# Measuring Carbon in Cities and Their Buildings through Reverse Engineering of Life Cycle Assessment
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**TypeH** & **GWP\({}^{\rm T}\)** & **GWP\({}^{\rm W}\)** & **GWP\({}^{\rm F}\)** & **GWP\({}^{\rm W}\)** & **I\({}^{\rm GWP}\)\({}^{\rm W}\)** & **GWP\({}^{\rm F}\)** & **GWP\({}^{\rm W}\)** & **GWP\({}^{\rm F}\)** \\  & **Estimated** & **Estimated** & **GWP\({}^{\rm T}\) n** & **n** & **GWP\({}^{\rm F}\) n** & **Pred** & **Pred** & **CO\({}_{2}\)eq/m\({}^{2.5}\)** & **A \({}^{6}\)** \\ \hline
1 & 91,205 & 7630 & 6430 & 0.011 & 0.09 \({}^{2}\) & 0.05 & 6463 & 6111 & 493 & 185 \\
2 & 73,100 & 7630 & 6430 & 0.15 & 0.048 \({}^{2}\) & 0.12 & 7007 & 5664 & 430 & 170 \\
3 & 82,080 & 7630 & 6430 & 0.08 & 0.07 \({}^{2}\) & 0.08 & 6722 & 5919 & 456 & 180 \\
4 & 92,530 & 7630 & 6430 & 0 & \(-\)\({}^{3}\) & 0.05 & \(-\) & 6111 & 487 & 190 \\
5 & 86,580 & 7630 & 6430 & 0.05 & 0.08 \({}^{2}\) & 0.066 & 6593 & 6009 & 468 & 185 \\
6 & 91,205 & 7630 & 6430 & 0.011 & 0.09 \({}^{2}\) & 0.05 & 6463 & 6111 & 493 & 185 \\
7 & 82,260 & 7630 & 6430 & 0.084 & 0.07 \({}^{2}\) & 0.08 & 6722 & 5919 & 457 & 180 \\
8 & 72,480 & 7630 & 6430 & 0.163 & 0.04 \({}^{2}\) & 0.12 & 7007 & 5664 & 453 & 160 \\
9 & 90,095 & 7630 & 6430 & 0.020 & 0.09 \({}^{2}\) & 0.05 & 6463 & 6111 & 487 & 185 \\
10 & \(-\)30,000 & \(-\)5330 & 50 & 1 & 0.43 & \(-\)\({}^{1}\)(1) & 2057 & 52.9 \({}^{4}\) & \(-\)\({}^{16}\) & 180 \\
11 & \(-\)30,000 & \(-\)5330 & 50 & 1 & 0.43 & \(-\)\({}^{1}\)(1) & 2057 & \(-\)\({}^{1}\) & \(-\)\({}^{16}\) & 185 \\
12 & \(-\)30,000 & \(-\)5330 & 50 & 1 & 0.43 & \(-\)\({}^{1}\)(1) & 2057 & \(-\)\({}^{1}\) & \(-\)\({}^{16}\) & 185 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{1}\) Values cannot be found, should be normalized to 1, because it is the lowest GWP\({}^{\rm T}\) value; \({}^{2}\) It should be assimilated to value 0, because it is the highest GWP value of the Set. 1 GWP\({}^{\rm W}\) n\({}_{1}\), is the number in absolute terms; \({}^{3}\) Value cannot be found, because it is \(-\)0.1029 for a value of GWP\({}^{\rm T}\) n closed to 0 equal to: 5.426 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\); \({}^{4}\) The value of 52.9 is extracted from GWP\({}^{\rm F}\) of table of LCA GWP Results Supplementary Material Type 14; \({}^{5}\) GHG\({}_{\rm v}\) or CO\({}_{2}\)eq/m\({}^{2}\) is Embodied GHG emissions per m\({}^{2}\) of a house, in CO\({}_{2}\)eq/m\({}^{2}\); stated that CO\({}_{2}\)eq = GWP \(\times\) GHG emissions; GWP for Carbon = 1. See values [10], for Emission intensity on a building level, in kgCO\({}_{2}\)eq/m\({}^{2}\); \({}^{6}\) A: Area of the house (m\({}^{2}\)); TypeH: House Types for this hypothesis.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: GWP\({}^{\rm T}\) Results; GWP\({}^{\rm W}\), GWP\({}^{\rm F}\) Prediction Graph2 Figure S2 Functions; Normalized values. the values of GWPT normalized. The model used in this paper was carried out in 2021-2022 together with another model for the same issued problem with better performance. The comparisons between the results for each house Type in columns 3 and 8 in Table 1, and between columns 4 and 9 of the same table respectively, conclude, that the model performs well in terms of abstract targets, to find references and ranges of values for housing design facilitation; with some limitations in seeking GWPT\({}^{\text{W}}\) accurate values. In the model, GWPT\({}^{\text{T}}\)\({}_{\text{Re}}\) or GWPT\({}^{\text{T}}\)\({}_{\text{Mx}}\) value is 83,120; while in Table 1, is 92,530. The ranges found through this paper hypothesis, are presented in the following Table 2, or CHEC (Classification of House Embodied Carbon) Table, considering a 185 m\({}^{2}\) prototype house, and a% of new homes/refurbished homes.