Comparison of Preparatory Signal Comparison of Preparatory Signal - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
comparison of preparatory signal comparison of
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Comparison of Preparatory Signal Comparison of Preparatory Signal - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 06, 2023 236 likes •555 views

Comparison of Preparatory Signal Comparison of Preparatory Signal Detection Techniques for Consideration Detection Techniques for Consideration in the (Post- -) Kyoto Policy Process ) Kyoto Policy Process in the (Post M. Jonas 1 , M. Gusti

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 1

Comparison of Preparatory Signal Comparison of Preparatory Signal Detection Techniques for Consideration Detection Techniques for Consideration in the (Post in the (Post-

  • ) Kyoto Policy Process

) Kyoto Policy Process

  • M. Jonas1, M. Gusti1,2, W. Jęda3, Z. Nahorski3

and S. Nilsson1

1 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria 2 Lviv National Polytechnic University, Lviv, Ukraine 3 Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

2nd International Workshop on Uncertainty in GHG Emissions IIASA

IIASA, Austria; 27–28 September 2007

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 2

Contents:

  • 1. Motivation: Quick Look into Uncertainty
  • 2. Key Question
  • 3. Agreements and Overview
  • 4. Techniques in Detail
  • 5. Conclusions
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 3

  • 1. Quick Look: Uncertainty across scales (CO2)

“ S D ”

Source: Jonas (2007); modified

Country

= “Kyoto reporting unit”

Atmosphere

Time t Height z Spatial Resolution ΔX

Continents/ Groups of Countries Legal Entity Global

“ N I R / E T ” “Bu/Td”

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 4

  • 1. Quick Look: Uncertainty bottom-up/top-down

Sources: Battle et al. (2000); Prentice et al. (2001); House et al. (2003); Karstens et al. (2003); Levin et al. (2003); Gregg (2006)

Global CO2 Budget for the 1990s (Pg C/yr):

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 5

  • 1. Quick Look: Uncertainty bottom-up/top-down

FF Emissions―CO2:

  • Great source strength; uncertainties are believed to be small
  • Generally considered perfectly known in inversions
  • Under development: 14C (ideal), “14C plus CO”
  • Outlook: Rigorous bottom-up/top-down accounting (verification)
  • n a multi-country scale (a matter of years)! Any politically driven

(mis-) accounting reported bottom-up can/will be instantaneously corrected!

Net Land and Ocean Uptake―CO2:

  • Small sink strengths, great(er) uncertainties
  • Possible: To partition land and ocean uptake
  • Challenge: Matching bottom-up/top-down land accounts at

continental scales and smaller

  • Not possible: To discriminate “Kyoto trees” and “non-Kyoto trees”
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 6

  • 1. Quick Look: Current ≤ EU-15 reporting (simplified)

Time CO2 Emissions

w/o LULUCF 2005 1990

Revised Initial Actual

Source: Hamal (2007b); modified

Accuracy Accuracy + Precision

Not Good Practice!

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 7

  • 1. Quick Look: Compliance under uncertainty

Time

Base Year Commitment Year/Period

Net GHG Emissions

Irrelevant: Shall uncertainty be considered? Foreseeable: Scientists will do!

Net GHG Emissions Time

Base Year Commitment Year/Period

Source: Jonas and Nilsson (2007); modified

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 8

  • 2. Key Question

What exactly can scientists say so far about using uncertainty estimates at the national level for compliance purposes using our relative uncertainty knowledge as of today? … a summary on emissions / emission change “detection” techniques since the 1st Uncertainty Workshop …

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 9

  • 3. Agreement: Country grouping

Emission Reduction Emission Limitation

Source: Jonas et al. (2004); modified

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 10

  • 3. Overview: Techniques (I)

1: Critical relative uncertainty (CRU) 2: Verification (detection) time (VT) 3: Undershooting (Und) 4: Undershooting and VT (Und&VT) combined 5: Adjustment of emissions (GSC #1) 6: Adjustment of emission changes (GSC #2)

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 11

  • 3. Overview: Techniques (II)

Source: Bun (2007); modified

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 12

  • 3. Agreement: Relative uncertainty intervals

FF CO2 + LULUCF All Kyoto gases net terrestrial

Source: Jonas and Nilsson (2007); modified

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 13

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: CRU

Source: Jonas et al. (2004); modified

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 14

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: VT

Source: Jonas and Nilsson (2007); modified

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 15

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: Und and VT

CRU |δKP| given ⇒ are nonsymmetrical VT

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 16

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: Und

~ Risk α Undershooting U

Committed Level Base Year Level

x1

t

t1

X

t2 x2

Source: Jonas and Nilsson (2007); modified

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 17

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: GSC #2
slide-18
SLIDE 18

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 18

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: Und and GSC #2
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 19

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: Und&VT

Source: Hamal (2007a)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 20

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: GSC #1
slide-21
SLIDE 21

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 21

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: Und&VT and GSC #1
slide-22
SLIDE 22

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 22

  • 5. Conclusions
  • Foreseeable: Bu/td verification of FF CO2, resolving continental scales

and smaller, will be in place in the near future. Accounting under the KP will have to cope with this challenge. Strategy: Focus on verifiable emissions (→ separate protocol for the biosphere).

  • SD techniques are available to check the quality of compliance (bu or

bu/td context). Accounting under the KP will have to cope with this

  • challenge. Strategy: Establish rules for meeting compliance under

uncertainty.

  • The techniques exhibit ‘peculiarities’ that are related to the arbitrary

way the KP is designed, not to science! Strategies: 1) Introduce uniform reduction under the KP; or 2) set up straightforward rules for introducing differentiated targets (e.g., contraction and convergence).

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 23

Thank you for your attention!

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 24

References

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 25

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: CRU

Source: Jonas et al. (2004); modified

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 26

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: VT

Source: Jonas et al. (2004); modified

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 27

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: Und

Corr ≈ 0.75

Source: Jonas and Nilsson (2007); modified

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 28

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: GSC #2

Corr ≈ 0.75 p = 0.1

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 29

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: Und&VT

Source: Jonas and Nilsson (2007); modified

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 30

  • 4. Techniques in Detail: GSC #1

p = ρcrit

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Jonas & Nilsson 27 Sept. 2007 – 31

Global Carbon Project (2006)

Source: GCP (2006): http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/misc/policyBrief.htm