Comparison

COMPARISON OF FORMALISMS FOR ATTRIBUTING
RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: NON-LINEARITIES

IN THE BRAZILIAN PROPOSAL APPROACH
CATHY TRUDINGER and IAN ENTING

CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
E-mail: cathy.trudinger@csiro.au
Abstract. The Brazilian Proposal for setting emission targets is based on attribution of responsibility
for climate change due to historical emissions of greenhouse gases. Numerical models are used
to calculate the temperature increase due to past emissions of greenhouse gases, and to partition
the warming among nations or groups of nations. When non-linearities are included in the models,
there are different approaches that can be used to partition global warming into regional or national
contributions, and the methods give different results. Here we describe and compare seven different
approaches for attributing indicators of climate change for regional emissions. We illustrate these
methods with simple and realistic examples, and discuss their characteristics. Of the seven attribution
methods discussed, two (the marginal and time-sliced methods) are seen as best-suited for attribution
of climate change. Differences between attribution methods are typically up to a few percent for the
examples considered, with differences greatest for regions with emission time histories that differ
most from the average. The range due to choice of attribution method in the relative contributions of
temperature change in 2000 is typically around one fifth of the range generated when other choices
such as different models, forcing agents, feedbacks and other assumptions are included.
1. Introduction
The Brazilian Proposal, presented in 1997 as input to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1997), involves allocation of respon-
sibility for climate change based on historical emissions of greenhouse gases. The
idea behind the proposal is to quantify the effect of national emissions on global
surface temperature, allowing comparison of the temperature increase due to emis-
sions from different countries, or due to different greenhouse gases. The Brazilian
Proposal was referred to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice
(SBSTA) of the UNFCCC for further study. SBSTA has organised experts’ meetings
to review the methodology, held in Cachoeira Paulista, Brazil in 1999 (UNFCCC,
2001; den Elzen et al., 1999), in Bracknell, U.K. in 2002 (UNFCCC, 2002) and
in Berlin, Germany in 2003 (see also http://unfccc.int/program/mis/brazil/). There
have been a number of papers describing work on attribution calculations (Ent-
ing, 1998; den Elzen et al., 1999; den Elzen and Schaeffer, 2002; den Elzen et al.,
2002; Höhne and Harnisch, 2002; Andronova and Schlesinger, 2004).
The original proposal by the Brazilian delegation (UNFCCC, 1997) used a sim-
ple linear climate model to determine regional contributions to the increase in global
Climatic Change 68: 67–99, 2005.

C 2005 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.
68 CATHY TRUDINGER AND IAN ENTING
surface temperature. However, there are important non-linearities in the climate sys-
tem that should be taken into account to give the most accurate quantification of
the temperature increase. A revised Brazilian Proposal (Meira Filho and Miguez,
1998) recognised this and corrected some other deficiencies that had been identi-
fied. Once non-linearities are included in the approach, the different methodologies
that can be used for partitioning give different results. For example, the increase
in radiative forcing per ppm of CO2 concentration decreases as atmospheric con-
centration increases, due to saturation in absorption bands. Therefore, the increase
in radiative forcing caused by each region depends on the CO2 concentration due
to all regions. Given this changing radiative forcing per ppm of atmospheric CO2 ,
there are different ways that radiative forcing can be partitioned between regions
and between time periods. Other steps in the causal chain between emissions and
the resulting global surface temperature increase have non-linearities that give rise
to similar ambiguities.
Here we compare a number of different attribution approaches for partition-
ing non-linear effects. Many of the methods considered have been used in studies
presented at SBSTA experts’ meetings, including Enting (1998), den Elzen and
Schaeffer (2002), den Elzen et al. (2002) and Andronova and Schlesinger (2004),
some of which were contributions to the coordinated modelling exercise at the
2nd Bracknell experts’ meeting known as ‘Assessment of Contributions to Climate
Change’ (ACCC). However, the attribution methods have not been rigorously com-
pared and discussed. We will introduce each of the methods, compare them, and
discuss their characteristics, advantages and disadvantages.
Whether differences between attribution methods are significant will depend on
the context in which the results are to be used. If the regional contributions are
used for sharing the burden of mitigation of climate change, then variations of a
few percent may be very important. It should be noted that the concept of regional
contributions to climate change is a policy definition, rather than something that has
a real-world scientific existence. The role of science is to analyse the implications
of policy choices.
The outline of the paper is as follow: Section 2 describes the modelling ap-
proach used. In Section 3 we list some criteria that can be used to test the methods
for suitability. We define the attribution methods in Sections 4 to 10, and illus-
trate them with some simple examples. The methods are rated against the crite-
ria and applied to some realistic examples in Section 11. A summary is given in
Section 12.
2. Modelling Approach
Anthropogenic global change can be characterised by various indicators: emis-

sions E(t), concentration Q(t), radiative forcing F(t) and temperature T (t) (each
expressed as an increase from pre-industrial equilibrium levels, where t is time).
COMPARISON OF FORMALISM 69
The indicators are related along the causal chain, and this can be represented as
θ φ ψ
E(t) −→ Q(t) −→ F(t) −→ T (t) (1)
where θ denotes the relationship between emissions to concentrations, φ for con-

centrations to radiative forcing and ψ for radiative forcing to temperature. We use
X (t) to denote the general indicator (i.e. E, Q, F or T ).
Following previous work on the Brazilian Proposal approach, we use a number
of simple models that relate global values of these indicators. Global emissions,
E(t), are regarded as sums of regional emissions, E j (t), expressed as E(t) =

j E j (t) where the subscript j refers to the region. We want to determine the
responsibility that region j contributes to the global value of the other indicators,
Q, F and T . When the models θ, φ and ψ are linear, the models can be run with
the emissions from each region separately, and the sum of each of the regional
indicators, X j (t),
matches the global value at each time and step along the causal
chain, i.e X (t) = j X j (t). (We will refer to this as ‘simple linear partitioning’).
However, when there are non-linearities in the causal chain, regional indicators
determined separately in the models will not, in general, sum to the global value.
In addition, the results are not additive, in the sense that the contribution of a group
of regions differs depending on whether they are treated separately or together, i.e.
X A (t) + X B (t) = X A+B (t) where A and B represent different regions. (Note that
summing to the global value and additivity are different characteristics). As the
Brazilian Proposal approach is about linking emissions to their impacts, we prefer
to have regional contributions sum to match the global indicators. There are several
different ways by which we can determine X j (t) with this in mind.
The simple models we use for θ, φ and ψ are based on the default case for
CO2 in the ACCC modelling exercise (http://unfccc.int/program/mis/brazil/). This
includes a non-linear relationship between concentration and radiative forcing, φ,
but linear relationships for the other steps, θ and ψ. We will also consider an
example with a non-linear concentration model for θ .
It is important to note that the relationships described by θ , φ and ψ are qual-
itatively different in that the radiative forcing model, φ, is a function (one-to-one
mapping) and θ and ψ are functionals (many-to-one mappings). This occurs be-
cause concentration depends on the cumulative effect of past emissions, tempera-
ture depends on the cumulative effect of past radiative forcing, yet radiative forcing
depends only on the current concentration. This has implications for the way attri-
bution will be done for the different steps along the causal chain. For functionals,
we use the notation Q(t) = θ (E(0, . . . , t)), where E(0, . . . , t) denotes emissions
over the range [0, t].
The emissions and simple models used in this paper are as follows.
Figure 1. (a) EDGAR-HYDE 1.4 CO2 emissions database for 1890–1990 (van Aardenne et al., 2001;
Olivier and Berdowski, 2001), and the SRES A2 marker future scenario (Nakicenovic et al., 2000). (b)
EDGAR-HYDE 1.4 emissions in 13 groups. (c) EDGAR-HYDE 1.4 emissions in 13 groups, divided
by the highest annual emissions for that region (see Section 11). REF refers to Eastern Europe and
Former Soviet Union, and ALM to Africa, Latin America and Middle East.
2.1. EMISSIONS, E(t)
Our default case uses the EDGAR-HYDE 1.4 CO2 emissions database for 1890–
1990 (van Aardenne et al., 2001; Olivier and Berdowski, 2001), and the SRES
A2 marker future scenario (Nakicenovic et al., 2000), as shown in Figure 1a.
Both datasets are defined for four regions: ALM (Africa, Latin America and Mid-
dle East), ASIA, REF (Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union) and OECD90
(countries that were members of the OECD in 1990). We also consider the par-
titioning of the EDGAR-HYDE 1.4 emissions into 13 groups (Figure 1b). We
extrapolate the CO2 emissions from 1890 linearly back to zero in 1750, as was
done by some of the ACCC modelling groups, although emissions from CDIAC
could also have been used. Figure 1c shows the emissions for each region nor-
malised by the maximum annual emissions over the time period for that re-
gion. This allows easier comparison of regions in terms of early versus late
emissions.
2.2. CONCENTRATION, Q(t) = θ (E(0, . . . , t))
We use two different models to relate CO2 concentration to emissions. Our default
case calculates CO2 concentrations using the pulse response function representa-
tion of the Bern carbon cycle model (Joos et al., 1996, 1999) corresponding to
parameter settings as used in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (IPCC, 2001).
We can write
t
Q(t) = 0.471 R(t − t )E(t ) dt (2)
0
where Q(t) is the concentration (above pre-industrial levels) in ppm at time t, R(t)
is a response function given by
R(t) = 0.152 + 0.253e−t/171 + 0.279e−t/18 + 0.316e−t/2.57 (3)
and E(t) are emissions in GtC and t is time in years. The factor 0.471 converts from
atmospheric burden in GtC to concentration in ppm. This is a linear model, so the
total (global) concentration is equal to the concentration calculated for the regional
emissions run separately in the model. Most of our examples use this linear model.
We also include an example that uses an alternative, non-linear CO2 model with
a mixed-layer pulse response function representation of the box diffusion model
given by Joos et al. (1996). This representation describes non-linearities in ocean
chemistry (the so-called buffer factor) explicitly. We also use the Joos et al. (1996)
terrestrial model parameterisation, in which net primary production depends log-
arithmically on atmospheric CO2 concentration (the so-called CO2 fertilisation
effect). Non-linearities in ocean and terrestrial carbon uptake act to increase the
airborne fraction (the fraction of emissions remaining in the atmosphere) as at-
mospheric CO2 increases, compared with an equivalent linear model (Enting and
Trudinger, 2002).
2.3. RADIATIVE FORCING, F(t) = φ(Q(t))
Radiative forcing for CO2 is calculated from concentration using the simplified
expression from IPCC (2001)

Q(t) + Cpreind
F(t) = 5.35 ln (4)
Cpreind
where F(t) is the increase in radiative forcing due to increased CO2 at time t, and
Cpreind is the pre-industrial CO2 value. This model is non-linear, and the radiative
effect per ppm of CO2 concentration decreases with increases in global CO2 con-
centration, due to saturation in absorption bands (e.g. see p 174 in Houghton et al.
(1995)).
2.4. TEMPERATURE, T (t) = ψ(F(0, . . . , t))
In our default case, temperature is calculated from radiative forcing using (linear)
pulse response functions from the HadCM3 climate model as given for the ACCC
calculations
a1 a2
W (t) = e−t/τ1 + e−t/τ2 (5)
τ1 τ2
where a1 = 0.59557, a2 = 0.40443, τ1 = 8.4007 years and τ2 = 409.54 years.
The change in global mean surface temperature is then
t
T (t) = λ W (t − t )F(t ) dt (6)
0
where T (t) is the change in temperature at time t, λ = 7.3583/7.41 = 0.993◦ C/(W
m−2 ) and F(t) is the radiative forcing at time t. We do not include any non-linear
effects for temperature increase, such as changes in climate sensitivity or heat
capacity, but a number of the attribution methods defined here are designed to
handle non-linearities in the temperature model if needed.
3. Criteria
Before introducing the attribution methods, we will discuss some criteria for choos-
ing which methods are most suitable for attribution of climate change. We will
consider attribution for two particular applications: The first application considers
attribution along the causal chain for the default model used in the ACCC calcu-
lations, that is, with a non-linear model φ for radiative forcing, but linear models
for concentration and temperature. The second application is the general case of
attribution along the causal chain, with non-linearities at any or all of the steps.
Methods suitable for the general case will also be suitable for the ACCC default
case, but there are some methods suitable only for the ACCC default and not for
the general case.
The following is a list of criteria by which we can judge whether the attribution
methods are suitable. Many of these criteria are based on discussions at the 2002
Bracknell experts’ meeting.
1. The method should be readily understandable.
2. The method should not exhibit paradoxical behaviour.
3. The method should be equivalent to a simple linear partitioning if the pro-
cess is linear. Regional indicators need not depend on emissions from other
regions for a linear process, so methods that do not meet this criterion are
undesirable.
4. The sum of the regional contributions should match the global total. There
was some discussion at the Bracknell meeting on whether this criterion is
necessary, as relative contributions are also useful. However, this condition
must be met for meaningful comparison of indicators from different times. It

is also desirable because it gives a stronger link from the emissions of each
region to their actual effects.
5. The method should be additive (i.e. FA+B = FA + FB ) with respect to regions
and time. For example, if the European Union is treated as a single unit, then
the result should be the sum of what would be attributed to the individual
nations. This criterion also makes it possible to consider the attribution to a
single region, compared to rest-of-the-world (and perform an associated un-
certainty analysis) without needing to consider the disaggregated attribution
for the rest-of-the-world. An example of additivity in time is if a country is
either split or has been formed by unification, attribution should be the same
whether it is considered as one country or the sum of two different countries.
6. The method should be applicable to models of the type described in IPCC
Technical Paper 2 (Harvey et al., 1997). In particular the method must be
applicable when there is more than one non-linear process. This criterion
defines the requirements for the general case, rather than the ACCC default
case.
7. The attribution should be derived from successive attribution along the chain
of causality leading to the indicator.
8. Alternative formulations of a model should, if mathematically equivalent,
lead to the same attribution.
The main attribution approaches that have been used to attribute non-linear
effects are (a) marginal, (b) residual, (c) proportional, (d) differential, (e) time-
sliced, (f) global turnover and (g) cumulative emissions methods. They are described
in the following sections and rated against these criteria. They will be applied to
non-linear concentration and radiative forcing models is Section 11.
4. Marginal Attribution Method
The ‘marginal’ method determines sensitivities ‘at the margin,’ and uses these
sensitivities to relate regional values of the indicators at each step along the causal
chain. Marginal attribution for radiative forcing is defined by
∂φ
F j[M] (t) = × Q j (t) (7)
∂Q
where the superscript in square brackets indicates the method, i.e. [M] for ‘marginal’
and the subscript j refers to the region. Figure 2a illustrates the concept of attribution
by the marginal method.
For non-linear functions, the sum of the components does not match the global
total, (i.e. for non-linear φ, we have j F j[M] (t) = F(t)). We can normalise the
Figure 2. Schematic diagrams of a non-linear relationship between cause and effect, illustrating
attribution for regions A and B by the (a) marginal, (b) residual and (c) proportional methods. Based
on illustrations from UNFCCC (2002).
results by defining the ‘normalised marginal’ approach as:
F j[M] (t)
F j[N M] (t) = F(t) [M] (8)
k Fk (t)
The marginal method is more difficult to determine for functional relationships.

For concentration we use
∂θ(t)
Q j (t) = E j (0, . . . , t) (9)
∂ E j (0, . . . , t)
∂θ
where the derivative ∂ E j (0,...,t) is calculated by finite difference in the direction of
scaling emissions from each region. To do this, we define
E ∗j (0, . . . , t) = (1 − α)E j (0, . . . , t) (10)
where, conceptually, α → 0. We run the CO2 concentration model with global

emissions minus α times the emissions from each region in turn (i.e. with E ∗j
instead of E j ), and compare this with concentration due to global emissions,

∂θ θ [E(0, . . . , t)] − θ[E(0, . . . , t) − α E j (0, . . . , t)]
= (11)
∂ E j (0, . . . , t) α E j (0, . . . , t)
We use α = 0.01 in our calculations, with negligible difference to results for smaller
values of α. Concentration for each region is then given as
θ [E(0, . . . , t)] − θ[E(0, . . . , t) − α E j (0, . . . , t)]
Q [M]
j (t) = (12)
α
for small α.
A similar approach is used for temperature
ψ[F(0, . . . , t)] − ψ[F(0, . . . , t) − α F j (0, . . . , t)]
T j[M] (t) = (13)
α
for small α.
For a non-linear concentration model θ, we have j Q [M] (t) = Q(t). Similarly,
[M] j
for a non-linear temperature model ψ, we have j T j (t) = T (t). The results can
be normalised at each time step for each indicator if absolute rather than relative
values are required. In fact, to use the marginal method for all steps along the causal
chain, the radiative forcing components must be normalised before attribution of
temperature. This is because the temperature model is a functional and depends
on a range of past values of regional radiative forcing, T (t) = ψ[F(0, . . . , t)].
Normalising F j (t) will change the relative values of F j (t) at different times and
therefore affect T j (t). It is not necessary to normalise Q j (t) before the radiative
forcing attribution step, as this step is characterised by a function, so F(t) depends
only on the relative values of Q j (t) at each time separately and the F j (t) is not
affected by normalising Q j (t). Attribution of concentration also requires that the
regional emissions sum to match the global emissions, but this is satisfied by def-
inition of E j (t). A key point is that normalisation of the attribution resulting from
the marginal method is required for comparison of different time periods.
We will compare the attribution methods by considering an idealised example
that has constant emissions from four regions for non-overlapping 50-year periods
(Figure 3a). This example shows how emissions from different time periods are
treated. The CO2 model used in this example is linear, so CO2 for each region is
independent of emissions from other regions and regional contributions of concen-
tration sum to match the global total. Figure 3b shows CO2 for each of the four
regions separately, and Figure 3c shows these regional contributions as they add
together to match the global value (thick solid line). (Emissions have been chosen
to give concentrations in the range similar to that for typical future CO2 emission
scenarios.)
Figure 4a shows the radiative forcing for each region, as calculated with the
marginal attribution method (not normalised). The radiative forcing for this method
is also shown cumulatively in Figure 4b. The sum of the regional radiative forcing
components (shaded area) is lower than the global value (thick solid line) because
Figure 3. CO2 emissions and concentration for an example with constant emissions from four regions
for non-overlapping 50-year periods. (a) CO2 emissions for each region. (b) CO2 concentration for
each region separately. (c) CO2 concentration for each region shown cumulatively. The linear CO2
model was used for these calculations.
the radiative forcing for each region is calculated with the sensitivity of radiative
forcing to global concentration ‘at the margin’, rather than for the entire pertur-
bation. Normalising fixes this, to give regional components that sum to match the
global total. The normalised marginal results are shown in Figures 4c and 4d.
The normalised marginal method satisfies all of the criteria listed in Section 3,
and is therefore a useful method for attribution of climate change.
5. Residual Attribution Method
The method used by a number of the groups in the ACCC calculations was the
‘residual,’ or ‘all-but-one’ approach. This approach, which is similar to the concept
used in IPCC (1999), consists of running the models with global values minus the
contribution from each region in turn. Attribution is defined as
Q [R]
j (t) = θ [E(0, . . . , t)] − θ[E(0, . . . , t) − E j (0, . . . , t)] (14)
F j[R] (t) = φ(Q(t)) − φ(Q(t) − Q j (t)) (15)
and
T j[R] (t) = ψ[F(0, . . . , t)] − ψ[F(0, . . . , t) − F j (0, . . . , t)] (16)
Figure 2b illustrates attribution by the residual method.
Figure 4. Radiative forcing due to CO2 for the example with constant emissions from four regions for
non-overlapping 50-year periods shown in Figure 3. Left panels show radiative forcing for each region
separately, and right panels show cumulative radiative forcing. Results are shown for the marginal,
normalised marginal, differential (Section 7), and time-sliced (Section 8) methods, as indicated. The
CO2 concentration model was the linear model. The thick solid line in each of the cumulative plots
shows the global value.
Like the marginal method, for non-linear functions the sum of the components
does not match the global total. We can fix this by normalising the results. The
‘normalised residual’ approach for radiative forcing is defined as

F(t) × [F(t) − φ( i= j Q i (t))] F j[R] (t)
Fj[N R]
= = F(t) [R] (17)
i [F(t) − φ( i=k Q i (t))] k Fk (t)
The residual approach is similar to the marginal approach, but uses the finite
changes of leaving out the entire emissions from each region rather than infinitesi-
mal changes. Unfortunately, this means that for non-linear relationships the results
are not additive. Regions with lower emissions have sensitivities that are closer to
the margin than regions with higher emissions. For radiative forcing, this gives an
advantage (per unit emission) to regions with lower emissions compared to higher
emissions. It favours small regions, and large regions would benefit from disaggre-
gation. When non-linearities in the concentration model are considered, the effect
is in the opposite sense, and residual attribution of concentration favours higher
emitters (and aggregation of regions). The proportion of the radiative forcing for
one region depends not only on the total emissions from other regions, but how
these are divided.
The issues relevant for the residual attribution method also apply to attribution
done by running the models with emissions from each region separately (simple
linear partitioning). With non-linearities in the causal chain, the results are not
additive. They also do not sum to match the global total, but this can be fixed by
normalising.
Non-additivity is an important disadvantage of the residual and normalised resid-
ual methods. On the other hand, a definite advantage of the residual method is that
it is very easy to understand and implement.
6. Proportional Attribution Method
An approach that was used by den Elzen and Schaeffer (2002) was to partition ra-
diative forcing in proportion to the instantaneous partitioning of the concentrations
Q j (t)
F j[P] (t) = F(t) × (18)
Q(t)
Figure 2(c) illustrates proportional attribution.
This method is only applicable to functions, and not to functional relationships.
It could therefore be used for the ACCC default case, when the only non-linear step
in the causal chain is between concentrations and radiative forcing, and the other
steps could use simple linear partitioning. This method does not satisfy criterion 6
(application when there is more than one non-linear process), and is not suitable
for the general case.

Comparison of the normalising factors shows that if Q(t) = j Q j (t) then
the proportional attribution method (Equation 8) is equivalent to the normalised
marginal method for attributing radiative forcing (Equation 18), and shown in
Figures 4c and 4d.
7. Differential Attribution Method
Enting (1998) suggested attributing changes in radiative forcing according to

changes in attributed concentration. Using the chain rule, we can write
t
∂φ d Q
F(t) = φ(Q(t)) =
dt (19)
0 ∂ Q dt
For concentration attributed as

Q(t) = Q j (t) (20)
j
we can write
t
∂φ d Q j
F(t) = φ(Q(t)) = dt (21)
0 ∂ Q j dt
and with

F(t) = F j (t) (22)
j
the ‘differential’ method is defined as

t
∂φ d Q j
F j[D] (t) =
dt (23)
0 ∂ Q dt
where the partial derivative, ∂φ/∂ Q, is evaluated for the total concentration, Q(t).
If the IPCC (2001) parameterisation for radiative forcing of CO2 given in Equa-
tion 4 is used, then Equation 23 becomes
t
[D] 5.35 dQj
F j (t) =
dt (24)
0 C preind + Q(t ) dt
Figures 4e and 4f show the regional radiative forcing for the differential at-
tribution method for the example of 50-year blocks of constant emissions. The
differential partitioning of radiative forcing later in the period differs from the
marginal method, by giving a higher contribution to the concentration still present
in the atmosphere from the earlier emissions. In fact, the contribution to radiative
forcing in 2100 from Region 1 is higher than that from Regions 2 or 3, despite there
being less concentration from Region 1 remaining in the atmosphere.
In the Appendix we illustrate the differential method further with some examples
that give further insight into its features and some peculiarities. The motivation
behind the differential method was to avoid attributing the consequences of early
emitters to late emitters. Tracking changes was proposed as a way to achieve this.
However, the method considered in the next section, the time-sliced method, turns
out to be a better way of achieving this.
The differential method was defined by Enting (1998) only for the radiative
forcing step. Using this method for the other steps along the causal chain, which
involve functional relationships, is expected to be very complicated. As a way of
implementing the differential method in more general cases, we suggest expressing
the functional as the solution of a set of differential equations and applying attribu-
tion to all non-linear relations in the differential equations. This should cover most,
if not all, simple models. As we have not studied the differential method for the
general case, we have not investigated its behaviour in terms of all of the criteria
given in Section 3.
8. Time-Sliced Attribution Method
The time-sliced attribution method was suggested by Enting and Law (2002). While
the equations make it seem complicated, it is based on a relatively simple concept
of tracking emissions and their effects according to when they were emitted. Two
characteristics are: (a) any indicator is expressed as a sum of contributions from past
times, t , and (b) the effect at time t of emissions at an earlier time, t , is determined
as if there were no emissions after t . We define Q(t, t ) as the concentration at time t
due to emissions prior to time t . Similarly, F(t, t ) and T (t, t ) are radiative forcing
and temperature at time t due to emissions prior to time t . (From this, one has the
indicator at time t due to emissions after time t given by X (t, t) − X (t, t ).) To
illustrate, Figure 5 shows radiative forcing due to emissions following a reference
scenario up to time t − 1 then zero emissions after that (solid line) and following
the reference scenario up to time t then zero emissions after that (dotted line).
Figure 5. Example of radiative forcing due to emissions following a reference scenario up to time
t −1 then zero after that (solid line) and following the scenario up to time t then zero after that (dotted
line). These curves are F(t, t − 1) (solid line) and F(t, t ) (dotted line). The difference between these
curves at time t is the effect at time t of emissions at time t . The dashed line shows F(t, t).
These curves are F(t, t − 1) and F(t, t ). The difference between these curves at
time t is the effect at time t of emissions at time t .
We will first consider the case of attributing radiative forcing for the linear
concentration model described by response functions, and the non-linear radiative
forcing model in Equation 4, as these models allow some simplifications that make
the method easier to understand. We will then generalise to the full non-linear
case.
With the concentration model described by linear response functions, we have
the concentration at t due to emissions up to t given by
t

Q(t, t ) = R(t − t )E(t ) dt (25)
0
and
t

Q j (t, t ) = R(t − t )E j (t ) dt (26)
0
The global radiative forcing at t due to emissions up to t can be determined by
t
∂φ ∂ Q(t, t )
F(t, t ) = dt (27)
0 ∂Q ∂t
The time-sliced attribution method for radiative forcing is defined by
t
∂φ ∂ Q j (t, t )
F j[T S] (t, t ) = dt (28)
0 ∂Q ∂t
The derivative ∂φ/∂ Q in Equations 27 and 28 is evaluated at Q(t, t ), which is
concentration at t due to emissions up to t . It is very important to distinguish this
from ∂φ/∂ Q evaluated at Q(t) in the differential method in the previous section;
this is illustrated in the Appendix.
For linear dependence of concentrations on emissions, we can use
∂ Q(t, t )
= R(t − t )E(t ) (29)
∂t
and
∂ Q j (t, t )
= R(t − t )E j (t ) (30)
∂t
to simplify Equations 27 and 28. For a single fixed value of t, Equations 29 and 30
can be substituted into Equations 27 and 28, respectively, and these equations can
be integrated over t . One then has
t
∂φ
F(t, t ) = R(t − t )E(t ) dt (31)
0 ∂ Q
and
t
∂φ
F j (t, t ) = R(t − t )E j (t ) dt (32)
0 ∂ Q
or, using the IPCC parameterisation for CO2 :

t
5.35
F j (t, t ) = )
R(t − t )E j (t ) dt (33)
0 C preind + Q(t, t
Figures 4g and 4h show the regional radiative forcing for the time-sliced at-
tribution method for the example of constant emissions for 50-years blocks. For
this example, the time-sliced method sits between the normalised marginal and
differential methods in how early and late emissions are weighted in partitioning
of radiative forcing. In the Appendix we show the terms in the equations for the
time-sliced method for this example, to help illustrate the method further.
The time-sliced method allows attribution for emissions over the full period, like
the other methods. In addition, it allows for consistent attribution over part of the
record, such as either leaving out the early or late part of the record. Applications
of this feature would be partitioning the effect of emissions starting sometime
after the beginning of the industrial period, if, for example, it was believed that
early emissions are too uncertain. (This may be one of the strongest arguments for
this method.) Another application of time-slicing is attributing committed future
warming due to emissions up to today, without the results depending on the chosen
scenario for emissions.
Figure 6 shows time-sliced attribution of radiative forcing for the EDGAR-
HYDE 1.4 and SRES A2 marker emissions for the four regions, as described
in Section 2.1. Attribution is done for emissions over different time intervals. The
results are independent of emissions after the time interval, but do depend on global
emissions prior to the interval, because they affect Q(t, t ) used to evaluate ∂∂φQ .
We will now consider time-sliced attribution for the general case of non-linear
relationships at each step. Much of the discussion about how the method works for
the special case of the linear concentration model still holds for the general case,
the main difference is in how it is evaluated.
Time-sliced attribution for concentration is given by
t
[T S] ∂θ(t, t ) E j (t )
Q j (t, t ) = dt (34)
0 ∂t E(t )

where Q(t, t ) = θ [E(0, . . . , t, t )]. The quantity ∂θ∂t(t,t ) is the global concentration
at t due to emissions at t , and this can be approximated by
∂θ (t, t )
= Q(t, t ) − Q(t, t − 1) (35)
∂t
The concentration model must be integrated for all t and t to determine Q(t, t )
used in Equation 35, and this could be computationally demanding for complex
models. (It helps to think of t as a variable in the function and t as a parameter.)
With the non-linear

concentration model, the simplification given by Equa-
tion 30 for ∂θ∂t(t,t ) is not available, so Equation 28 must be used for time-sliced
attribution of radiative forcing.
Figure 6. Time-sliced attribution of radiative forcing due to CO2 emissions from four regions from
EDGAR-HYDE 1.4 and SRES A2 marker scenario. Attribution is applied for emissions over (a)
1890–2100, (b) 1950–2100, (c) 2000–2100 and (d) 1890–2000. In order from bottom to top in the
cumulative sum, the regions shown are OECD, REF, ASIA and ALM as defined in Section 2.1.
Time-sliced attribution of temperature for a linear model relating temperature

and radiative forcing can be done by running the regional components separately in
the model. For a non-linear temperature model, time-sliced attribution can be done
using
t
[T S] ∂ψ(t, t ) E j (t )
T j (t) = dt (36)
0 ∂t E(t )
where
∂ψ(t, t )
= T (t, t ) − T (t, t − 1) (37)
∂t
However, this requires multiple runs of the temperature model, which may not be
practical for a complex model. Adjoint representation of the models may be useful
to reduce the number of integrations required to implement the time-sliced method
for complex models.
The time-sliced method satisfies all of the criteria listed in Section 3. Although
the equations defining the time-sliced method are quite complicated, the method
is based on a simple concept and it can be explained graphically, which will be
useful for explaining to policy makers. The recipe for calculating attribution by
the time-sliced method is relatively straightforward, but it can be computationally
expensive which could make it impractical to implement for complex models in

the general case of non-linearities at all steps along the causal chain.
9. Global Turnover Method
Den Elzen et al. (2002) suggested a method for partitioning concentration that
involves splitting uptake and emissions into separate terms, and scaling the up-
take term by the contribution to global emissions by each region. A time-varying
effective global turnover time is defined by
Q(t)
τ (t) = (38)
0.471E(t) − d Q/dt
and this is applied to all regions
d Q [GT
j
O]
(t) Q [GT
j
O]
(t)
= 0.471E j (t) − (39)
dt τ (t)
The Global Turnover (GTO) method was a first attempt to include non-linearities
in other parts of the causal chain than radiative forcing. With this method, the results
for a linear carbon cycle model are not the same as simple linear partitioning, which
was criterion 3 given in Section 3. This is because τ (t) depends on the source/sink
balance of total emissions. Figure 7b shows concentration partitioned by the GTO
method for the linear CO2 model. This can be compared to the results in Figure 7a
for simple linear partitioning. The GTO method gives significantly lower weight
to early emissions. As discussed by den Elzen et al. (2002), with the linear model
described by the response functions, part of the old CO2 resides in the mathematical
terms with long turnover times. However, with the GTO method, the effective
turnover at each time is applied to concentration from all regions and time periods,
Figure 7. CO2 concentration for the example with constant emissions from four regions for non-
overlapping 50-year periods. (a) CO2 concentration for each region shown cumulatively for simple
linear partitioning (identical to Figure 3c). (b) Cumulative CO2 concentration partitioned using the
den Elzen et al. (2002) Global Turnover Method. The linear CO2 model was used for both of these
calculations.
and the CO2 from old emissions decreases more quickly than in the linear model,
while recent CO2 decreases more slowly. The global sum is the same, by definition,
but the relative contributions differ. Den Elzen et al. (2002) saw it as an advantage
that the old emissions decrease more quickly than recent emissions, as it was an
attempt to include the impact of the pathway of global concentrations and global
sinks on regional contributions.
10. Cumulative Emissions Method
Andronova and Schlesinger (2004) attributed global temperature according to cu-

mulative emissions of greenhouse gases for each region. The global values of
the indicators were modelled along the causal chain, then global temperature was
partitioned into regional components according to the proportion of cumulative
emissions

t =0,t E j (t )
T j (t) =
[C E]

T (t) (40)
j t =0,t E j (t )
To see how this method compares with the other methods already considered,
Figures 8a–c show the regional contributions to temperature for the example of
50-year blocks of constant emissions, with attribution by the normalised marginal,
time-sliced and cumulative emissions methods. Figures 8d–f show the regional
temperature for the same three attribution methods with the EDGAR-HYDE 1.4 and
SRES A2 marker CO2 emissions. Although partitioning by cumulative emissions
seems to be a reasonable approximation for the other methods for these examples,
the approach is simplistic and would be more limited. Partitioning by cumulative
emissions is less physically based, as the time-lags characterised by the models
at the different steps along the causal chain are used only for global temperature,
and not for how this is partitioned based on when emissions from different regions
occurred.
To demonstrate this more quantitatively, we can look at how temperature depends
on CO2 emissions from each year in a model that has linear relationships at all steps
along the causal chain. We can model radiative forcing as linearly proportional
to CO2 concentration as in the original Brazilian proposal. Figure 9a shows the
response functions for concentration, R(t), and temperature, W (t), from the linear
models in Section 2. We can combine the response functions R(t) and W (t) to give
the contribution of emissions in each year to the temperature in 2100. This is given by
t t
T (t) ∝ W (t − t )R(t − t )E(t ) dt dt (41)
0 0
The radiative forcing model, being a one-to-one function, contributes only to
the constant of proportionality and not to the relative contributions of emissions.
Figure 9b shows the relative contributions of CO2 emissions in each year to the
temperature in 2100, for the given R(t) and W (t) and a linear radiative forcing
Figure 8. Temperature for the example with non-overlapping 50-year blocks of emissions on the
left panels, and EDGAR-HYDE 1.4 and SRES A2 marker CO2 emissions on the right panels. The
non-linear concentration and radiative forcing models are used, with the linear temperature model.
Attribution is by the normalised marginal, time-sliced and cumulative emissions methods as indicated.
model. Non-linear models for any of the steps, particularly radiative forcing, would
give different results, and we could not represent the response function in such
a simple way. This curve should be compared with the assumption made by the
cumulative emissions method of equal contributions of emissions in each year to
the temperature in 2100. The cumulative emissions attribution method calculates
global temperature along the causal chain with (linear and/or non-linear) models,
giving the appropriate dependence of global temperature on emissions. However,
the partitioning into regional temperature does not distinguish between when emis-
sions originated. The more different the temporal pattern of emissions from each
Figure 9. (a) Response functions R(t) and W (t) from the linear concentration and temperature models.
(b) Response function relating CO2 emissions in each year to the temperature in 2100, assuming a
linear radiative forcing model. (c) As in b) but for CH4 and N2 O.
region, the more the partitioning by cumulative emissions will differ from the other
attribution methods.
Partitioning by cumulative emissions for methane is likely to differ more from
the other attribution methods due to the shorter effective lifetime of methane in
the atmosphere. Figure 9c shows how global temperature depends on emissions of
CH4 and N2 O. We used concentration response functions given by R(t) ∝ e−t/τx
where τx is the atmospheric lifetime (we use constant values of 8.4 and 120 years
for CH4 and N2 O, respectively). Aerosols are also unlikely to be well handled
by attributing their cooling effect according to either cumulative or instantaneous
emissions. These are examples of the general problem of using an attribution method
that is not as well tied to the physics and chemistry of how long greenhouse gases
remain in the atmosphere, and how they influence present and future temperature
while they are there. Attribution by cumulative emissions does not satisfy criterion 3
(being equivalent to simple linear partitioning if the process is linear) or criterion 7
(derived from successive attribution along the causal chain) in Section 3.
11. Results and Discussion
Table I rates the seven attribution methods against the criteria listed in Section 3.
Note that a method that does not satisfy all of the criteria may still be suitable for
TABLE I
Summary of how the attribution methods match the criteria identified in Section 3
Criteria NM NR P D TS GTO CR
√ √ √ √ √ √
1. Understandable ?
√ √ √ √ √ √
2. No paradoxical behaviour ×
√ √ √ √ √
3. Equiv. to simple linear × ×
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
4. j X j (t) = X (t)
√ √ √ √ √ √
5. Additive in space & time ×
√ √ √ √ √
6. Applicable to general case × ?
√ √ √
7. Along causal chain × ? × ×
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
8. Alternative model forms equiv.
9. In/Dependent of future scenario D D D D I D D
attribution, depending on the application, but the characteristics described by the

criteria should at least be understood and appreciated. Criterion 1 is, of course,
somewhat subjective. The normalised marginal and time-sliced methods satisfy all
of the criteria, while the other methods do not satisfy one or more of the criteria. We
have rated the time-sliced method as understandable, because it is based on a simple
principle that should be readily understandable, even though the mathematical
equations describing the method are difficult. We have not rated the differential
method against all criteria, as we have not defined this method for the general case
of nonlinearities at all steps along the causal chain, and therefore do not know
how it would rate. We have also indicated whether methods give results that are
independent of or dependent on the chosen future scenario.
Of the seven attribution methods discussed, based on the criteria identified in
Section 3 we judge two of the methods (marginal and time-sliced) as being most
suitable for attribution along the causal chain from emissions to concentrations to
radiative forcing to temperature. This is considering both the default case of linear
models apart from radiative forcing, and the general case of all non-linear models.
The other five methods are seen as not as suitable for these purposes, for different
reasons. The normalised residual method is not additive. The proportional method is
not applicable for functional relations, and is equivalent to the normalised marginal
method for functions. The differential method has some paradoxical behaviour,
and may be difficult to define for the general case. The global turnover method
for attributing CO2 concentration is not equivalent to simple linear partitioning
when the model is linear, and is only applicable to partitioning of concentration.
The cumulative emissions method partitions only temperature, is not equivalent to
simple linear partitioning, and is not as well physically based as the other methods.
If we consider only the default case of linear models at all steps except for
radiative forcing, then the proportional method can also be considered as suitable,
as it satisfies all criteria relevant to the application. It is probably also easier to
communicate to policy makers than the equivalent normalised marginal method.
The difference between the marginal and time-sliced methods can be charac-
terised by how they treat early and late emissions. For the case of the linear CO2
model and the IPCC (2001) radiative forcing model in Equation 4, it is instructive
to write the equation for the time-sliced attribution of radiative forcing as
t
5.35
[T S]
F j (t, t) =
R(t − t )E j (t ) dt (42)
0 C preind + Q(t, t )
for comparison with the marginal attribution method, which can be written as
t
5.35
[M]
F j (t) = R(t − t )E j (t ) dt (43)
Cpreind + Q(t) 0
The time-sliced method treats the concentration at time t due to emissions at
time t according to ∂φ/∂ Q at t as if there were no emissions after t . The marginal
method treats all concentration at time t the same, that is, with ∂φ/∂ Q correspond-
ing to the current global concentration. Therefore, CO2 from early emissions are
given the ‘benefit’ of the reduced ∂∂φQ due to later emissions in the marginal method
but not in the time-sliced method. The implication of this for the given example
is that early emissions are weighted higher relative to later emissions with the
time-sliced method compared to the normalised marginal method.
The cumulative emissions attribution method also differs from the other methods
in how emissions from different periods are treated. However, in the case of the
normalised marginal and time-sliced methods, a conscious choice is made about
how emissions from different periods will be treated related to the physics of the
system. The cumulative emissions method does attribution by treating all emissions
the same, regardless of when they occurred. Because of the simplicity of the method,
the attribution part of the calculation is unable to take into account the timescales
of variation in concentration and how temperature depends on radiative forcing
from different periods. The fact that it gives similar results for some cases does
not guarantee that the method will be useful for other gases, time-scales or time
patterns of emissions.
To illustrate the attribution methods further, we will consider some attribution
calculations with realistic emissions. The first calculation will use the default model
from the ACCC calculations, with all linear relationships except radiative forcing.
We use the EDGAR-HYDE 1.4 emissions up to 1990 with SRES A2 marker emis-
sions after 1990. Our calculations have a start date of 1760.
Table II gives 4-region partitioning of radiative forcing and temperature due
to CO2 in 2100 for the attribution methods with the ACCC default model. The
marginal and residual cases are normalised. The proportional method is identical
to the normalised marginal method for radiative forcing, and is not defined for
temperature, so is not presented. Table III gives the 13-region partitioning of radia-
tive forcing in 1990 for the same model. The EDGAR-HYDE 13-region breakup
of emissions is defined only up to 1990, and differences between the attribution
methods are likely to increase as calculations are run further into the future.
TABLE II
4-region partitioning (in percent) of radiative forcing and temperature in 2100
due to CO2 for the default model (linear relationships except radiative forcing)
N. Marg. T-slic. N. Resid. Diff. CumE.
Radiative forcing
OECD90 28.83 30.79 28.85 31.35 n/a
REF 9.44 9.88 8.86 10.01 n/a
ASIA 34.14 32.62 34.81 32.14 n/a
ALM 27.59 26.71 27.48 26.50 n/a
Temperature
OECD90 30.31 32.15 30.43 32.66 30.97
REF 9.72 10.14 9.18 10.25 9.86
ASIA 33.12 31.62 33.68 31.18 32.53
ALM 26.85 26.09 27.71 25.91 26.64
TABLE III
13-region partitioning (in percent) of radiative forcing in 1990 due to CO2 for
the default model (linear relationships except radiative forcing)
N. Marg. T-slic. N. Resid. Diff.
Canada 1.80 1.79 1.78 1.78

USA 24.90 25.12 25.18 25.16
Latin America 12.52 12.79 12.51 12.85
Africa 4.91 4.94 4.87 4.95
OECD Europe 18.14 18.30 18.22 18.33
Eastern Europe 4.87 4.82 4.82 4.81
Former USSR 11.12 10.81 11.09 10.75
Middle East 1.78 1.71 1.76 1.70
India region 3.65 3.63 3.61 3.62
China region 7.37 7.19 7.33 7.16
Southeast Asia 4.57 4.63 4.53 4.64
Oceania 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.02
Japan 3.33 3.25 3.29 3.23
Some of the characteristics seen in the results have already been discussed.
Regions with a greater proportion of their total emissions in recent years have
a lower partition for the differential and time-sliced methods compared with the
marginal and residual methods. The differences need to be considered in the context
of how the numbers will be used. The differences between methods are typically
up to a few percent. The regions with the largest percentage change are those with
emission time histories that differ most from the average in terms of early versus late
TABLE IV
13-region partitioning (in percent) of concentration, radiative forcing and temperature in
1990 due to CO2 emissions for the default model with non-linear CO2 concentration and
radiative forcing relationships
Concentration Rad. Forcing Temperature

N.Marg. T-slic. N.Marg. T-slic. N.Marg. T-slic. CumE
Canada 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.80 1.77 1.76 1.73

USA 24.72 24.69 24.72 24.90 25.92 26.05 25.97
Latin Amer. 12.29 12.24 12.29 12.49 13.49 13.66 14.01
Africa 4.89 4.88 4.89 4.91 5.00 5.02 5.08
OECD Eur. 18.01 17.98 18.01 18.14 18.86 18.95 18.93
Eastern Eur. 4.91 4.92 4.91 4.88 4.76 4.73 4.59
Former USSR 11.39 11.45 11.39 11.16 10.02 9.83 9.46
Middle East 1.84 1.85 1.84 1.78 1.46 1.42 1.42
India reg. 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.64 3.55 3.54 3.56
China reg. 7.51 7.55 7.51 7.36 6.37 6.27 6.47
SE Asia 4.52 4.51 4.52 4.57 4.76 4.79 4.88
Oceania 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 0.99 0.98 0.97
Japan 3.39 3.41 3.39 3.33 3.04 2.99 2.92
emissions (i.e. Middle East, Former USSR, Japan, China region and Latin America
for the 13-region breakup; see Figure 1(c)).
The final calculation we will consider uses the non-linear carbon cycle model
described in Section 2.2. Table IV shows partitioning of concentration, radiative
forcing and temperature due to CO2 emissions from 13 regions. We will compare
only the normalised marginal and time-sliced methods, plus the cumulative emis-
sions method which we have not yet shown for the 13 regions. The results for this
CO2 model are expected to differ to some degree from the results with the linear
carbon cycle model, as the two models predict different amounts of total CO2 uptake
by the oceans and terrestrial biosphere. Regions with a relatively high proportion of
early emissions are assigned a greater proportion of temperature than radiative forc-
ing. This is because temperature at a particular time depends on radiative forcing
for all earlier times.
In this example, partitioning of temperature by cumulative emissions does not
generally give results between the normalised marginal and time-sliced methods,
as it did for the emissions of constant 50-year blocks. As suggested in the previous
section, as large regions are disaggregated into smaller regions with time histories
that are more different from each other, the methods will give more divergent results.
A comparison of our results with the range from the ACCC modelling study
presented in Figure 1 of UNFCCC (2002) gives an indication of the importance of
choice of attribution method relative to other choices. Table V shows the ACCC
range of results for temperature increase in 2000 due to CO2 , CH4 and N2 O from
TABLE V
Range of contributions to temperature increase in 2000
due to CO2 , CH4 and N2 O for the 4 regions. The second
column shows the ACCC range for a number of dif-
ferent models, assumptions and forcing agents (UN-
FCCC, 2002) while the third column shows our range
for only the attribution methods
Attribution methods
Region ACCC(%) only(%)
OECD90 39–47 41.6–43.4

REF 13–17 14.8–15.8
ASIA 22–29 22.2–22.7
ALM 14–21 20.3–21.3
the different ACCC modelling groups (13 of them) using a range of models and as-
sumptions as well as different attribution methods. The models vary greatly in their
complexity, with some including feedbacks or the effects of aerosols. The range we
generate from the attribution methods for temperature in 2000 due to CO2 , CH4 and
N2 O is around one fifth of the ACCC range for two of the four regions (Table V).
(We use the non-linear CO2 concentration model, constant lifetimes of CH4 and
N2 O, and the N2 O–CH4 band overlap from IPCC (2001) in the radiative forcing
model, as in the Bracknell default. Other details are the same as in our other calcula-
tions.) Some other factors that are not reflected in the ACCC range for temperature
in 2000 due to CO2 , CH4 and N2 O are start-date, end-date, choice of indicator and
choice of greenhouse gases. These would be expected to increase the range further
and may reduce the relative importance of choice of attribution method. The choice
of attribution method is just one of a number of factors that will influence the attri-
bution of responsibility for climate change to regional contributions, but one that
does alter the results and should therefore be carefully considered.
12. Summary
We have described and compared seven methods for attributing responsibility for
climate change due to historical emissions. The methods give different results
when there are non-linearities in models used for any of the steps along the causal
chain. We identified some criteria by which to test the methods for suitability for
attributing climate change for all steps along the causal chain from emissions to
concentrations to radiative forcing to temperature change. Of the seven methods,
five did not meet all of these criteria. The residual (all-but-one) method involves
leaving out the emissions of each region in turn. It is very easy to implement and
understand, but has the major disadvantage that it is not additive (the contribution
for each region depends how the rest of the world is split up, and the results vary as
any region is disaggregated). The proportional method partitions radiative forcing
in proportion to concentration. It is suitable only for attributing radiative forcing,

and is equivalent to the normalised marginal method which is more general. It is
useful for the case of linear models except for radiative forcing, such as the ACCC
default, as it satisfies all criteria relevant to that case and is easy to communicate.
The differential method attributes radiative forcing based on the rate of change of
concentration. It has some peculiarities, particularly when concentration from one
region decreases. An attribution method by den Elzen et al. (2002), with a time-
varying effective global turnover time applied to all regions, is not equivalent to
simple linear partitioning when the concentration model is linear. Partitioning of
temperature by cumulative emissions may be useful as a simple first approximation
in some cases, but it is not a physically well-based attribution method, and is not
equivalent to simple linear partitioning when the models are linear.
The remaining two methods, the marginal and time-sliced methods, are judged
by us to be the most suitable for attribution of non-linear effects. These methods
differ in how they treat early and late emissions. The time-sliced method determines
the effect of early emissions as if later emissions were zero, then the effect of later
emissions is determined to give the total change. The marginal method treats each
ppm of concentration in the atmosphere at each time the same, regardless of when
it was emitted, sharing the ‘benefit’ or ‘penalty’ for all emissions more equally
between different time periods. For non-linearities in the radiative forcing model,
this means that earlier emissions are weighted higher relative to later emissions
with the time-sliced method compared to the normalised marginal method. For a
non-linear CO2 concentration model, the effect is in the opposite sense, with earlier
emissions weighted lower by the time-sliced method. As another consequence, the
unrealised warming associated with past emissions would depend on the choice
of future emissions scenario for the marginal method, but not for the time-sliced
method. These two methods are based on different approaches, as just described,
and it would be a policy choice which method should be used. A disadvantage of the
time-sliced method is that it can be computationally expensive, which may make
it impractical for complex models. It is possible that adjoint representations might
help here.
Differences between the methods for typical realistic applications are up to a
few percent, which may be quite important, depending on the use of the results. The
range of results for temperature in 2000 due to CO2 , CH4 and N2 O from choice of
attribution method was around one fifth of the range generated by the 13 modelling
groups in the ACCC modelling study. The ACCC range corresponds to a number of
very different models with different assumptions, processes, forcing agents as well
as different attribution methods. Given that, for this example, attribution method
alone can account for as much as one fifth of the full ACCC range, the choice of
attribution method does matter.
The main focus in this paper has been on CO2 concentration, radiative forcing
and temperature, but the methods can also be applied to other components such as
CH4 , N2 O or sea-level rise. There are other issues that can affect attribution, such as
the choices of indicator, gases, forcing agents, models or time window. There were
a number of open questions identified at the 2003 Berlin experts’ meeting that need
to be addressed, such as how to attribute warming when models include feedbacks
or cooling effects such as aerosols, how to deal with negative emissions such as due
to sequestration, and what are the implications of performing attribution for many
different gases at the same time.
A formal analysis looking at how uncertainties in both emissions and models
lead to uncertainties in the attributed temperature increase (or other indicator) is
required. Whether the Brazilian Proposal approach could be used for setting emis-
sion targets would depend on, among other things, the uncertainties involved. Even
if not used to derive targets, this type of analysis is useful for encouraging dialogue
between nations.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank many of the participants of the 2002 experts’ Bracknell meeting,
in particular Niklas Höhne, Michiel Schaeffer, Brian O’Neill and Gylvan Meira
Filho. Thanks are also given to Michel den Elzen, Michiel Schaeffer and Luiz
Pinguelli Rosa for helpful comments on the manuscript. Author’s attendance at the
2002 Bracknell meeting was funded by the Australian Greenhouse Office.
Appendix
We can gain better understanding of the differential method by looking at how it

is calculated, illustrated with curves from our example of 50-year non-overlapping
blocks of emissions. Differential attribution of radiative forcing involves an integral
over time of the product of
∂φ
a) ∂Q
evaluated for the total concentration, Q(t) (this is shown by the solid
line in Figure A1(a) for region 1 in our example of 50 year non-overlapping
blocks) and
b) dtd Q j (t) (shown in Figure A1(b) for region 1 in our example).
As global CO2 concentration increases, the quantity ∂∂φQ decreases. The attributed
radiative forcing, being the integral of the product of the terms described above,
weights the change in concentration at each time by ∂∂φQ at that time. Consider a
hypothetical situation of a region with zero initial concentration, and an increase in
concentration for some time, followed by a decrease in concentration back to zero.
The integral of the change in concentration over the entire period is zero, but the
integral of the change in concentration multiplied by ∂∂φQ over the entire period is
d Q j (t ) d Q (t )
non-zero, i.e. dt
dt = Q(t) = 0 but ∂∂φQ dtj dt = 0. Thus, even after the
region’s concentration has returned to zero, it can have, and may always have, a
non-zero contribution of radiative forcing according to the differential attribution
Figure A1. Illustration of the terms used to evaluate the differential and time-sliced attribution meth-
ods, for the example of constant emissions by 4 regions for non-overlapping 50-year periods. (a)
∂φ d Q (t)
∂Q
evaluated for region 1 and used in the differential method. (b) dtj for region 1, used in the
∂φ
differential method. (c) ∂ Q evaluated for concentration Q(t, t ) is shown by the dashed line for t
of 1925 (dashes) and 1950 (dots). This is used in the time-sliced method. The solid line shows ∂∂φQ
d Q (t,t )
for global concentration. (d) dtj for t of 1925 (dashes) and 1950 (dots), which are used in the
time-sliced method.
method. It would be expected that radiative forcing, being simply a function of

concentration, would be zero for a region with zero attributed concentration. This
paradoxical behaviour of the differential attribution method was pointed out by
Enting and Law (2002). In practice it may turn out to be of little actual importance
for CO2 , because concentration does not relax back to zero (as indicated by the
constant term in Equation 3), but it is certainly worth understanding this behaviour
of the method. The behaviour can also explain why the radiative forcing for region 1
in the example of constant emissions for 50-year blocks is higher than the radiative
forcing for regions 2 and 3 at the end of the integration, despite lower concentration
attributed to region 1.
An example that was used by Enting (1998) to illustrate the differential method
considers the case where there are two groups of countries, A and B. Group A
has emissions that lead to linear growth in CO2 concentration for 100 years, then
emissions are reduced by an amount sufficient to stabilise concentrations. Group B
has zero emissions for 100 years then commences emissions at a rate that continues
the linear growth. Figure A2a shows the global CO2 concentration due to the two
Figure A2. (a) Concentration for two groups of countries, group A has emissions that give linearly
increasing concentration then constant, group B has zero emissions then continues the linear growth.
(b) Partitioning of radiative forcing by the normalised marginal (or proportional) method. (c) Parti-
tioning of radiative forcing for the differential method. (d) Concentration for two groups of countries,
group A has emissions that give linearly increasing concentration then zero emissions, group B has
zero emissions then continues the linear growth (solid lines). The dashed lines show a similar situa-
tion but with steeper growth in concentration by group B. (e) Partitioning of radiative forcing by the
normalised marginal method. The dashed lines show normalised marginal partitioning for the steeper
growth in concentration by region B. (f) Partitioning of radiative forcing for the differential method.
groups. The consequent radiative forcing is partitioned by the normalised marginal

d Q (t)
method (Figure A2b) and by the differential method (Figure A2c). With dtj = 0
for group A after stabilisation, radiative forcing with the differential method is
constant for group A, no matter what the concentration due to emissions from other
regions. Group A gets no ‘benefit’ of reduced ∂∂φQ as global concentration increases
due to global emissions.
Now consider a slightly different situation. The solid lines and shading in
Figure A2d show concentration for a case where group A has emissions that lead
to linear growth in CO2 concentration for 100 years, then zero emissions. Group B
has zero emissions for 100 years then commences emissions at a rate that continues
the linear growth. Radiative forcing is partitioned for this case as shown by the
solid lines and shading in Figure A2(e) for normalised marginal and Figure A2f
d Q (t)
for differential. In this case, with dtj < 0, the radiative forcing for region A
from the differential method depends on contributions from other regions, but in a
way that is perhaps counterintuitive. For a higher growth rate of CO2 concentration
due to group B, as shown by the dashed line in Figure A2d, the radiative forcing
contribution due to region A is lower for the normalised marginal method but
higher for the differential method (shown by the dashed lines in Figures A2e and
A2f). With the normalised marginal method, both regions receive a benefit as
global ∂∂φQ decreases. However, with the differential method, decreasing global ∂∂φQ
actually has a negative effect on the radiative forcing for regions with negative
d Q j (t)
dt
, as can be predicted from the equations above. Again, this behaviour might
not be a problem for realistic situations, but should be understood.
We can also gain better understanding of the time-sliced method by looking at
how it is calculated with the example of 50-year blocks. The radiative forcing at t
due to emissions from region j up to time t, F j (t, t), involves an integral over t
of the product of
∂φ
(a) ∂Q
evaluated at Q(t, t ). Figure A1c shows ∂∂φQ evaluated at Q(t, t ) for
two different values of t , namely 1925 (dashes) and 1950 (dotted line), for
the example of constant emissions for 50-years blocks. This quantity is the
radiative forcing per ppm of CO2 concentration, evaluated at t for emissions
up to t . It tracks the global value of ∂∂φQ until t , and after that reflects
the decrease in concentration associated with zero emissions after t . The
symbols correspond to t = 2000 with t = 1925 (circle) and t = 1950
(triangle).
d Q (t,t )
(b) dtj which equals R(t − t )E(t ) for a linear concentration model de-
scribed by a response function. This is the concentration at time t due to
emissions at time t . Figure A1d shows this quantity for two values of t ,
1925 (dashes) and 1950 (dotted line).
The radiative forcing at time t = 2000 is the integral over 0 < t < t of the product
of the quantities (a) and (b). The symbols in Figures A1c and A1d show examples
of quantities that would be multiplied to make up part of the integral for 2000. The
contribution of emissions in 1925 to radiative forcing at 2000 has a higher value of
the first term, ∂∂φQ evaluated at Q(t, t ), corresponding to lower concentration at t due
to emissions before t , but a lower amount of the 1925 emissions remaining in the
atmosphere by 2000, compared with the 1950 contribution. As global concentration
increases, more recent emissions are given more of the ‘benefit’ of the reduced ∂∂φQ .
The attributed contribution of early emissions to the radiative forcing at t does not
depend on later emissions as it does in the other methods. The radiative forcing
attributed to later emissions does depend on the CO2 remaining in the atmosphere
from earlier emissions.
References
Andronova, N. and Schlesinger, M.: 2004, ‘Importance of Sulfate Aerosol in Evaluating the Relative
Contributions of Regional Emissions to the Historical Global Temperature Change’, Mitigation
Adaptation Strateg Global Change in press.
den Elzen, M.: 1999, ‘Report on the Expert Meeting on the Brazilian Proposal: Scientific Aspects
and Data Availability’. http://unfccc.int/sessions/workshop/010528/mrep1999.pdf.
den Elzen, M., Berk, M., Schaeffer, M., Olivier, J., Hendriks, C. and Metz, B.: 1999, ‘The Brazilian
Proposal and Other Options for International Burden Sharing: An Evaluation of Methodological
and Policy Aspects Using the FAIR Model’. RIVM Report 728001011/1999, (RIVM, The
Netherlands).
den Elzen, M. and Schaeffer, M.: 2002, ‘Responsibility for Past and Future Global Warming: Uncer-
tainties in Attributing Anthropogenic Climate Change’, Climatic Change 54, 29–73.
den Elzen, M., Schaeffer, M. and Eickhout, B.: 2002, ‘Responsibility for Past and Future Global Warm-
ing: Time Horizon and Nonlinearities in the Climate System’. RIVM Report 728001022/2002
http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/728001022.pdf, (RIVM, The Netherlands).
Enting, I.: 1998, Attribution of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Concentrations and Radiative Forcing,
CSIRO Atmospheric Research Technical Paper No. 38. CSIRO, Australia, Electronic edition
from: http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/enting 2000c.pdf.
Enting, I. and Law, R.: 2002, Characterising Historical Responsibility for the Greenhouse Effect,
CSIRO Atmospheric Research Technical Paper No. 41. CSIRO, Australia. Electronic edition
from: http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/enting 2002a.pdf.
Enting, I. and Trudinger, C.: 2002, Modelling Earth System Change I: Validating Parameterisations
for Attribution Calculations, CSIRO Atmospheric Research Technical Paper No. 56. CSIRO,
Australia, Electronic edition from: http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/enting 2002b.pdf.
Harvey, D., Gregory, J., Hoffert, M., Jain, A., Lal, M., Leemans, R., Raper, S., Wigley, T. and de Wolde,
J.: 1997, ‘An Introduction to Simple Climate Models used in the IPCC Second Assessment Report’,
Technical Report No. 2, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Höhne, N. and Harnisch, J.: 2002, ‘Evaluating Indicators for the Relative Responsibility for Climate
Change—Alternatives to the Brazilian Proposal and Global Warming Potentials’, In: Non-CO2
Greenhouse Gases, NCGG-3. Milpress, Maastricht.
Houghton, J. T., Meira Filho, L. G., Bruce, J., Lee, H., Callander, B. A., Haites, E., Harris, N. and
Maskell, K.: 1995, ‘Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation
of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
IPCC: 1999, Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
IPCC: 2001, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Joos, F., Bruno, M., Fink, R., Siegenthaler, U., Stocker, T. F., Le Quére, C. and Sarmiento, J. L.:
1996, ‘An Efficient and Accurate Representation of Complex Oceanic and Biospheric Models of
Anthropogenic Carbon Uptake’, Tellus 48B, 397–417.
Joos, F., Plattner, G.-K., Stocker, T. F., Marchal, O. and Schmittner, A.: 1999, ‘Global Warming and
Marine Carbon Cycle Feedbacks on Future Atmospheric CO2 ’, Science 284, 464–467.
Meira Filho, L. G. and Miguez, J. G. D.: 1998, Note on the Time Dependent Relationship Between
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, Ministry of Science and Technology:
Brasilia, Brazil, Electronic edition from: http://www.mct.gov.br/clima/ingles/negoc/pdf/proposta.
pdf.
Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., de Vries, B., Fenhann, J. Gaffin, S., Gregory, K., Grübler,
A., Jung, T. Y., Kram, T., Emilio la Rovere, E., Michaelis, L., Mori, S., Morita, T., Pepper, W.,
Pitcher, H., Price, L., Riahi, K., Roehrl, A., Rogner, H., Sankovski, A., Schlesinger, M., Shukla, P.,
Smith, S., Swartt, R., van Rooyen, S., Victor, N. and Dadi, Z.: 2000, ‘Special Report on Emissions
Scenarios’, IPCC Special Reports.
Olivier, J. G. J. and Berdowski, J. J. M.: 2001, ‘Global Emissions Sources and Sinks’, in Berdowski,
J. J. M., Guicherit, R. and Heij, B. J. (eds.), The Climate System. A.A. Balkema Publishers/Swets
& Zeitlinger Publishers, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 33–78.
UNFCCC: 1997, Brazil: Proposed Elements of a Protocol to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Presented by Brazil in Response to the Berlin Mandate,
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/1997/agbm/03b.pdf.
UNFCCC: 2001, Scientific and Methodological Aspects of the Proposal by Brazil. Progress Report
on the Review of the Scientific and Methodological Aspects of the Proposal by Brazil, Note by
the Secretariat, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2001/sbsta/inf02.pdf.
UNFCCC: 2002, Methodological Issues: Scientific and Methodological Assessment of Con-
tributions to Climate Change, Report of the Expert Meeting, Note by the Secretariat,
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2002/sbsta/inf14.pdf.
van Aardenne, J. A., Dentener, F. J., Olivier, J. G. J., Klein Goldewijk, C. G. M. and Lelieveld, J.:
2001, ‘A 1◦ × 1◦ Resolution Data Set of Historical Anthropogenic Trace Gas Emissions for the
Period 1890–1990’, J. Geophys. Res. 15, 909–928.
(Received 8 August 2003; in revised form 24 March 2004)

Comparison

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Comparison

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

COMPARISON OF FORMALISMS FOR ATTRIBUTING

RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: NON-LINEARITIES

CATHY TRUDINGER and IAN ENTING

Anthropogenic global change can be characterised by various indicators: emis-

where θ denotes the relationship between emissions to concentrations, φ for con-

2.1. EMISSIONS, E(t)

2.2. CONCENTRATION, Q(t) = θ (E(0, . . . , t))

R(t) = 0.152 + 0.253e−t/171 + 0.279e−t/18 + 0.316e−t/2.57 (3)

2.3. RADIATIVE FORCING, F(t) = φ(Q(t))

2.4. TEMPERATURE, T (t) = ψ(F(0, . . . , t))

must be met for meaningful comparison of indicators from different times. It

4. Marginal Attribution Method

results by defining the ‘normalised marginal’ approach as:

The marginal method is more difficult to determine for functional relationships.

E ∗j (0, . . . , t) = (1 − α)E j (0, . . . , t) (10)

where, conceptually, α → 0. We run the CO2 concentration model with global

instead of E j ), and compare this with concentration due to global emissions,

5. Residual Attribution Method

6. Proportional Attribution Method

7. Differential Attribution Method

Enting (1998) suggested attributing changes in radiative forcing according to

the ‘differential’ method is defined as

8. Time-Sliced Attribution Method

or, using the IPCC parameterisation for CO2 :

Time-sliced attribution of temperature for a linear model relating temperature

expensive which could make it impractical to implement for complex models in

9. Global Turnover Method

10. Cumulative Emissions Method

Andronova and Schlesinger (2004) attributed global temperature according to cu-

11. Results and Discussion

attribution, depending on the application, but the characteristics described by the

N. Marg. T-slic. N. Resid. Diff. CumE.

N. Marg. T-slic. N. Resid. Diff.

Canada 1.80 1.79 1.78 1.78

Concentration Rad. Forcing Temperature

Canada 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.80 1.77 1.76 1.73

OECD90 39–47 41.6–43.4

in proportion to concentration. It is suitable only for attributing radiative forcing,

We can gain better understanding of the differential method by looking at how it

method. It would be expected that radiative forcing, being simply a function of

groups. The consequent radiative forcing is partitioned by the normalised marginal

(Received 8 August 2003; in revised form 24 March 2004)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen