"The result remains the gold standard for policy: global warming potential (GWP), which compares the impact of different greenhouse gases on climate." @KHayhoe @Wuebbles
🤔
That statement pulled me up...
1/
nature.com/articles/d4158…
🤔
That statement pulled me up...
1/
nature.com/articles/d4158…
I have no doubt about the statement before "When they argued that it was too difficult [to compare GHGs in a single metric], Houghton insisted that they must, because they were the best people in the world to do this."
2/
2/
Don Wuebbles was instrumental in the Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) & the GWP uses essentially the same concepts.
Houghton pushed as there was a need to compare GHGs for policy, though, I am not sure scientists were so keen on the GWP at the time, nor the years later.
3/
Houghton pushed as there was a need to compare GHGs for policy, though, I am not sure scientists were so keen on the GWP at the time, nor the years later.
3/
IPCC First Assessment Report “It must be stressed that there is no universally accepted methodology for combining all the relevant factors into a single [metric] ... A simple approach [ie the GWP] has been adopted here to illustrate the difficulties inherent in the concept.”
4/
4/
"Indeed, has there been what might be termed an “inadvertent consensus”, so that the IPCC & policymakers have each perceived that the other was content with the concept & didn’t apply pressure to fully assess alternatives?"
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
5/
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
5/
Have a read of the Editorial by Keith Shine, one of the fathers of the GWP, it is rather entertaining!
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
Not sure the GWP would be called the 'gold standard for policy'? @janfug @ReisingerAndy @oneill_bc
(Also read the section in IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch8)
6/6
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
Not sure the GWP would be called the 'gold standard for policy'? @janfug @ReisingerAndy @oneill_bc
(Also read the section in IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch8)
6/6
