Modeling CO2 Emissions of Top 5 Emitters with Combination Technique

Article Preview

Abstract:

In this paper, the performance of combination forecast methods for CO2 emissions prediction is investigated. Linear model, time series model, GM (1, 1) model and Grey Verhulst model are selected in study as the separate models. And, four kinds of combination forecast models, i.e. the equivalent weight (EW) combination method, variance-covariance (VACO) combination method, regression combination (R) method, and discounted mean square forecast error (MSFE) method are chosen to employ for top 5 CO2 emitters. The forecasting accuracy is compared between these combination models and single models. This research suggests that the combination forecasts are almost certain to outperform the worst individual forecasts and maybe even better than most individual ones. Furthermore the combination forecasts can avoid the risk of model choosing in future projection. For CO2 emissions forecast with many uncertain factors in the future, combining the single forecast would be safer in such forecasting situations.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 616-618)

Pages:

1143-1147

Citation:

Online since:

December 2012

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2013 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

[1] Working Group III IPCC: IPCC's fourth assessment report (AR4): mitigation of climate change. (Cambridge, United Kingdom 2007).

DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781107415416.002

Google Scholar

[2] B. Tutmez: Energ. Explor. Exploit. Vol. 24 (2006), p.139.

Google Scholar

[3] Y. Shu and N.S.N. Lam: Atom. Environ. Vol. 45 (2011), p.634.

Google Scholar

[4] B. Vincenzo, M. Oronzio and N. Sergio: Energy Vol 34 (2009), p.1413.

Google Scholar

[5] S. Pokharel: Energy Policy Vol. 35 (2007), p.350.

Google Scholar

[6] Q.M. Liang, Y. Fan and Y.M. Wei: Energy Policy Vol 35 (2007), p.1685.

Google Scholar

[7] C.S. Lin, F.M. Liou and C.P. Huang: Appl. Energ. Vol 88 (2011), p.3816.

Google Scholar

[8] W.K. Yap and V. Karri: Expert. Syst. Appl. Vol 39 (2012), p.2421.

Google Scholar

[9] T. Chen and Y.C. Wang: Intell. Data Anal. Vol 15 (2011), p.763.

Google Scholar

[10] J.M. Bates, C.W. Granger: Opl. Res. Q. Vol 20 (1969), p.451.

Google Scholar

[11] J.P. Dickinson: Opl. Res. Q. Vol 24 (1973), pp.253-260.

Google Scholar

[12] Clive W. J. Granger and R. Ramanathan: Int. J. Forec. Vol 3 (1984), p.197.

Google Scholar

[13] C.K. Min and A. Zellner: J. Econometrics Vol 56 (1993) p.89.

Google Scholar

[14] M. Hibon and T. Evgeniou: Int. J. Forec. Vol 21 (2005), p.15.

Google Scholar

[15] G. P. Zhang: Neurocomputing Vol 50 (2003), p.159.

Google Scholar

[16] R.T. Clemen: Int. J. Forec. Vol 5 (1989), p.559.

Google Scholar

[17] R.G. Fritz, C. Brandon and J. Xander: Ann. Tourism Res. Vol 11 (1984), p.219.

Google Scholar

[18] R. L.Winkler, and S. Makridakis: J. R. Stat. Soc. A Vol 146 (1983), p.150.

Google Scholar

[19] BP. 2011. http://www.bp.com/energyoutlook.

Google Scholar