How much information is lost by using global-mean climate metrics? an example using the transport sector
- 288 Downloads
Metrics are often used to compare the climate impacts of emissions from various sources, sectors or nations. These are usually based on global-mean input, and so there is the potential that important information on smaller scales is lost. Assuming a non-linear dependence of the climate impact on local surface temperature change, we explore the loss of information about regional variability that results from using global-mean input in the specific case of heterogeneous changes in ozone, methane and aerosol concentrations resulting from emissions from road traffic, aviation and shipping. Results from equilibrium simulations with two general circulation models are used. An alternative metric for capturing the regional climate impacts is investigated. We find that the application of a metric that is first calculated locally and then averaged globally captures a more complete and informative signal of climate impact than one that uses global-mean input. The loss of information when heterogeneity is ignored is largest in the case of aviation. Further investigation of the spatial distribution of temperature change indicates that although the pattern of temperature response does not closely match the pattern of the forcing, the forcing pattern still influences the response pattern on a hemispheric scale. When the short-lived transport forcing is superimposed on present-day anthropogenic CO2 forcing, the heterogeneity in the temperature response to CO2 dominates. This suggests that the importance of including regional climate impacts in global metrics depends on whether small sectors are considered in isolation or as part of the overall climate change.
This research was supported by the European Union’s Sixth Framework Integrated Project QUANTIFY Contract No 003893 and the TEMPO project funded by the Norwegian Research Council. We thank Nicola Stuber for making available the results of the HadSM3 simulations.
- Boer GJ, Yu B (2003) Climate sensitivity and response. Clim Dyn 20(4):415–429Google Scholar
- Forster P, Ramaswamy V et al (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manninget al. Cambridge and New York, Cambridge Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
- Hansen J, Sato M et al (2005) Efficacy of climate forcings. J Geophys Res Atmos 110(D18):D18104Google Scholar
- IPCC (2009) Meeting Report of the Expert Meeting on the Science of Alternative Metrics. In: Plattner G-K, Stocker TF, Midgley P, Tignor M (eds). IPCC Working Group I Technical Support Unit, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, p 75Google Scholar
- Joshi M, Shine K et al (2003) A comparison of climate response to different radiative forcings in three general circulation models: towards an improved metric of climate change. Clim Dyn 20(7–8):843–854Google Scholar
- Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2000) Warming the world: economic models for global warming. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Ponater M, Dietmüller S et al (2009) Indications of distinctive efficacies for transport related ozone perturbations. Second International Conference on Transport, Atmosphere and Climate (TAC-2), June 22–25 2009, Aachen and MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
- Reisinger A, Meinshausen M et al (2011) Future changes in global warming potentials under representative concentration pathways. Environ Res Lett 6(2):024020Google Scholar
- Shine KP, Highwood EJ et al (2011) Climate model calculations of the impact of aerosols from road transport and shipping. In prep. for Atmospheric and Oceanic OpticsGoogle Scholar
- Sutton RT, Dong BW et al (2007) Land/sea warming ratio in response to climate change: IPCC AR4 model results and comparison with observations. Geophys Res Lett 34(2):L02701Google Scholar
- Unger N, Shindell DT et al (2008) Air pollution radiative forcing from specific emissions sectors at 2030. J Geophys Res Atmos 113(D2):D02306Google Scholar