Greenhouse gas metrics and ecosystem greenhouse gas fluxes should not be confounded with each other, either conceptually or in the language that we use to describe them. The global warming potential (GWP) and sustained-flux global warming potential (SGWP) are metrics that describe the relative radiative impact of different greenhouse gases and have been widely used to normalize greenhouse gas fluxes as CO₂ equivalents to facilitate comparisons. A clear application of definitions, the pursuit of scientific clarity, and the ability of language to influence our thinking collectively indicate that GWP and SGWP should not be used as synonyms for greenhouse gas fluxes. I examined journal articles that mentioned either of these metrics and were published in Ecosystems, Global Change Biology, or the wetland literature. A substantial fraction of these articles used GWP and/or SGWP in ways that were inconsistent with the original definitions of these terms as greenhouse gas metrics. Often, multiple meanings were used within the same article. Further, many articles used the names of the greenhouse gas metrics as synonyms for CO₂-equivalent greenhouse gas fluxes. I recommend that (1) GWP and SGWP should only be used following their original definitions as greenhouse gas metrics; (2) CO₂-equivalent greenhouse gas flux should be used as an accurate and descriptive framework for describing metric-weighted greenhouse gas exchanges; and (3) radiative balance is an appropriate alternate name for CO₂-equivalent greenhouse gas fluxes, but radiative forcing should only be used to describe changes in the radiative balance. There is a robust research community studying the role of terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic ecosystems as regulators of global climate. The use of clear, consistent, and unambiguous terminology will help us effectively communicate our findings to other scientists, ecosystem managers, and policy makers.

温室气体指标和生态系统温室气体通量不应在概念上或在我们用来描述它们的语言中相互混淆。全球变暖潜能值（GWP）和持续通量全球变暖潜能值（SGWP）是描述不同温室气体相对辐射影响的度量标准，已被广泛用于标准化温室气体通量（以CO ₂当量计），以方便进行比较。定义的明确应用，对科学清晰度的追求以及语言影响我们思维的能力共同表明，GWP和SGWP不应用作温室气体通量的同义词。我检查了提及这些指标之一的期刊文章，并发表在《生态系统》，《全球变化生物学》上或湿地文献。这些文章中有很大一部分使用GWP和/或SGWP的方式与这些术语的原始定义（即温室气体度量标准）不一致。通常，同一篇文章中使用了多种含义。另外，许多文章使用温室气体度量的名称作为CO ₂当量温室气体通量的同义词。我建议（1）GWP和SGWP仅应按照其最初的定义作为温室气体度量标准使用；（2）应使用CO ₂当量温室气体通量作为描述度量加权温室气体交换的准确和描述性框架；（3）辐射平衡是CO ₂的适当替代名称-等效的温室气体通量，但辐射强迫只能用于描述辐射平衡的变化。有一个强大的研究社区正在研究陆地，湿地和水生生态系统作为全球气候调节者的作用。使用清晰，一致和明确的术语将有助于我们将我们的发现有效地传达给其他科学家，生态系统经理和政策制定者。