideration by SBSTA 28


Overview





MATCH resultsFour joint papers• Preparatory work

– Uncertainties along the cause-effect chain (paper 95% final)– Historical emissions from forestry (paper 50% final)

• Results– First analysis of regions’ contribution to climate change (paper published

2005)– Detailed analysis of countries contribution to climate change (paper 40%

final)

Capacity developed • IVIG (Brazil) developed a detailed and flexible model of land-use emissions

which has recently been coupled with the JCM carbon/climate model developed in UCL-ASTR (Belgium)

• Exchange of researchers (China to New Zealand, Brazil to Germany)


Computer tools

• Desirable: computer tool to calculate contributions to climate change, user selects parameters such as time horizon and indicator.

• Several tools are already available,

– Java Climate Model, Ben Mathews (www.climate.be/jcm)

– FAIR model, Michel den Elzen (www.mnp.nl/fair)

– CAIT tool, Jonathan Pershing (http://cait.wri.org/)

• The MATCH group would not develop a new tool, but would be available to assess and evaluate existing tools


JCM5 Demo 3: Contributions to Temperature. Absolute contributions (top left), include unattributed effect of other gases (grey), aerosols (cyan) and solar/volcanos (yellow), which are excluded from relative shares (top right). Attributed concentrations (below left) fall soon after the final attribution year (2002), as do temperatures, but attributed sea-level rise (below right) continues rising.


– Uncertainties along the cause-effect chain (paper 95% final)

– Historical emissions from forestry (paper 50% final)• Results

– First analysis of regions’ contribution to climate change (paper published 2005)

– Detailed analysis of countries contribution to climate change (paper 40% final)


Method


Global inventories of GHG emissions

based on activities

Emissions derived from atmospheric

measurements

Match?

Emissions

Concentrations

Radiative forcing

Global average temperature

change

All sources of historical radiative

forcing

Observed temperature

increase

Match?

Total uncertainty of OECD Annex

I countries’ contribution

Emissions and concentration

Reported emissions of CH4 match observed concentrations


Emissions and concentration

Components•Fossil/industrial•Anthropogenic forestry •Biosphere•Ocean

Reported LUCF emissions do not necessarily match


Method



based on activities


measurements

Match?

Emissions

Concentrations

Radiative forcing


change


forcing


increase

Match?


I countries contribution

Total radiative forcing

Collected historical estimates of all forcings

Match relatively well with observed temperature increase


Method



based on activities


measurements

Match?

Emissions

Concentrations

Radiative forcing


change


forcing


increase

Match?


I countries’ contribution

Emissions from various sources

Example case:Emissions of Annex I countries that are also OECD countries from 1990 to 2002

Adjusted uncertainty in emissions where necessary


Contribution to temperature

Example case:Emissions of Annex I countries that are also OECD countries from 1990 to 2002

Contributions can be calculated and the uncertainty for this case is +/-50%




– Historical emissions from forestry (paper 50% final)

• Results– First analysis of regions’ contribution to climate

change (paper published 2005)– Detailed analysis of countries contribution to climate

change (paper 40% final)


Land use change• Why are historical estimates of CO2 emissions from land

use so different?


Data sets analysed


Name Study Resolution Period Land use data EMI1 Houghton Country 1980/2000 Houghton & Hackler EMI2 UNFCCC Country 1990s National inventory EMI3 Olivier and Berdowski Country 1990&1995 FAO EMI4 Hurtt et al Country 1700/2000 National statistics EMI5 De Campos et al Country 1700/2002 Klein Goldewijk & FAO EMI6 Kato et al T42 (2.8° 2.8°) 1900/1999 Ramakutty & Foley EMI7 Jain and Yang 0.5° 0.5° 1990s Ramakutty & Foley 1

Comparison of 7 data sets on land-use change area and emissions for the 1990s

Detailed analysis of three countries: USA, Brazil, Indonesia







Analysing countries’ contribution to climate change: Scientific uncertainties and methodological choices

– Michel den Elzen (RIVM, Netherlands)– Jan Fuglestvedt (CICERO, Norway)– Niklas Höhne (Ecofys, Germany)– Cathy Trudinger (CSIRO, Australia)– Jason Lowe (Hadley, UK)– Ben Matthews (UCL, Belgium)– Bård Romstad (CICERO, Norway)– Christiano Pires de Campos (Brazil)– Natalia Andronova (UIUC, USA)


M. den Elzen, J. Fuglestvedt, N. Höhne, C. Trudinger, J. Lowe, B. Matthews, B. Romstad, C. Pires de Campos, N. Andronova, 2005: “Analysing countries’ contribution to climate change: Scientific uncertainties and methodological choices”, Environmental Science and Policy, 8 (2005) 614–636

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3x 10

7 Annex I

Em

issi

ons

in T

g C

O2e

q.

Year

N2OCH4Forestry CO2Fossil CO2

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3x 10

7 Non-Annex I

Em

issi

ons

in T

g C

O2e

q.

Year

N2OCH4Forestry CO2Fossil CO2

Source: Marland et al. / Houghton et al. / EDGAR 3.2


Historical emissionsOECD / REF

ALM / ASIA

Choices• Policy choices (values can not be based on objective ‘scientific’ arguments) :

– Indicator important– Timeframes important– Mixture of greenhouse gases important– Attribution method less important

• Scientific choices– Choice of the dataset on historical emissions important

– Choice of the representation of the climate system (different models) less important for relative contr.


Models show similar outcomes

39.3 38.3 40.5 39.5 41.2 39.5 37.8 39.6

14.8 15.3 13.2 14.7 14.9 14.3 14.4 14.3

23.5 23.8 24.9 23.5 21.0 23.8 25.8 23.7

22.4 22.7 21.5 22.4 22.8 22.4 22.0 22.4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EC

OF

YS

-AC

CC

IVIG

-AC

CC

UIU

C-A

CC

C

CS

IRO

-AC

CC

RIV

M-A

CC

C

UC

L-A

CC

C

CIC

ER

O-S

CM

UC

L-S

CM

ALM

ASIA

EEUR&FSU

OECD90


Temperature increase

Unattributed

Attribution start date,e.g. 1900

Region A

Region B

Region C

Region D

Time

Attribution period

Total temperature increase

Attributed temperature increase

Attributed effects

Today

1. Indicators

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fossil CO2 Forestry CO2 CH4 N2O

%

Radiative Forcing (100%=2.00 W/m2)GWP w eighted cummulative emissions (100%=160)Weighted concentrations (100%=67)Temperature increase (100%=1.19°C)Integrated Temperature increase (100%=84°Cy)Ocean Heat Content (100%=3.8E+9 J/m2)

Relative contributions using different indicators

05

101520

2530354045

OECD90 EEUR&FSU ASIA ALM

%

Radiative Forcing (100%=2.00 W/m2)GWP w eighted cummulative emissions (100%=160)Weighted concentrations (100%=67)Temperature increase (100%=1.19°C)Integrated Temperature increase (100%=84°Cy)Ocean Heat Content (100%=3.8E+9 J/m2)

Source: Ecofys-ACCC


2. Start-date

• With a shorter time horizon (e.g. 1950 or 1990 instead of 1890) relative contributions of OECD90 countries ('early emitters') is

smaller.

Contribution to temperature increase in 2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


%

1765 (100% = 1.13)1850 (100% = 1.04)1890 (100% = 0.99)1950 (100% = 0.78)1990 (100% = 0.21)

Source: RIVM-ACCC


0

5

10

15

20

25

USA LatinAmer

Africa OECDEurope

FSU SouthAsia

EastAsia

%


End-date

• With a late end-date relative non-Annex-I contributions are larger, because it gives more weight to their larger future emissions.

• Impact of emissions scenarios (error bars) can be large


05

1015

202530

3540

4550


%

1990 (100% = 0.43°C)2000 (100% = 0.53°C)2050 (100% = 1.54°C)2100 (100% = 4.00°C)


Source: RIVM-ACCC


0

5

10

15

20

25

USA LatinAmer

Africa OECDEurope

FSU SouthAsia

EastAsia

%

4. Greenhouse gas mixture

• Two main effects i) Going from fossil fuel CO2 emissions only to total anthropogenic CO2 emissions, ii) Inclusion of CH4 and N2O.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

OECD90 EEUR & FSU ASIA ALM

Fossil CO2 (100% = 0.58°C)Anthropogenic CO2 (100% = 0.74°C)CO2, CH4 and N2O (100% = 1.06°C)Kyoto gases (100% = 1.07°C)Kyoto gases & precursors (100% = 1.07°C)

Source: CICERO-SCM


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

USA LatinAmer

Africa OECDEurope

FSU SouthAsia

EastAsia


5. Historical datasets

• Fossil CO2 emissions: small differences in relative attribution

• CO2 emissions from land-use changes: differences in estimates leading to large differences. Data sets need to be compared and improved.

• CH4 and N2O: Only one dataset is available (EDGAR)


05

10152025

3035404550

OECD90 EEUR & FSU Asia ALM

%

FF+LUC:EDGAR (ref ) (100% = 0.68°C)FF:CDIAC; LUC:EDGAR (100% =0.62°C)FF:EDGAR; LUC:Houg (100% =0.74°C)FF:EDGAR; LUC:IVIG (100% =0.69°C)

Source: RIVM-ACCC


0

5

10

15

20

25

USA LatinAmer

Africa OECDEurope

FSU SouthAsia

EastAsia

%

6. Other scientific uncertaintiesContribution to temperature increase in 2100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


%

1: UCL-ACCC (linear carbon cycle) (100% = 3.8°C)2: 1 + non-linear carbon fertilisation (100% = 3.9°C)3: 2 + nonlinear oceanic chem is try (100% = 4.3°C)4: 3 + clim ate feedback ocean chem is try (100% = 4.4°C)5: UCL-JCM (= 4 + atm ospheric chem is try) (100% = 4.4°C)

6: 5 + soil respiration feedback (100% = 4.8°C)7: 6 + high clim ate sens itivity (100% = 6.7°C)8: 3 + high clim ate sens itivity (no feedbacks) (100% = 5.7°C)9: 6 excl. F-gas , trop.O3, solar&volcano (100% = 4.9°C)10 =4 + high carbon fertilisation (100% = 4.2°C)11 =4 + fas t ocean diffus ivity (100% = 4.4°C)


0

5

10

15

20

25

USA Latin Amer Africa OECD Europe FSU South Asia East Asia

% Source: UCL-SCM


jansf

See corrections.

Choices• Policy choices (values can not be based on objective ‘scientific’ arguments) :

– Indicator important– Timeframes important– Mixture of greenhouse gases important– Attribution method less important

• Scientific choices– Choice of the dataset on historical emissions important

– Choice of the representation of the climate system (different models) less important for relative contr.


Overall conclusions


Region Def

ault

(te

mp

erat

ure

incr

ease

)

GW

P w

eigh

ted

cum

mul

ativ

e em

issi

ons

Wei

ghte

d co

ncen

trat

ions

Inte

grat

ed T

empe

ratu

re in

crea

se

Oce

an H

eat C

onte

nt

Def

ual

t: A

ttri

bu

tio

n s

tart

dat

e 18

90

Attr

ibut

ion

star

t dat

e 19

90

Eva

luat

ion

date

210

0

Dea

fult

: N

orm

aliz

ed m

arg

inal

Tim

e sl

iced

Dea

fult

: al

l CO

2, C

H4,

N2O

Onl

y fo

ssil

CO

2

Def

ault

with

con

stan

t CH

4 lif

etim

e

All

Kyo

to g

ases

and

pre

curs

ors

Def

ault

(al

l GH

Gs:

ED

GA

R)

Oth

er L

UC

F d

ata:

Hou

ghto

n

Def

ault

: E

DG

AR

IRF

: GF

DL

Def

ault

: A

CC

C s

imp

lest

Var

iant

7 (

sect

. 3.3

.3):

UC

L-JC

M

Canada 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.2 1.6 1.8 1.6 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6USA 19.8 20.5 20.4 20.9 21.1 20.8 17.5 21.8 19.7 19.9 19.1 29.6 19.9 18.4 19.4 17.7 20.8 21.1 19.8 20.0Latin America 13.7 13.7 13.3 14.2 15.4 14.5 10.0 14.8 13.7 13.9 13.2 3.7 13.7 13.2 13.8 11.0 14.5 15.0 13.7 14.0Africa 6.5 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.3 6.5 6.0 6.6 6.6 6.8 2.4 6.6 7.9 6.7 5.6 6.3 6.3 6.6 6.6OECD Europe 13.8 14.7 14.5 14.9 15.2 14.7 11.0 15.8 13.9 14.0 13.2 21.3 14.1 12.8 13.6 13.2 14.7 14.9 13.9 14.2East Europe 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.1 3.6 4.2 3.4 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.9 5.8 4.0 3.7 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.0 3.9FSU 10.8 9.6 10.3 10.1 7.9 10.7 12.5 9.9 10.7 10.5 10.5 13.7 10.3 10.2 11.0 11.7 10.7 10.3 10.3 9.9Middle East 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.1 1.2 2.0 3.7 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.9South Asia (incl. India) 7.0 7.3 5.8 5.6 8.7 5.5 7.4 4.5 7.1 7.1 8.5 3.3 7.2 8.2 7.3 6.3 5.5 5.6 7.2 7.6East Asia (incl. China) 10.2 10.1 10.7 9.7 8.9 9.3 15.2 8.8 10.1 10.0 11.0 8.9 10.1 11.0 10.2 15.1 9.3 8.8 10.3 9.9South-East Asia 6.3 6.2 6.0 6.1 6.6 6.2 6.0 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.3 1.2 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3Oceania 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.7Japan 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.9 1.9 2.9 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.5 2.3 4.3 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.4Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

OECD 39.3 40.9 41.3 41.8 41.1 41.2 35.3 43.6 39.5 39.6 37.8 58.6 39.8 37.0 38.6 37.7 41.2 41.6 39.5 39.9EEUR&FSU 14.8 13.5 14.4 14.2 11.6 14.9 15.9 14.1 14.7 14.5 14.4 19.5 14.3 13.9 15.1 15.7 14.9 14.5 14.3 13.8ASIA 23.5 23.6 22.5 21.4 24.2 21.0 28.6 19.4 23.5 23.3 25.8 13.4 23.6 25.6 23.8 27.6 21.0 20.7 23.8 23.9ALM 22.4 21.9 21.9 22.5 23.2 22.8 20.1 22.9 22.4 22.5 22.0 8.5 22.3 23.5 22.5 19.0 22.8 23.2 22.4 22.5Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

100% = ... °C 1.2 160.4 67.4 84°Cy 3.8E+09 0.99 0.21 0.53 1.06 0.58 1.04 1.07 0.99 1.00 0.52 1.12

= More than 10% higher than default= More than 10% lower than default

RIVM -ACCC JCM-SCMECOFYS-ACCC CSIRO - ACCCRIVM - ACCC CICERO -SCM IVIG-ACCC







Objective• Provide results only for the most important choices

– Temperature increase and GWP-weighted cumulative emissions– Start dates 1750, 1900, 1950, 1990

• Finer resolution:– Country by country (starting from emissions reported to the UNFCCC)– Sectoral split (energy/industry, agriculture/waste, LUCF)– Gas by gas

• Include uncertainty range of historical emissions

• Calculated with several models

• Emission data and results will be made available electronically


Overview





Preliminary conclusions• Open research process, leading to peer reviewed papers and building

capacity and tools• Contributions to climate change can be calculated effectively and robustly

• Most important choices influencing results:– Indicator (cumulative emissions, impact on temperature…)– Start date as of which emissions are attributed– Different data sources for in LUCF emissions

• Uncertainties – Full uncertainty analysis performed for test case: +/-50% for absolute contribution– Model uncertainties (e.g. climate sensitivity) are not relevant if applied the same

for all contributors.

• Missing– Translation from “contribution” to “responsibility”– How to use the results


Backup slides

3. Attribution methods

• The differences between methods are fairly small compared to the effects of many of the other choices already considered.

Source: CSIRO-SCM


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


% Contribution to temperature increase in 2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

USA LatinAmer

Africa OECDEurope

FSU SouthAsia

EastAsia

%

N. Marg (100% = 1.24°C)T. Sliced (100% = 1.24°C)N. Resid (100% = 1.24°C)


1. Indicators


Source: Ecofys-ACCC

Historical emissions

Time

ACB

Time

Time

Present

D

Emissions

Radiative forcing

Temperature change

E

Time

FSea level rise

Time

Concentrations

Attribution end date

Evaluation date

Incr

easi

ng c

erta

inty

Incr

easi

ng r

elev

ance


Time

ACB

Time

Time

Present

D

Emissions

Radiative forcing

Temperature change

E

Time

FSea level rise

Time

Concentrations


Evaluation date

Incr

easi

ng c

erta

inty

Incr

easi

ng r

elev

ance

Time

AACB

Time

Time

Present

D

Emissions

Radiative forcing

Temperature change

E

Time

FSea level rise

Time

Concentrations


Evaluation date

Incr

easi

ng c

erta

inty

Incr

easi

ng r

elev

ance

Time

E

Time

Time

Time

Present

Emission pulse Historical emissions

Emissions

Concentrations

Radiative forcing

Temperature change


Time

ACB

Time

Time

Present

D

Emissions

Radiative forcing

Temperature change

E

Time

FSea level rise

Time

Concentrations


Evaluation date

Incr

easi

ng c

erta

inty

Incr

easi

ng r

elev

ance


Time

ACB

Time

Time

Present

D

Emissions

Radiative forcing

Temperature change

E

Time

FSea level rise

Time

Concentrations


Evaluation date

Incr

easi

ng c

erta

inty

Incr

easi

ng r

elev

ance

Time

AACB

Time

Time

Present

D

Emissions

Radiative forcing

Temperature change

E

Time

FSea level rise

Time

Concentrations


Evaluation date

Incr

easi

ng c

erta

inty

Incr

easi

ng r

elev

ance

2. Timeframe• Start date emissions 1890,

1950 and 1990

• End date emissions 1990, 2000, 2050 and 2100

• Evaluation date of attribution 2000, 2050, 2100, 2500


Temperature increase

Unattributed

Attribution start date,e.g. 1900

Region A

Region B

Region C

Region D

Time

Attribution period

Total temperature increase

Attributed temperature increase

Today

1900 1950 2000 20500

5

10x 10

4

Gg

P uls e emis s ions of 1E5 Gg CO2 - proportional

1900 1950 2000 20500

0.01

0.02

ppm

1900 1950 2000 20500

2

4x 10

-4W

/m2

1900 1950 2000 20500

0.5

1x 10

-4

°C

Years

1900 1950 2000 20500

5

10x 10

4

Gg

P uls e emis s ions of 1E5 Gg CO2 - res idual

1900 1950 2000 20500

0.01

0.02

ppm

1900 1950 2000 20500

2

4x 10

-4

W/m

2

1900 1950 2000 20500

0.5

1x 10

-4

°C

Years

1900 1950 2000 20500

5

10x 10

4

Gg

Pulse emissions of 1E5 Gg CO2 - proportional

1900 1950 2000 20500

0.01

0.02

ppm

1900 1950 2000 20500

2

4x 10

-4

W/m

2

1900 1950 2000 20500

0.5

1x 10

-4

°C

Years

=1

=0.6

Table 3

No. Name of the indicator 1900 1950 1990 2000 CO2 0.29 0.36 0.56 1* CH4 0.015 1.0 28 64* A Radiative forcing due to increased

concentrations N2O 81 126 180 196* CO2 1 1 1 1+ CH4 20 20 20 20+ B GWP-weighted cumulative

emissions N2O 323 323 323 323+ CO2 0.29 0.36 0.56 1 CH4 0.005 0.31 8.6 20 C Weighted concentrations N2O 134 208 296 323 Max year CO2 3.44 3.92 4.45 1 1983 CH4 9 33 262 64 1991 D Temperature increase N2O 927 1290 1220 196 1976 CO2 0.90 0.93 1.03 1 1993 CH4 2.2 3.3 16 22 2000 E Integrated temperature N2O 189 260 327 324 1994 CO2 To be completed CH4 F Sea level rise N2O

*: Represent instantaneous GWPs. +: Represent GWPs. Values slightly different to those of IPCC-TAR due to use of different parameters.

Aerosol forcing

• Inclusion of SO2 emissions reduces the contributions from ASIA and REF, but the effect disappear when there is a gap between attribution end date and evaluation date.

• Again effect is less less pronounced on longer time scales


Attributing SO2, attribution period 1890-2000

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

OECD90 REF ASIA ALM

KP3 2000 (dT=1.06)

KP6_SO2 2000 (dT=0.51)

Attributing SO2, attribution period 1890-2000

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Canad

aUSA

Japa

n

OECD E

urop

e

Oce

ania CIS

Easte

rn E

urop

e

China

regio

n

East A

sia

South

Asia

Africa

Latin

Am

erica

Mid

dle E

ast

KP3 2000 (dT=1.06)

KP6_SO2 2000 (dT=0.51)

Source: CICERO-SCM

jansf

Illustrate second half of bullet #1 by including 2050 fig? The point tha the aerosol issue disappers when there is a gap between emiss attribution end date and evaluation date could be important to communicate.

Future work• Two papers as first steps in a series

• Issues for a new paper combining earlier papers:

– Other test cases with longer time scales including the 19th century

– Uncertainty per region

– Finer resolution of sources (countries, inside countries or over sectors)

– Absolute and relative contributions

– Substantial new work on uncertainties for early emissions.

• Possible to explore further areas of research in the same mode of working and building on the MATCH work so far. Many in the MATCH group plan to continue their work on the scientific and methodological aspects related to contributions to climate change.

• MATCH could report back to SBSTA in one to two years.


Historical BackgroundBrazil made a proposal in the discussions of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997: • Calculate historical contributions of countries to climate change:

impact of historical emissions on temperature increase• Share emission reductions of Annex I countries proportional to their

contribution to temperature increase

• Presented model calculation:


Documents

Status of research Vienna 29 August 2007 Niklas Höhne, [email protected]