Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCollins, William J.
dc.contributor.authorFrame, David J.
dc.contributor.authorFuglestvedt, Jan S.
dc.contributor.authorShine, Keith Peter
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-14T11:38:40Z
dc.date.available2021-07-14T11:38:40Z
dc.date.created2020-07-21T11:34:43Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationEnvironmental Research Letters. 2020, 15 (2), .en_US
dc.identifier.issn1748-9326
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2764406
dc.description.abstractMulti-gas climate agreements rely on a methodology (widely referred to as 'metrics') to place emissions of different gases on a CO2-equivalent scale. There has been an ongoing debate on the extent to which existing metrics serve current climate policy. Endpoint metrics (such as global temperature change potential GTP) are the most closely related to policy goals based on temperature limits (such as Article 2 of the Paris Agreement). However, for short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs), endpoint metrics vary strongly with time horizon making them difficult to apply in practical situations. We show how combining endpoint metrics for a step change in SLCF emissions with a pulse emission of CO2 leads to an endpoint metric that only varies slowly over time horizons of interest. We therefore suggest that these combined step-pulse metrics (denoted combined global warming potential CGWP and combined global temperature change potential CGTP) can be a useful way to include short and long-lived species in the same basket in policy applications—this assumes a single basket approach is preferred by policy makers. The advantage of a combined step-pulse metric for SLCFs is that for species with a lifetime less than 20 years a single time horizon of around 75 years can cover the range of timescales appropriate to the Paris Agreement. These metrics build on recent work using the traditional global warming potential (GWP) metric in a new way, called GWP*. We show how the GWP* relates to CGWP and CGTP and that it systematically underestimates the temperature effects of SLCFs by up to 20%. These step-pulse metrics are all more appropriate than the conventional GWP for comparing the relative contributions of different species to future temperature targets and for SLCFs they are much less dependent on time horizon than GTP.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleStable climate metrics for emissions of short and long-lived species—combining steps and pulsesen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber0en_US
dc.source.volume15en_US
dc.source.journalEnvironmental Research Lettersen_US
dc.source.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1088/1748-9326/ab6039
dc.identifier.cristin1820005
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal