status of research vienna 29 august 2007 niklas höhne, n.hoehne@ecofys.de
Post on 15-Jan-2016
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Status of researchVienna
29 August 2007
Niklas Höhne, n.hoehne@ecofys.de
Overview
1. Introduction to the MATCH process
2. Preliminary results
3. Preliminary conclusions
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Main question
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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).
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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)
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
MATCH processScientific coordination committee
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate 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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Overview
1. Introduction to the MATCH process
2. Preliminary results
3. Preliminary conclusions
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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)
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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.
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)
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Method
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Emissions and concentration
Components•Fossil/industrial•Anthropogenic forestry •Biosphere•Ocean
Reported LUCF emissions do not necessarily match
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Method
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Total radiative forcing
Collected historical estimates of all forcings
Match relatively well with observed temperature increase
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Method
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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 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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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%
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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)
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Land use change• Why are historical estimates of CO2 emissions from land
use so different?
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Data sets analysed
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
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)
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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)
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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.
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
OECD90 EEUR&FSU ASIA ALM
%
1765 (100% = 1.13)1850 (100% = 1.04)1890 (100% = 0.99)1950 (100% = 0.78)1990 (100% = 0.21)
Source: RIVM-ACCC
Contribution to temperature increase in 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
USA LatinAmer
Africa OECDEurope
FSU SouthAsia
EastAsia
%
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Contribution to temperature increase in 2100
05
1015
202530
3540
4550
OECD90 EEUR&FSU ASIA ALM
%
1990 (100% = 0.43°C)2000 (100% = 0.53°C)2050 (100% = 1.54°C)2100 (100% = 4.00°C)
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Source: RIVM-ACCC
Contribution to temperature increase in 2100
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.
Contribution to temperature increase in 2000
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
Contribution to temperature increase in 2000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
USA LatinAmer
Africa OECDEurope
FSU SouthAsia
EastAsia
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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)
Contribution to temperature increase in 2000
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
Contribution to temperature increase in 2000
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
OECD90 EEUR & FSU Asia ALM
%
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)
Contribution to temperature increase in 2100
0
5
10
15
20
25
USA Latin Amer Africa OECD Europe FSU South Asia East Asia
% Source: UCL-SCM
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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.
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Overall conclusions
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
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)
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Overview
1. Introduction to the MATCH process
2. Preliminary results
3. Preliminary conclusions
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Contribution to temperature increase in 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
OECD90 EEUR & FSU Asia ALM
% 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)
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
1. Indicators
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
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
AACB
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
E
Time
Time
Time
Present
Emission pulse Historical emissions
Emissions
Concentrations
Radiative forcing
Temperature change
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
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
AACB
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
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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
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.
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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:
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
top related