Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2018-22
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2018-22
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
08 May 2018
| 08 May 2018
Status: this preprint was under review for the journal ESD but the revision was not accepted.
Only the instantaneous global warming potential is consistent with honest and responsible greenhouse gas accounting
Abstract. This paper presents a simple model to describe the impact on global warming of methane (natural gas) when used for energy production. The model is used to estimate the near-term effect of energy policies based on natural gas as a bridge fuel. The results make it clear that the commonly employed global warming potential of methane with a 100-year time horizon has the following problems:
1: it produces misleading results;
2: is inconsistent with meaningful tracking of greenhouse gas emissions; and
3: is incompatible with the precautionary principle.
How to cite. Nightingale, P.: Only the instantaneous global warming potential is consistent with
honest and responsible greenhouse gas accounting, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2018-22, 2018.
Download & links
Download & links
- Preprint
(433 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
- Printer-friendly version
- Supplement
-
RC1: 'Users of flawed GWP metrics can be both honest and responsible. Scientific papers are about empirical facts, not value judgments.', K. Caldeira, 22 May 2018
-
AC1: 'GWP is not a value-neutral metric', Peter Nightingale, 30 May 2018
-
AC1: 'GWP is not a value-neutral metric', Peter Nightingale, 30 May 2018
-
RC2: 'Is there a GWP-like metric such that scenarios that are equivalent on this metric would produce similar climate outcomes?', K. Caldeira, 22 May 2018
-
AC2: 'The focus on "instantaneous" is deliberate and justified', Peter Nightingale, 31 May 2018
-
AC2: 'The focus on "instantaneous" is deliberate and justified', Peter Nightingale, 31 May 2018
-
RC3: 'Review of Nightingale 2018', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Jun 2018
-
AC3: 'The principal problem identified by the referee does not exist', Peter Nightingale, 25 Jun 2018
-
AC3: 'The principal problem identified by the referee does not exist', Peter Nightingale, 25 Jun 2018
-
AC4: 'Revised paper: Proposed policymaker-friendly metric of radiative effects ...', Peter Nightingale, 20 Aug 2018
-
AC5: 'REVISIONS ITEMIZED AND EXPLAINED', Peter Nightingale, 20 Aug 2018
-
AC6: 'Differences between versions—explanations in next comment', Peter Nightingale, 25 Aug 2018
-
AC7: 'Responses to referees and corresponding revisions', Peter Nightingale, 25 Aug 2018
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
- Printer-friendly version
- Supplement
-
RC1: 'Users of flawed GWP metrics can be both honest and responsible. Scientific papers are about empirical facts, not value judgments.', K. Caldeira, 22 May 2018
-
AC1: 'GWP is not a value-neutral metric', Peter Nightingale, 30 May 2018
-
AC1: 'GWP is not a value-neutral metric', Peter Nightingale, 30 May 2018
-
RC2: 'Is there a GWP-like metric such that scenarios that are equivalent on this metric would produce similar climate outcomes?', K. Caldeira, 22 May 2018
-
AC2: 'The focus on "instantaneous" is deliberate and justified', Peter Nightingale, 31 May 2018
-
AC2: 'The focus on "instantaneous" is deliberate and justified', Peter Nightingale, 31 May 2018
-
RC3: 'Review of Nightingale 2018', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Jun 2018
-
AC3: 'The principal problem identified by the referee does not exist', Peter Nightingale, 25 Jun 2018
-
AC3: 'The principal problem identified by the referee does not exist', Peter Nightingale, 25 Jun 2018
-
AC4: 'Revised paper: Proposed policymaker-friendly metric of radiative effects ...', Peter Nightingale, 20 Aug 2018
-
AC5: 'REVISIONS ITEMIZED AND EXPLAINED', Peter Nightingale, 20 Aug 2018
-
AC6: 'Differences between versions—explanations in next comment', Peter Nightingale, 25 Aug 2018
-
AC7: 'Responses to referees and corresponding revisions', Peter Nightingale, 25 Aug 2018
Viewed
Total article views: 2,476 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 08 May 2018)
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,645 | 750 | 81 | 2,476 | 99 | 95 |
- HTML: 1,645
- PDF: 750
- XML: 81
- Total: 2,476
- BibTeX: 99
- EndNote: 95
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 2,363 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 2,352 with geography defined
and 11 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Discussed
Latest update: 24 Apr 2024
Peter Nightingale
Department of Physics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881, USA
Short summary
This paper discusses flawed use of the global warming potential, a metric accepted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to assess the impact on global warming of, among others, combustion of methane, natural gas. The paper identifies problems of the generally used delayed-impact version of the metric: (1) it produces misleading results; (2) it is inconsistent with meaningful tracking of greenhouse gas emissions; and (3) it is incompatible with the precautionary principle.
This paper discusses flawed use of the global warming potential, a metric accepted by the United...
Altmetrics