IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v127y2014i2p335-351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emission metrics and sea level rise

Author

Listed:
  • Erik Sterner
  • Daniel Johansson
  • Christian Azar

Abstract

Here we present two new metrics used for comparing climate impacts of emissions of different climate forcers: the Global Sea level rise Potential (GSP) and the Integrated Global Sea level rise Potential (IGSP). The GSP represents the Sea Level Rise (SLR) at a given time horizon due to an emission pulse of a forcer; the IGSP is similar but represents the time integrated SLR up to a given point in time. The GSP and IGSP are presented relative to the SLR caused by a comparable emission pulse of carbon dioxide. The metrics are assessed using an Upwelling-Diffusion Energy Balance Model (UDEBM). We focus primarily on the thermosteric part of SLR, denoted GSP th . All of the examined climate forcers – even black carbon, a very Short-Lived Climate Forcer (SLCF) – have considerable influence on the thermosteric SLR on the century time scale. For a given time horizon and forcer, GSP th lies in between the corresponding metric values obtained using Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Global Temperature change Potential (GTP), whereas IGSP th ends up in the opposite end to GTP in the spectrum of compared metrics. GSP th and IGSP th are more sensitive for SLCFs than for the long-lived Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) to changes in the parameterization of the model (under the time horizons considered here). We also use a Semi-Empirical (SE) model to estimate the full SLR, and corresponding GSP SE and IGSP SE , as alternatives to the thermosteric approach. For SLCFs, GSP SE is greater than GSP th for all time horizons considered, while the opposite holds for long-lived GHGs such as SF 6 . Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Erik Sterner & Daniel Johansson & Christian Azar, 2014. "Emission metrics and sea level rise," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 335-351, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:127:y:2014:i:2:p:335-351
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-014-1258-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10584-014-1258-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-014-1258-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Johansson, 2012. "Economics- and physical-based metrics for comparing greenhouse gases," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 123-141, January.
    2. Alan S. Manne & Richard G. Richels, 2001. "An alternative approach to establishing trade-offs among greenhouse gases," Nature, Nature, vol. 410(6829), pages 675-677, April.
    3. Daniel Johansson, 2011. "Temperature stabilization, ocean heat uptake and radiative forcing overshoot profiles," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 107-134, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Morgan R. Edwards & Jessika E. Trancik, 2022. "Consequences of equivalency metric design for energy transitions and climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-27, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christian Azar & Daniel Johansson, 2012. "Valuing the non-CO 2 climate impacts of aviation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(3), pages 559-579, April.
    2. Katsumasa Tanaka & Daniel Johansson & Brian O’Neill & Jan Fuglestvedt, 2013. "Emission metrics under the 2 °C climate stabilization target," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 117(4), pages 933-941, April.
    3. Jessica Strefler & Gunnar Luderer & Tino Aboumahboub & Elmar Kriegler, 2014. "Economic impacts of alternative greenhouse gas emission metrics: a model-based assessment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 125(3), pages 319-331, August.
    4. Morgan R. Edwards & Jessika E. Trancik, 2022. "Consequences of equivalency metric design for energy transitions and climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-27, November.
    5. Steven Smith & Joseph Karas & Jae Edmonds & Jiyong Eom & Andrew Mizrahi, 2013. "Sensitivity of multi-gas climate policy to emission metrics," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 117(4), pages 663-675, April.
    6. Odette Deuber & Gunnar Luderer & Robert Sausen, 2014. "CO 2 equivalences for short-lived climate forcers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(4), pages 651-664, February.
    7. Heidi K. Edmonds & Julie E. Lovell & C. A. Knox Lovell, 2017. "A New Composite Index for Greenhouse Gases: Climate Science Meets Social Science," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, October.
    8. Weiwei Xiong & Katsumasa Tanaka & Philippe Ciais & Daniel J. A. Johansson & Mariliis Lehtveer, 2022. "emIAM v1.0: an emulator for Integrated Assessment Models using marginal abatement cost curves," Papers 2212.12060, arXiv.org.
    9. Delucchi, Mark A. & McCubbin, Donald R., 2010. "External Costs of Transport in the U.S," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt13n8v8gq, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    10. Richard S. J. Tol & Seán Lyons, 2008. "Incorporating GHG Emission Costs in the Economic Appraisal of Projects Supported by State Development Agencies," Papers WP247, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    11. Mathijs J. H. M. Harmsen & Maarten Berg & Volker Krey & Gunnar Luderer & Adriana Marcucci & Jessica Strefler & Detlef P. Van Vuuren, 2016. "How climate metrics affect global mitigation strategies and costs: a multi-model study," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 203-216, May.
    12. Moura, Maria Cecilia P. & Branco, David A. Castelo & Peters, Glen P. & Szklo, Alexandre Salem & Schaeffer, Roberto, 2013. "How the choice of multi-gas equivalency metrics affects mitigation options: The case of CO2 capture in a Brazilian coal-fired power plant," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1357-1366.
    13. Tol, Richard S.J., 2012. "A cost–benefit analysis of the EU 20/20/2020 package," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 288-295.
    14. Yunfa Zhu & Madanmohan Ghosh & Deming Luo & Nick Macaluso & Jacob Rattray, 2018. "Revenue Recycling And Cost Effective Ghg Abatement: An Exploratory Analysis Using A Global Multi-Sector Multi-Region Cge Model," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(01), pages 1-25, February.
    15. Christoph Bohringer, Andreas Loschel and Thomas F. Rutherford, 2006. "Efficiency Gains from "What"-Flexibility in Climate Policy An Integrated CGE Assessment," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 405-424.
    16. Ghosh, Madanmohan & Luo, Deming & Siddiqui, Muhammad Shahid & Zhu, Yunfa, 2012. "Border tax adjustments in the climate policy context: CO2 versus broad-based GHG emission targeting," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S2), pages 154-167.
    17. Anthony Wiskich, 2024. "Social Costs of Methane and Carbon Dioxide in a Tipping Climate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(5), pages 1275-1293, May.
    18. Shindell, Drew T., 2013. "The social cost of atmospheric release," Economics Discussion Papers 2013-56, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    19. Mark H Cooper, 2015. "Measure for measure? Commensuration, commodification, and metrology in emissions markets and beyond," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1787-1804, September.
    20. Jasper Vliet & Maarten Berg & Michiel Schaeffer & Detlef Vuuren & Michel Elzen & Andries Hof & Angelica Mendoza Beltran & Malte Meinshausen, 2012. "Copenhagen Accord Pledges imply higher costs for staying below 2°C warming," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 551-561, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:127:y:2014:i:2:p:335-351. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.