全球增温潜势和全球温变潜势对主要国家温室气体排放贡献估算的差异.pdf

www.climatechange.cn.null=.null=.null=.null=.null=.null.nullnonmarkingreturn !“#$%.null9.null=.null1.null2013.null1.null PROGRESSUS INQUISITIONES DE MUTATIONE CLIMATISVo l. 9 No. 1January 2013doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-1719.2013.01.008.nullnonmarkingreturn , .nullnonmarkingreturn , .nullnonmarkingreturn. .nullnonmarkingreturn !“#$.nullnonmarkingreturn!%“# =.nullnonmarkingreturn !.null 2012-07-31.nullnonmarkingreturn !“=.nullnonmarkingreturn !“#$%2 Yantai University, Yantai 264005, ChinaAbstract: The global warming potential (GWP) and global temperature potential (GTP) are two common metrics tocalculate the CO2equivalence of greenhouse gases. If the country’s emissions of greenhouse gases are calculatedwith GTP instead of GWP, the shares of EU, USA, Japan, Canada and South Africa rise in the period 1990J2005,and those of Brazil, Australia, China, India, Mexico and Russia decrease. From 2015 to 2030, the projected shares ofEU, USA, Japan and China will increase, but those of Russia, Canada, Australia, India, Mexico and Brazil willdecrease. The reduced shares of Brazil and Australia and increased share of EU might be one of the importantreasons that Brazil and Australia suggested to adopt GTP instead of GWP as early as possible, but the EU opposed it.Key words: greenhouse gases; global warming potential (GWP); global temperature potential (GTP)[5][6][11][12][10][8][9][7]Shine K P, Fulestvedt J S, Hailemariam K, et al. Alternatives to the globalwarming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions ofgreenhouse gases [J]. Climatic Change, 2005, 68 (3): 281-302IPCC. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis: contribution ofworking group I to the fourth assessment report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2007: 210-216Zhang H, Wu J X, Shen Z P. Radiative forcing and global warmingpotential of perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride [J]. Science China:Earth Sciences, 2011, 54 (5): 764-772Zhang H, Wu J X, Lu P. A study of the radiative forcing and global warmingpotentials of hydrofluorocarbon [J]. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy& Radiative Transfer, 2011, 112 (2): 220-229.nullnonmarkingreturn , .nullnonmarkingreturn. .nullnonmarkingreturnG20.nullnonmarkingreturn !“#.nullnonmarkingreturn !“#$%[J]. .nullnonmarkingreturn .nullnonmarkingreturn, 2011, 36: 68-69.nullnonmarkingreturn !“#$%& ()*+,.nullnonmarkingreturn !“. .nullnonmarkingreturn !“#$%&.nullnonmarkingreturn ![M]. .nullnonmarkingreturn: .nullnonmarkingreturn !“, 2011: 26[13][4].nullnonmarkingreturn !IPCC. Climate change 1990: the IPCC scientific assessment [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990: 365.nullnonmarkingreturn , .nullnonmarkingreturn , .nullnonmarkingreturn. .nullnonmarkingreturn !“#$.null%& ()*+[J]. .nullnonmarkingreturn.nullnonmarkingreturn !, 2011, 39 (28): 17416-17419Manne A S, Richels R G. An alternative approach to establishing trade-offs among greenhouse gases [J]. Nature, 2001, 410: 675-677O’Neil B C. The jury is still out on global warming potentials [J]. ClimaticChange, 2000, 44: 427-443Fuglestvedt J S, Berntsen T K, Godal O, et al. Metrics of climate change:assessing radiative forcing and emission indices [J]. Climatic Change,2003, 58: 267-331.nullnonmarkingreturn, .nullnonmarkingreturn , .nullnonmarkingreturn, .null . .nullnonmarkingreturn !“#$%.null& (#$.null)&.nullnonmarkingreturn !“#$%& [C]//.nullnonmarkingreturn !“#$%& ()*+.nullnonmarkingreturn.nullnonmarkingreturn. .nullnonmarkingreturn: .nullnonmarkingreturn !“nonmarkingreturn# !$%&, 2008: 1-4IPCC. Climate change 2001: the scientific basis: contribution of workinggroup I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001: 352[1][2][3]