Status of research SB-20 21 June 2004 Xiaosu Dai, Michel den Elzen, Niklas Höhne
Mar 26, 2015
Status of researchSB-20
21 June 2004
Xiaosu Dai, Michel den Elzen, Niklas Höhne
Overview
1. Introduction to the MATCH processNiklas Höhne / Xiaosu Dai
2. Introduction of first joint paperMichel den Elzen / Niklas Höhne
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
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
UNFCCC process
• Two expert meetings• Coordinated modelling
exercise “ACCC”
• Ad-hoc group• Initiated by Brazil and UK• Two expert meetings so far
MATCH processObjective:
• Assess methods for calculating the contribution of different emission sources (e.g. regional, national or sectoral) to climate change and its impacts, taking into account uncertainties, and the sensitivity of the calculations to the use of different methods, models and methodological choices.
Outputs:
• 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 or several possible methods/models/choices for each step of the calculation of contributions to climate change, taking into account scientific robustness, practicality and data availability
• Organization of expert meetings, workshops and a coordinated modelling exercise
• Prepare papers to be published in peer reviewed scientific journals
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
MATCH processScientific Coordination Committee
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Xiaosu Dai National Climate Center, China
Michel den Elzen RIVM, Netherlands
Jan Fuglestvedt CICERO, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo, Norway
Jason Lowe Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, UK
Joyce Penner University of Michigan, USA
Michael Prather (Chair) 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
MATCH process
Developing country participation:
• Fund for travel costs of developing country experts sponsored by governments of Germany, Norway, UK (currently funds for further 15 developing country expert trips)
Support unit:
• Ecofys under contract to UK Defra
Information:
• http://www.match-info.net
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
MATCH-info.net
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
• Background
• Organization
• Papers
• Expert meetings
• File exchange
• Discussion forum
Participation at last meeting
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Atsushi Kurosawa The Institute of Applied Energy Research and Development, JapanAtul Jain University of Illinois, USABen Matthews Universite catholique de Louvain, BelgiumCathy Trudinger CSIRO, Australia Christiano Pires de Campos Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, BrazilFabian Wagner IIASA, GermanyGregory Bodeker NIWA, New ZealandJan Fuglestvedt CICERO, NorwayJason Lowe Met Office, Hadley Centre, UKJesper Gundermann Danish Environmental Protection AgencyJosé Domingos Gonzalez Miguez Interministerial Committee on Global Climate Change, BrazilJoyce Penner University of Michigan, USAMaria Silvia Muylaert de Araujo Coppe Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, BrazilMartin Weiss German Enironmntal AgencyMichael Prather University of California at Irvine, USA Michel den Elzen RIVM, NetherlandsMurari Lal University of the South Pacific, FIJINiklas Höhne Ecofys, GermanyRachel Warren UK DEFRASimone Ullrich Ecofys GmbHXiaosu Dai National Climate Cente, China
Individual scientific papers• Pinguelli & Kahn (2001): The present, past, and future contributions to global
warming of CO2 emissions from fuels, Climatic Change• den Elzen and Schaeffer (2002): Responsibility for past and future global warming:
Uncertainties in attributing anthropogenic climate change, Climatic Change• Trudinger & Enting (2004): Comparison of formalisms for attributing responsibility
for climate change: Non-linearities in the Brazilian Proposal approach, Climatic Change
• Andronova and Schlesinger (2004): Importance of sulfate aerosol in evaluating the relative contributions of regional emissions to the historical global temperature change attribution methods, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
• den Elzen, Schaeffer and Lucas (2004): 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
• Pinguelli, Kahn, Muylaert and Pires de 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
• Höhne and Harnisch (2004): Calculating historical contributions to climate change – discussing the ‘Brazilian Proposal’, Climatic Change
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Anticipated papersPaper #1 Analysing countries’ contribution to climate change: Scientific choices and methodological issues: status of the work and first results
Paper #2Demonstration of credible alternative scientific choices and their effect on the emissions, concentration and climate change
Paper #3Formal assessment of uncertainties and clarify parameter space
Paper #4 Additional attribution calculations discussed in paper #1 by including the outputs from paper #2 and paper #3
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
ScheduleMeeting September 2003: • Formation of the ad-hoc group MATCH• Agreement on terms of reference, scientific coordination committee, research
questions
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Meeting May 2004: • Discussion of draft paper #1• Discussion of development of further papers
June 2004: SB 20 side event
Meeting December 2004 (tentatively 2/3 December in Brazil): • Discussion of draft paper #2• Discussion of development of further papers
Meeting May 2005: Discussion of draft paper #3
Meeting September 2005: Discussion of draft paper #4
SB 23 November 2005: Presentation of results
Remarks
Challenges• New research• Resource requirements for contributing experts• Links to other organizations and programmes• Ambitious schedule
Strong points of MATCH• Participation of leading experts on the topic• Joint research effort• Results are peer-reviewed publications
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
2. First joint paper
Analysing countries’ contribution to climate change: Scientific choices and methodological issues
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Main objective of paper #1• to summarise the studies and results so far (i.e. the
contributions to the UNFCCC initiated process)
• to present new attribution calculations with non-linear carbon cycle and climate models using non-linear attribution methodologies and updated historical emissions datasets
• to investigate the effect of a range of scientific, methodological and policy-related choices on the attribution, but not the full range by all uncertainties.
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Policy choices• Policy choices refer: to parameters of which the values can not be based on
objective ‘scientific’ arguments alone. For example, 100 year time horizon of GWPs. The choices have to be made largely within the policy context.
• Policy choices analysed here:– Indicator– Timeframes– Emission scenarios– Mixture of Greenhouse gases– Attribution method
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Scientific uncertainties
• Choice of the dataset on historical emissions• Choice of the representation of the climate system
(different models)
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Models used
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Model Carbon cycle (CO2)
Atmospheric chemistry (non-CO2)
Sulphate aerosols
Radiative forcing
Temperature and sea level rise
ACCC (default) IRF (Bern) fixed lifetimes Hadley IPCC-TAR IRFs (Hadley)
CICERO - SCM Non-linear v IPCC-TAR IPCC-TAR ACCC EBC/UDO model (Schlesinger et al., 1992).
CSIRO - SCM ACCC or non-linear v
ACCC none ACCC ACCC
ECOFYS - ACCC ACCC* ACCC ACCC ACCC ACCC RIVM - ACCC ACCC IPCC-TAR ACCC ACCC ACCC and other IRFS JCM - SCM Bern non-
linear IPCC-TAR IPCC-TAR ACCC IPCC-TAR
IVIG - ACCC ACCC ACCC ACCC ACCC ACCC
* Same methodology used as in the ACCC model; v The mixed layer response function of Joos et al. (1996);
Model show similar outcomes
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Source: UNFCCC
Policy choices
1. Indicator
2. Timeframes
3. Attribution method
4. Mixture of greenhouse gases
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
1. Indicators
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Name of indicator Backward discounting
Forward looking
A Radiative forcing X -+
B GWP-weighted cumulative emissions - X
C Weighted concentrations X X
D Temperature increase X* -
+
E Integrated temperature increase
X X
F Sea level rise X* -+ *: Also discounting most recent emissions
+: Can be made forward looking, when evaluating at a date after attributed emissions end. In such case also a time horizon is required
1. Indicators
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Fossil CO2 Forestry CO2 CH4 N2O
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
OECD90 REF ASIA ALM
Radiative forcingGWP-weighted cumulative emissionsWeighted concentrationsTemperature increaseIntegrated temperature
Relative contributions using different indicators
Preliminary
1. Indicators
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Conclusions• Two main factors influence results
• Whether a source emitted ‘early’ versus ‘late’• The share of emissions of short-lived / long-lived gases.
• Choosing the right indicator is ultimately a policy choice that also depends on the purpose of use of the results.
• Temperate increase: use evaluation date after the attribution end date
• ‘Backward discounting’ and ‘forward looking’: ‘weighted concentrations’ or ‘integrated temperature’
• Not ‘backward discounting’: GWP-weighted cumulative emissions could be an option, which is simple and approximately represents the integrated impact on temperature.
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
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
Start-date
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
• Choosing a shorter time horizon (e.g. 1950 or 1990 instead of 1890) reduces the contributions of OECD90
countries ('early emitters') to temperature increase.
Contribution to temperature increase in 2000
05
10
1520
25
3035
40
4550
OECD90 EEUR & FSU Asia Africa & LatinAmerica
%
1765
1850
ref
1950
1990
Contribution to temperature increase in 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
USA SouthAmer
South.Africa
OECDEurope
FSU SouthAsia
EastAsia
%
Source: RIVM-ACCC
End-date
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
• A late end-date increases non-Annex-I contributions, 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
10
1520
25
3035
40
4550
OECD90 EEUR&FSU Asia Africa & LatinAmerica
%
19902000 (ref )20502100
Contribution to temperature increase in 2100
0
5
10
15
20
25
USA SouthAmer
South.Africa
OECDEurope
FSU SouthAsia
EastAsia
%
Source: RIVM-ACCC
Evaluation-date
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
• A later evaluation-date raises OECD contributions due to: (1) their large share in historical CO2 emissions (long residence time) (2) and their small share of methane emissions (short residence time)
Contr ibution to temperature increase in :(end date 2000)
0
5
10
15
2025
30
35
40
45
50
OECD90 EEUR&FSU Asia ALM
%
2000 (ref)
2050
2100
Contr ibution to temperature increase in:(end date 2000)
0
5
10
15
20
25
USA SouthAmer
South.Africa
OECDEurope
FSU SouthAsia
EastAsia
%
Source: RIVM-ACCC
3. Attribution methods
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
• Normalised marginal method - Attributes responsibility using total sensitivities determined "at the margin".
• Residual (all-but-one) method - Attributes responsibility by leaving out the emissions of each region in turn.
• Time-sliced - determines the effect of emissions from each time as if there were no subsequent emissions.
3. Attribution methods
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
• The Residual method, although simple to implement and explain, can be rejected on scientific grounds (not additive).
• The Normalised marginal and Time-sliced methods are harder to implement and explain. These methods differ in how they treat early vs. late emissions.
3. Attribution methods
• The differences between methods are fairly small compared to the effects of many of the other choices already considered.
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Contribution to temperature increase in 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
USA LatinAmer
Africa OECDEurope
FSU India +SouthAsia
EastAsia
%
N. Marg
T. Sliced
N. Resid
Contribution to temperature increase in 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
OECD90 EEUR & FSU Asia Africa & LatinAmerica
%
N. Marg
T. Sliced
N. Resid
Source: CSIRO-SCM
Contribution to temperature increase in 2100
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
OECD90 EEUR & FSU Asia Africa & LatinAmerica
%
N. Marg
T. Sliced
N. Resid
Contribution to temperature increase in 2100
0
5
10
15
20
25
USA LatinAmer
Africa OECDEurope
FSU India +SouthAsia
EastAsia
%
N. Marg
T. Sliced
N. Resid
3. Attribution methods
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Source: CSIRO-SCM • Differences between methods are greater for later evaluation date (2100)• In general, the results of the different methods vary most for regions with emissions that
differ most from the average in terms of early versus late emissions, i.e. India and EU. Source: CSIRO-SCM
4. Greenhouse gas mixtureWhich gases are attributed to the regions?
1. Fossil CO2
2. All anthropogenic CO2
3. CO2, CH4, N2O
4. Kyoto basket (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6)
5. Kyoto basket + more O3 precursors (NOx, CO and VOC)
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Greenhouse gas mix, 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
CO2FF 2000 (dT=0.58)
CO2ALL 2000 (dT=0.74)
KP3 2000 (dT=1.06)
KP6 2000 (dT=1.07)
KP6_O3P 2000 (dT=1.07)
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.
• The effect is less pronounced on longer time scales (except for the shift from fossil CO2 to total CO2).
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Source: CICERO-SCM
Greenhouse gas mix, attribution period 1890-2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
OECD90 REF ASIA ALM
CO2FF 2000 (dT=0.58)
CO2ALL 2000 (dT=0.74)
KP3 2000 (dT=1.06)
KP6 2000 (dT=1.07)
KP6_O3P 2000 (dT=1.07)
Scientific uncertainties1. Choice of the dataset on historical emissions
2. Choice of the representation of the climate system: carbon cycle and climate model and feedbacks
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
1. 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)
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Source: RIVM-ACCC
Contribution to temperature increase in 2000
05
10
1520
25
3035
40
4550
OECD90 EEUR & FSU Asia Africa & LatinAmerica
%
ref
CDIAC
Houghton
Contribution to temperature increase in 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
USA SouthAmer
South.Africa
OECDEurope
FSU SouthAsia
EastAsia
%
ref
CDIAC
Houghton
2. Other scientific uncertainties
• The influence of other climate model parameters (e.g. IRFs), based on simulation experiments with nine GCMs and climate models is limited
• Including additional non-linearities in calculations of methane-concentrations (IPCC-TAR atmospheric chemistry model ) has a negligible effect on the relative contributions
• ...
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Overall conclusions• First summary of the work undertaken to date.• Not a full assessment of the uncertainty range, but an evaluation of the influence of different policy-related
and scientific choices.
• The influence of scientific choices is notable. Therefore research is ongoing (see papers #2 and #3)• However, the current work suggests, that the impact of policy choices, such as time horizon of emissions,
climate change indicator and greenhouse-gas mix is larger than the impact of scientific uncertainties
• Impact of uncertainties on the relative contributions is smaller than impact of uncertainties on the absolute changes in temperature.
• Research needs: Historical emission datasets
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Backup slides
Policy choices
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Indicators Radiative forcing, GWP-weighted cumulative emissions, weighted concentrations,temperature increase, integrated temperature, sea level riseAttribution startdates
1890, 1950 and 1990Timeframes
Attribution end dates 1990, 2000, 2050 and 2100Evaluation dates 2000, 2050, 2100, 2500
Attributionmethods
Normalized marginal, residual, time-sliced
Attributedgreenhousegases (GHGs)
Fossil CO2, CO2, CO2, CH4, N2O, Kyoto-GHGs (including F-gases), all GHGs(including the other halocarbons (CFCs))
Data Historical emissions CDIAC database (fossil CO2, land-use CO2), EDGAR (allKP-GHGs), IEA (fossil CO2)
Future emissions IPCC SRES B1, A2 and A1F emission scenario
Regions Four regions (Nakicenovic et al. 2000): OECD90; Eastern Europe and Former SovietUnion (REF); Asia (ASIA); Africa and Latin America (ALM), and 13 world regions:Canada, USA, Latin America, Africa, OECD Europe, Eastern Europe, FormerUSSR (FSU), Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, South East Asia, Oceania andJapan
Models are calibrated
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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.
Contribution to radiative forcing
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
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
decreasing non-Annex I contribution increasing non-Annex I contribution
decrease relative to default contribution > 15%decrease > 5%decrease < 5%
increase relative to default contribution > 15%increase > 5%increase < 5%
-X.X X.X-X.X X.X-X.X X.X
X.X is absolute change in contribution
Canada 1.6 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3USA 17.9 3.1 2.0 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 -0.2 -0.9 -0.7 -0.8 -1.0 -2.7Central America 2.9 -0.7 0.0 -0.3 -0.1 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 0.6 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.3South America 7.3 -2.5 -0.1 -0.3 -0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.8Northern Africa 1.7 0.0 -0.4 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4Western Africa 2.1 -1.2 -0.1 -0.6 -0.2 0.0 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2Eastern Africa 1.0 -0.7 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Southern Africa 1.8 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6OECD Europe 11.2 2.5 2.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 -0.8 -0.7 -0.8 -1.0 -0.8Eastern Europe 3.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3Former USSR 9.2 0.3 0.8 -0.1 -0.3 0.3 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 0.2 -0.4 -0.3 -0.5 -0.8Middle East 5.4 0.6 -1.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.3 0.6 0.5 -0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.1South Asia 10.1 -1.4 -0.9 -0.5 -0.3 -0.3 0.4 -1.0 -1.9 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.5 1.4East Asia 14.4 1.3 -2.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.6 0.9 1.6 2.4 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.3 -0.2South East Asia 5.9 -2.4 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.1 -0.2 0.2 -0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5Oceania 1.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1Japan 3.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2
OECD90 35.1 6.2 4.3 2.3 1.6 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 -1.7 -1.5 -1.8 -2.1 -4.1EEUR & FSU 12.3 0.9 1.0 0.1 -0.2 0.3 -0.5 -0.6 -0.3 0.1 -0.4 -0.4 -0.6 -1.1Asia 30.4 -2.5 -3.3 -0.8 -0.6 -1.0 1.1 0.8 -0.1 1.0 1.4 1.5 2.0 1.7Africa & Lam 22.3 -4.6 -2.0 -1.7 -0.8 -0.4 -1.0 -0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.8 3.5
Annex-I 47.3 7.1 5.3 2.4 1.4 1.4 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -1.6 -1.9 -2.2 -2.7 -5.2non–Annex I 52.7 -7.1 -5.3 -2.4 -1.4 -1.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.7 5.2
def
ault
on
ly f
oss
il C
O 2
em
issi
on
s
ind
icat
or
SL
R
on
ly C
O 2
em
issi
on
s
eval
ud
atio
n d
ate
21
00
no
n-l
in. f
orc
ing
ind
icat
or
CO
2 c
on
cen
trat
ion
s
ind
icat
or
cum
ula
tiv
e em
issi
on
s
ED
GA
R
star
t d
ate
19
50
AO
S C
-cy
cle
(w.r
.t. N
on
Lin
Co
nc)
ind
icat
or
forc
ing
no
n-l
in. C
O 2
co
nce
ntr
atio
n
A1
b s
cen
ario
Canada 1.6 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3USA 17.9 3.1 2.0 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 -0.2 -0.9 -0.7 -0.8 -1.0 -2.7Central America 2.9 -0.7 0.0 -0.3 -0.1 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 0.6 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.3South America 7.3 -2.5 -0.1 -0.3 -0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.8Northern Africa 1.7 0.0 -0.4 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4Western Africa 2.1 -1.2 -0.1 -0.6 -0.2 0.0 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2Eastern Africa 1.0 -0.7 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Southern Africa 1.8 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6OECD Europe 11.2 2.5 2.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 -0.8 -0.7 -0.8 -1.0 -0.8Eastern Europe 3.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3Former USSR 9.2 0.3 0.8 -0.1 -0.3 0.3 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 0.2 -0.4 -0.3 -0.5 -0.8Middle East 5.4 0.6 -1.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.3 0.6 0.5 -0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.1South Asia 10.1 -1.4 -0.9 -0.5 -0.3 -0.3 0.4 -1.0 -1.9 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.5 1.4East Asia 14.4 1.3 -2.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.6 0.9 1.6 2.4 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.3 -0.2South East Asia 5.9 -2.4 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.1 -0.2 0.2 -0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5Oceania 1.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1Japan 3.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2
OECD90 35.1 6.2 4.3 2.3 1.6 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 -1.7 -1.5 -1.8 -2.1 -4.1EEUR & FSU 12.3 0.9 1.0 0.1 -0.2 0.3 -0.5 -0.6 -0.3 0.1 -0.4 -0.4 -0.6 -1.1Asia 30.4 -2.5 -3.3 -0.8 -0.6 -1.0 1.1 0.8 -0.1 1.0 1.4 1.5 2.0 1.7Africa & Lam 22.3 -4.6 -2.0 -1.7 -0.8 -0.4 -1.0 -0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.8 3.5
Annex-I 47.3 7.1 5.3 2.4 1.4 1.4 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -1.6 -1.9 -2.2 -2.7 -5.2non–Annex I 52.7 -7.1 -5.3 -2.4 -1.4 -1.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.7 5.2
Policy choices vs. scientific choices
• Policy choices (start-date, indicators) are more important than scientific uncertainties (attribution method, climate model)
Modelling and assessment of contributions to climate change
Source: RIVM-ACCC