with those from 1 995-2005 would be stronger and clearerthan comparing with growth rates from 1960-2005. Co-Chair Solomon explained the rationale of avoiding arbitrary breakpoints. France, supported by Belgi um, proposed that measurements in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) be accompanied by conversions into gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO ). 2 Participants agreed to this suggestion. The UK asked that an explicit link be made between increases in carbon dioxide emissions and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Norway proposed a comparison of 2000-2005 carbon dioxide emission levels with the year 1990 level rather than the 1990-1 999 averaged level, in orderto ensure consistency with the UNFCCC. China noted that text stating that the growth rate ofcarbon dioxide emissions had increased during the last ten years could be misleading due to the high variability in carbon dioxide measurements. A contact group agreed to China's request to include a reference to year-to-year variability in carbon dioxide concentrations, as well as to the UK's proposal to attribute increased atmospheric concentrations tocarbon dioxide emissions. Regarding land use change, Peru suggested the addition ofa statement noting the net land-to-atmosphere fluxes for carbon likely, very likely, likely, ete.). Following a comment from Belgium, text was added within a footnote to clarify that a number of uncertainty ranges in the TAR corresponded to 95% (2-sigma), often using expert judgment, whereas in the AR4 the uncertainty bounds were decreased to 90%. Regarding text on methane concentrations, participants agreed to add language noting that it is very likely that the observed increase in methane concentrations is due to anthropogenic activities. They also agreed to a proposal by Mali to include precise values for methane concentrations in the early 1990s. Switzerland proposed including emission rates within the fıgure on changes in greenhouse gases from ice-core and modern data as the section considers both human and natura! drivers. Austria opposed this, however, notingthe different time scales in the fıgure. Algeria proposed an explicit reference to Africa's lack of responsibility in carbon dioxide emissions. Co-Chair Solomon noted that WGIII will probably address the fact thatAfrica emits less carbon dioxide, but that this issue is not addressed in WGl's report. Following comments from Norway and Switzerland, a footnote was included to state that radiative forcing from halocarbons has been assessed in an IPCC Special Rewhether to maintain text in the section in bold font comparing the anthropogenic contribution with the solar contribution to radiative forcing. The UK, France, Germany, New Zealand and others proposed keeping the explicit comparison, while China and Saudi Arabia proposed deleting it. A contact group was convened. The original bold text included language stating that the change in radiative forcingfrom human activities is likely to have been at least fıve times greater than that due to solar forcing. The issues under discussion were whether to include the comparison in the bold text and how to reflect the level of uncertainty associated with the affırmation. China and Saudi Arabia said the levels of confıdence could not be compared. The US and others noted that data on solar radiative forcing was extremely good after the satellite era.Japan asked why it was fıve times and not ten times, given the respective best estimates of 1 .6 and 0. 1 2 W m -2 The Coordinating Lead Authors explained that the factor was chosen because ofthe error bars. Agreement was not reached and the matter was referred back to Co-Chair Solomon. With no agreement reached by late Thursday night, Co-Chair Solomon proposed, and participants agreed, to remove the text on the dioxide. On quantifying carbon dioxide port. There was disagreement on comparison. t to be continued • emissions associated with land use change, Brazil preferred using a central estimate instead ofa range. Participants also discussed the choice of uncertainty categories listed within a footnote, decidingto include only those referenced within the SPM and nottheentireAR4 (i.e. extremely The lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued uthe Report,, During the lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the report of the I st Taskforce, within the scope of the 4ıı, Evaluation Report was accepted on February I, 2007, afte� heavy debates. in the report prepared by 2500 scientists, fındings on the possib/e effects of c/imate change are emphasized. / � ENERJi DÜNYASI ŞUBAT 2007 1 ."EnerjideSürdürülebilirtikve Küreselleşme: Verimlilik, Emisyonlar, Yeni PiyasaOluşumlan" W' -==========----------+3::--c1
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTcyMTY=