English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Recent advances in understanding have made it possible to relate globalprecipitation changes directly to emissions of particular gases and aerosolsthat influence climate. Using these advances, new indices are developed herecalled the Global Precipitation-change Potential for pulse (GPPP) andsustained (GPPS) emissions, which measure the precipitation change perunit mass of emissions. The GPP can be used as a metric to compare the effects of differentemissions. This is akin to the global warming potential (GWP) and the globaltemperature-change potential (GTP) which are used to place emissions on acommon scale. Hence the GPP provides an additional perspective of therelative or absolute effects of emissions. It is however recognised thatprecipitation changes are predicted to be highly variable in size and signbetween different regions and this limits the usefulness of a purely global metric. The GPPP and GPPS formulation consists of two terms, onedependent on the surface temperature change and the other dependent on theatmospheric component of the radiative forcing. For some forcing agents, andnotably for CO2, these two terms oppose each other – as the forcingand temperature perturbations have different timescales, even the sign ofthe absolute GPPP and GPPS varies with time, and theopposing terms can make values sensitive to uncertainties in inputparameters. This makes the choice of CO2 as a reference gasproblematic, especially for the GPPS at time horizons less than about60 years. In addition, few studies have presented results for thesurface/atmosphere partitioning of different forcings, leading to moreuncertainty in quantifying the GPP than the GWP or GTP. Values of the GPPP and GPPS for five long- and short-lived forcingagents (CO2, CH4, N2O, sulphate and black carbon – BC) arepresented, using illustrative values of required parameters. The resultingprecipitation changes are given as the change at a specific time horizon(and hence they are end-point metrics) but it is noted that the GPPScan also be interpreted as the time-integrated effect of a pulse emission.Using CO2 as a references gas, the GPPP and GPPS for thenon-CO2 species are larger than the corresponding GTP values. For BCemissions, the atmospheric forcing is sufficiently strong that the GPPSis opposite in sign to the GPPS. The sensitivity of these values to anumber of input parameters is explored. The GPP can also be used to evaluate the contribution of different emissionsto precipitation change during or after a period of emissions. As anillustration, the precipitation changes resulting from emissions in 2008(using the GPPP) and emissions sustained at 2008 levels (using theGPPS) are presented. These indicate that for periods of 20 years (afterthe 2008 emissions) and 50 years (for sustained emissions at 2008 levels)methane is the dominant driver of positive precipitation changes due tothose emissions. For sustained emissions, the sum of the effect of the fivespecies included here does not become positive until after 50 years, bywhich time the global surface temperature increase exceeds 1 K

Metrics for linking emissions of gases and aerosols to global precipitation changes