The ocean's biological and preformed carbon pumps in future steady-state climate scenarios

Pasquier, Benoît; Holzer, Mark; Chamberlain, Matthew A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2525

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2525

Preprints

07 Dec 2023

| 07 Dec 2023

The ocean's biological and preformed carbon pumps in future steady-state climate scenarios

Benoît Pasquier, Mark Holzer, and Matthew A. Chamberlain

Abstract. The future of the marine carbon cycle is vitally important for climate and the fertility of the oceans. However, predictions of future biogeochemistry are challenging because a myriad of processes needs parameterization and the future evolution of the physical ocean state is uncertain. Here, we embed a data-constrained model of the carbon cycle in steady circulations that correspond to perpetual 2090s conditions as simulated for the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. Focusing on steady-state changes from preindustrial conditions allows us to capture the response of the system on all timescales, not just on the sub-centennial timescales of typical transient simulations. We find that biological production experiences only modest declines because the reduced nutrient supply by a more sluggish future circulation is counteracted by warming-stimulated growth. Organic-matter export declines by 15–25 % due to reductions in both biological production and export ratios, the latter driven by warming-accelerated shallow respiration and reduced subduction of dissolved organic matter. The future biological pump cycles a 30–70 % larger regenerated inventory accumulated over longer sequestration times, while preformed DIC is shunted away from biological utilization to outgassing. We develop a conceptually new partitioning of preformed DIC to quantify the ocean's preformed carbon pump and its future changes. Near-surface paths of preformed DIC become more important in the future as weakened ventilation isolates the deep ocean. Thus, while regenerated DIC cycling becomes slower in the future, preformed DIC cycling speeds up for inventory changes of similar magnitude.

Received: 30 Oct 2023 – Discussion started: 07 Dec 2023

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 6594 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (6594 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

24 Jul 2024

The biological and preformed carbon pumps in perpetually slower and warmer oceans

Benoît Pasquier, Mark Holzer, and Matthew A. Chamberlain

Biogeosciences, 21, 3373–3400, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3373-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3373-2024, 2024

Short summary

Benoît Pasquier, Mark Holzer, and Matthew A. Chamberlain

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2525', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jan 2024

General comments:
The paper of Pasquier et al. investigates the future changes of the ocean's biological and preformed carbon pumps by 2090s under two emission scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) using a simple model biogeochemistry model and steady-state ocean circulation transport matrix models. They present a new partitioning of preformed DIC to separate the contributions of different pathways of preformed DIC to the ocean carbon storage and outgassing. Using this data-constrained model approach, they found that biological production declines only modestly in the future, while organic matter export declines more significantly due to the reductions in both biological production and export ratio.
The paper is well-written with clear figures and presents interesting results on the biogeochemical cycling and biological carbon pump. I only have specific minor comments and questions detailed below:
- The authors highlight the fact that the model results are to some extent imprinted by unrealistic circulation features of the ACCESS1.3 model, especially in the Southern Ocean and the deep ocean. The sensitivity of the results to the choice of this peculiar model should be more emphasize.
- This study does not account for the potential changes in the oceanic circulation and stratification due to melting of ice sheets, which could alter the ventilation and storage of carbon in the deep ocean. If this were the case, would it result in different behavior of the biological production or organic matter export?
- Why focusing on the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios? This has to be justified.
- What are the implications of prescribed pCO₂ concentrations for the simulation? It would have been interesting to account for the feedbacks between the ocean carbon cycle and the atmospheric pCO₂ concentration, which may affect the future evolution of the preformed DIC.
- I found the description of the preformed carbon pump and how it differs from the solubility pump a bit confusing. I think it could be clarified.
- As explained by the authors, the effect of iron on phytoplankton growth is not included in this study to avoid complexity. How would it change the presented results if it was taken into account? (i.e. does it have an important role?)

Other comments:
L6: “experiences only modest declines”. Precise how much.
L8: the latter being driven
L19: In recent decades,
L30: …pump, preindustrial atmospheric pCO₂ concentrations
L55: remove the brackets of the sentence. Same at L77-78, L90-91, L128-129, L132, L258-259, L320-321, L375-376, L452-453 and in the caption of Figure 4.
L66-71: this paragraph has to be removed from the introduction since it is about the results of the study.
L80: atmospheric pCO₂. Same at L93.
L105-106: precise the reference used to choose the parameters of the PCO2 model
L112: …which in steady state obeys:
L133: the ocean through pCO₂ air-sea exchange
L138: Note that in our model, carbon
L156: “the exact same concentrations as traditionally defined preformed DIC”. This has to be precised. What are these concentrations? How are they chosen?
L178: what are the main mechanisms
L183: remove merely
L186: “the more sluggish circulation”. Precise the sentence with value for the circulation.
L186: decline by 12 and 19 % for the two scenarios compared to the preindustrial
L187-188: “due to the slower future circulation and decreased ventilation”. Please give values.
L191: for RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 respectively (compared to the preindustrial)
L191: “although the North Atlantic contains a patch of prominent cooling”. Does it have a local effect on nutrient and carbon uptake rates?
L204: RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 respectively
L220-221: in the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios respectively, compared to preindustrial. Same in L253.
L230: “do not suffice”. Replace by are not enough.
Table 1: Add to the caption “…for preindustrial, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. Variations relative to the preindustrial are also shown”.
L271: remove a priori
L275: remove such
L302: and how they change in the future
L303: remove the [t]
Figure 6: make the dashed rectangle in the left corner more visible for the reader.
L326: To better understand the transport pathways of preformed DIC, we quantify the amount able to enter
L328: (not shown in Fig. 6) revealed that regardless of source-sink pair, more
L357: Italic font may be used for emphasis and used sparingly. Remove the italic style of the word less. Same in L361, 364, 365.
L437-439: remove the sentence to explain the SSP scenarios since it is not useful.
L461: remove below
L462: Liu et al. (2023)
L484: remove brought to light here
L491: this allows for the first time
L496: with declines of ~10 %, even for RCP8.5. Remove the italic style as well.
L500: RCP8.5-based steady-state scenarios respectively, in comparison to preindustrial
References: sort the references of DeVries in chronological order.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2525-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Benoit Pasquier, 04 Mar 2024
  
  See attached PDF.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2525-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2525', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Feb 2024
Review of “The ocean’s biological and preformed carbon pumps in future steady-state climate scenarios” by Benoît Pasquier et al.
Summary
The manuscript provides an analysis of the changes in the ocean carbon cycle between the preindustrial years and the 2090s, under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 future scenarios. Using a biogeochemical model forced by decadal-mean ocean circulations derived from a climate model, in steady-state, the authors find that (i) the counteracting effects of the decline in nutrient supply into the euphotic zone and the warming-enhanced phytoplankton growth rate induce a slight decrease in biological production, and (ii) the reduction in biological production and export ratio leads to a decrease in organic matter export. In addition, they assess the changes in preformed and regenerated dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) inventories and cycles and find that due to the weakening of the circulation the inventory of regenerated and preformed DIC increases while the cycle of preformed DIC cycle becomes faster.
The manuscript makes a novel contribution by developing a partitioning of preformed and regenerated DIC in accounting for the source and sink processes. The manuscript is well written and organized. However I would like to raise several points, mostly regarding the discussion of the results, that should be addressed before its publication.
Please see the detailed explanation of these major points and all my detailed comments below.

Main comments
1. The circulation model: The authors forced the biogeochemical model using the fields of the ACCESS-1.3 model. They referred to previous studies (Bi et al., 2020; Pasquier et al., 2023) stating a surestimation in the mixed layer depth in this model (in particular unrealistically deep mixed layer in the Weddell and Ross seas), that could impact the carbon pump. Several questions arise from the existence of these biases in the circulation model:
Could the author justify the choice of the ocean circulation ACCESS-1.3 simulations for this study?

The authors used optimized biogeochemical parameters, which partly corrects biases from circulation in the preindustrial conditions, if I correctly understand. Are these optimized parameters also used in the future scenario runs? If it is the case, how does this optimization influence carbon pump in the future states where these biases could have disappeared?

Could the authors expand the third point in the discussion section L. 406-420 by specifying how these MLD biases impact their results on carbon flow rates and inventories, and their main conclusions, given the “key importance of circulation changes”? Could they estimate the uncertainties of the results related to these biases? If these uncertainties are not negligible, at least, the authors should qualify, in the abstract and conclusion sections, the quantified changes found between the preindustrial and 2090s in both future scenarios.

2. The preindustrial conditions: For the preindustrial run, the authors forced the biogeochemical model using averages of circulation and thermodynamics over the 1990s instead of preindustrial years. They justified this choice based on the minor changes in hydrodynamics between these two periods. Why did they not directly use averages of circulation over preindustrial years? I suggest adding some explanations on this point in the Methods section.
3. Time integration: The authors considered averages on 10-year time slices. I suggest adding a small discussion on this relatively short time integration for which decadal variability is not handled.
4. Seasonality: In the discussion section (L. 408-410), the authors also mentioned uncertainties in the results associated with the absence of seasonality in their circulation model forcing. Could the authors be more specific and give an estimate of these uncertainties in the carbon pump and its plumbing, associated with this simplification, or refer to previous studies that could have estimated them?
5. Export of particulate organic matter: Pasquier et al. (2023) indicated that “particles are only submitted to gravitational sinking” in the coupled model. Is it also the case in the present study? I suggest clarifying how the export of organic matter is calculated in the Methods section. If the transport of POC is similar as done in Pasquier et al. (2023), could the authors specify or give an estimate of how including the advective-diffusive transport could quantitatively change preformed and regenerated DIC inventories and carbon flow rates, in particular in deep convection areas?

Detailed comments
L. 66-71: I suggest removing this text summarizing the main results of the study from the introduction section.
L. 113: Did the authors consider the deposition of particulate organic matter (POM) on the floor, remineralisation of POM in the sediment, and the flux of dissolved inorganic matter from the sediment to the water column?
L. 181: I suggest rephrasing “ The future circulation of our states”.
L. 185-187: I suggest showing the nutrient supply and its changes instead of (or in addition to) the euphotic nutrient inventory and its changes, which result from several processes.
L 192: Maybe better “and despite” instead of “despite”.
L. 192-200: Please see my first major comment. The authors presented that the main changes in mean euphotic nutrient concentration are localized in areas where ML is unrealistically deep in the preindustrial simulation (Fig. B1d-e, Fig. C2). Could the authors, in the discussion section, discuss or indicate an estimate of the uncertainties of the different contributions to DIC biological uptake changes and of the resulting uptake change, associated with the MLD biases, perhaps based on previous studies? Could the MLD biases impact the sign of the total production change and the first main conclusion?
L. 201: Maybe better: “Changes in export ratio”
L. 202-203: I suggest defining export production at the beginning of “Changes in export ratios” section, instead of in L. 217-218.
L. 208-215: In this paragraph, the authors listed mechanisms inducing changes in OC export ratio. Did the authors quantify the changes of DOC and POC export ratios, DOC and POC exports, and euphotic DOC and POC remineralizations? I suggest adding these changes to the appendices. Related to my first main comment, could the authors give an estimate of the uncertainties of the magnitude of export ratio changes due the MLD biases?
L. 217: “changes in carbon export production Jex itself”.
L. 223: Do you mean organic-matter production or export production? Please clarify.
L. 230: “suggest”
L. 259: “unrealistic deep ML”
L. 280-281: I suggest rephrasing this sentence.
L. 302: “these pathways change”
L. 303: delete [t]
L. 338: Do you mean “regenerated nutrients at intermediate depths”?
L. 345-346: I suggest deleting the repetitions with L. 253-254, if any.
L. 367-368: the flow rate decreases/increases or the flow rate slows/speeds up?
L. 391-393: I suggest replacing “a significant advance over” by “an enrichment of”
L. 449-453: “the changes in the controls on carbon export and biological utilization identified by Boyd (2015)”: Could the authors list these changes and clarify the agreements with the study of Boyd et al. (2015)?
Appendices: I suggest (i) numbering the appendices and their figures in the order of reference in the main text, (ii) locating the figures after the title of the corresponding appendix (Fig. C1), (iii) changing the caption of Figure D2 (and Fig. D1), where the authors referred to Fig. 2 that is commented later in the main text.
L. 533-535 and L. 613-618 : These lines should be located after the appendices.
Figure C2: I suggest adding the MLD changes for the two future scenarios as in Figure 2.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2525-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Benoit Pasquier, 04 Mar 2024
  
  See attached PDF.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2525-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2525', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jan 2024

General comments:
The paper of Pasquier et al. investigates the future changes of the ocean's biological and preformed carbon pumps by 2090s under two emission scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) using a simple model biogeochemistry model and steady-state ocean circulation transport matrix models. They present a new partitioning of preformed DIC to separate the contributions of different pathways of preformed DIC to the ocean carbon storage and outgassing. Using this data-constrained model approach, they found that biological production declines only modestly in the future, while organic matter export declines more significantly due to the reductions in both biological production and export ratio.
The paper is well-written with clear figures and presents interesting results on the biogeochemical cycling and biological carbon pump. I only have specific minor comments and questions detailed below:
- The authors highlight the fact that the model results are to some extent imprinted by unrealistic circulation features of the ACCESS1.3 model, especially in the Southern Ocean and the deep ocean. The sensitivity of the results to the choice of this peculiar model should be more emphasize.
- This study does not account for the potential changes in the oceanic circulation and stratification due to melting of ice sheets, which could alter the ventilation and storage of carbon in the deep ocean. If this were the case, would it result in different behavior of the biological production or organic matter export?
- Why focusing on the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios? This has to be justified.
- What are the implications of prescribed pCO₂ concentrations for the simulation? It would have been interesting to account for the feedbacks between the ocean carbon cycle and the atmospheric pCO₂ concentration, which may affect the future evolution of the preformed DIC.
- I found the description of the preformed carbon pump and how it differs from the solubility pump a bit confusing. I think it could be clarified.
- As explained by the authors, the effect of iron on phytoplankton growth is not included in this study to avoid complexity. How would it change the presented results if it was taken into account? (i.e. does it have an important role?)

Other comments:
L6: “experiences only modest declines”. Precise how much.
L8: the latter being driven
L19: In recent decades,
L30: …pump, preindustrial atmospheric pCO₂ concentrations
L55: remove the brackets of the sentence. Same at L77-78, L90-91, L128-129, L132, L258-259, L320-321, L375-376, L452-453 and in the caption of Figure 4.
L66-71: this paragraph has to be removed from the introduction since it is about the results of the study.
L80: atmospheric pCO₂. Same at L93.
L105-106: precise the reference used to choose the parameters of the PCO2 model
L112: …which in steady state obeys:
L133: the ocean through pCO₂ air-sea exchange
L138: Note that in our model, carbon
L156: “the exact same concentrations as traditionally defined preformed DIC”. This has to be precised. What are these concentrations? How are they chosen?
L178: what are the main mechanisms
L183: remove merely
L186: “the more sluggish circulation”. Precise the sentence with value for the circulation.
L186: decline by 12 and 19 % for the two scenarios compared to the preindustrial
L187-188: “due to the slower future circulation and decreased ventilation”. Please give values.
L191: for RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 respectively (compared to the preindustrial)
L191: “although the North Atlantic contains a patch of prominent cooling”. Does it have a local effect on nutrient and carbon uptake rates?
L204: RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 respectively
L220-221: in the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios respectively, compared to preindustrial. Same in L253.
L230: “do not suffice”. Replace by are not enough.
Table 1: Add to the caption “…for preindustrial, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. Variations relative to the preindustrial are also shown”.
L271: remove a priori
L275: remove such
L302: and how they change in the future
L303: remove the [t]
Figure 6: make the dashed rectangle in the left corner more visible for the reader.
L326: To better understand the transport pathways of preformed DIC, we quantify the amount able to enter
L328: (not shown in Fig. 6) revealed that regardless of source-sink pair, more
L357: Italic font may be used for emphasis and used sparingly. Remove the italic style of the word less. Same in L361, 364, 365.
L437-439: remove the sentence to explain the SSP scenarios since it is not useful.
L461: remove below
L462: Liu et al. (2023)
L484: remove brought to light here
L491: this allows for the first time
L496: with declines of ~10 %, even for RCP8.5. Remove the italic style as well.
L500: RCP8.5-based steady-state scenarios respectively, in comparison to preindustrial
References: sort the references of DeVries in chronological order.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2525-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Benoit Pasquier, 04 Mar 2024
  
  See attached PDF.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2525-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2525', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Feb 2024
Review of “The ocean’s biological and preformed carbon pumps in future steady-state climate scenarios” by Benoît Pasquier et al.
Summary
The manuscript provides an analysis of the changes in the ocean carbon cycle between the preindustrial years and the 2090s, under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 future scenarios. Using a biogeochemical model forced by decadal-mean ocean circulations derived from a climate model, in steady-state, the authors find that (i) the counteracting effects of the decline in nutrient supply into the euphotic zone and the warming-enhanced phytoplankton growth rate induce a slight decrease in biological production, and (ii) the reduction in biological production and export ratio leads to a decrease in organic matter export. In addition, they assess the changes in preformed and regenerated dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) inventories and cycles and find that due to the weakening of the circulation the inventory of regenerated and preformed DIC increases while the cycle of preformed DIC cycle becomes faster.
The manuscript makes a novel contribution by developing a partitioning of preformed and regenerated DIC in accounting for the source and sink processes. The manuscript is well written and organized. However I would like to raise several points, mostly regarding the discussion of the results, that should be addressed before its publication.
Please see the detailed explanation of these major points and all my detailed comments below.

Main comments
1. The circulation model: The authors forced the biogeochemical model using the fields of the ACCESS-1.3 model. They referred to previous studies (Bi et al., 2020; Pasquier et al., 2023) stating a surestimation in the mixed layer depth in this model (in particular unrealistically deep mixed layer in the Weddell and Ross seas), that could impact the carbon pump. Several questions arise from the existence of these biases in the circulation model:
Could the author justify the choice of the ocean circulation ACCESS-1.3 simulations for this study?

The authors used optimized biogeochemical parameters, which partly corrects biases from circulation in the preindustrial conditions, if I correctly understand. Are these optimized parameters also used in the future scenario runs? If it is the case, how does this optimization influence carbon pump in the future states where these biases could have disappeared?

Could the authors expand the third point in the discussion section L. 406-420 by specifying how these MLD biases impact their results on carbon flow rates and inventories, and their main conclusions, given the “key importance of circulation changes”? Could they estimate the uncertainties of the results related to these biases? If these uncertainties are not negligible, at least, the authors should qualify, in the abstract and conclusion sections, the quantified changes found between the preindustrial and 2090s in both future scenarios.

2. The preindustrial conditions: For the preindustrial run, the authors forced the biogeochemical model using averages of circulation and thermodynamics over the 1990s instead of preindustrial years. They justified this choice based on the minor changes in hydrodynamics between these two periods. Why did they not directly use averages of circulation over preindustrial years? I suggest adding some explanations on this point in the Methods section.
3. Time integration: The authors considered averages on 10-year time slices. I suggest adding a small discussion on this relatively short time integration for which decadal variability is not handled.
4. Seasonality: In the discussion section (L. 408-410), the authors also mentioned uncertainties in the results associated with the absence of seasonality in their circulation model forcing. Could the authors be more specific and give an estimate of these uncertainties in the carbon pump and its plumbing, associated with this simplification, or refer to previous studies that could have estimated them?
5. Export of particulate organic matter: Pasquier et al. (2023) indicated that “particles are only submitted to gravitational sinking” in the coupled model. Is it also the case in the present study? I suggest clarifying how the export of organic matter is calculated in the Methods section. If the transport of POC is similar as done in Pasquier et al. (2023), could the authors specify or give an estimate of how including the advective-diffusive transport could quantitatively change preformed and regenerated DIC inventories and carbon flow rates, in particular in deep convection areas?

Detailed comments
L. 66-71: I suggest removing this text summarizing the main results of the study from the introduction section.
L. 113: Did the authors consider the deposition of particulate organic matter (POM) on the floor, remineralisation of POM in the sediment, and the flux of dissolved inorganic matter from the sediment to the water column?
L. 181: I suggest rephrasing “ The future circulation of our states”.
L. 185-187: I suggest showing the nutrient supply and its changes instead of (or in addition to) the euphotic nutrient inventory and its changes, which result from several processes.
L 192: Maybe better “and despite” instead of “despite”.
L. 192-200: Please see my first major comment. The authors presented that the main changes in mean euphotic nutrient concentration are localized in areas where ML is unrealistically deep in the preindustrial simulation (Fig. B1d-e, Fig. C2). Could the authors, in the discussion section, discuss or indicate an estimate of the uncertainties of the different contributions to DIC biological uptake changes and of the resulting uptake change, associated with the MLD biases, perhaps based on previous studies? Could the MLD biases impact the sign of the total production change and the first main conclusion?
L. 201: Maybe better: “Changes in export ratio”
L. 202-203: I suggest defining export production at the beginning of “Changes in export ratios” section, instead of in L. 217-218.
L. 208-215: In this paragraph, the authors listed mechanisms inducing changes in OC export ratio. Did the authors quantify the changes of DOC and POC export ratios, DOC and POC exports, and euphotic DOC and POC remineralizations? I suggest adding these changes to the appendices. Related to my first main comment, could the authors give an estimate of the uncertainties of the magnitude of export ratio changes due the MLD biases?
L. 217: “changes in carbon export production Jex itself”.
L. 223: Do you mean organic-matter production or export production? Please clarify.
L. 230: “suggest”
L. 259: “unrealistic deep ML”
L. 280-281: I suggest rephrasing this sentence.
L. 302: “these pathways change”
L. 303: delete [t]
L. 338: Do you mean “regenerated nutrients at intermediate depths”?
L. 345-346: I suggest deleting the repetitions with L. 253-254, if any.
L. 367-368: the flow rate decreases/increases or the flow rate slows/speeds up?
L. 391-393: I suggest replacing “a significant advance over” by “an enrichment of”
L. 449-453: “the changes in the controls on carbon export and biological utilization identified by Boyd (2015)”: Could the authors list these changes and clarify the agreements with the study of Boyd et al. (2015)?
Appendices: I suggest (i) numbering the appendices and their figures in the order of reference in the main text, (ii) locating the figures after the title of the corresponding appendix (Fig. C1), (iii) changing the caption of Figure D2 (and Fig. D1), where the authors referred to Fig. 2 that is commented later in the main text.
L. 533-535 and L. 613-618 : These lines should be located after the appendices.
Figure C2: I suggest adding the MLD changes for the two future scenarios as in Figure 2.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2525-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Benoit Pasquier, 04 Mar 2024
  
  See attached PDF.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2525-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (12 Mar 2024) by Edouard Metzger

AR by Benoit Pasquier on behalf of the Authors (22 Mar 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (08 Apr 2024) by Edouard Metzger

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (22 Apr 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of Pasquier et al. (2nd round)

The authors improved the manuscript and answered to the comments and questions of the reviewers. I recommend publication in Biogeosciences after addressing the minor comments below. The line numbers correspond to the ones in the revised manuscript with track changes.

I understand that ACCESS1.3 is state-of-the art climate model and that previous publication optimized the PCO2 biogeochemistry model embedded in the ACCESS1.3 circulation. The choice of this model is clearly justified for this study. Regarding the influence of meltwater input from terrestrial ice sheets on the ventilation and storage of carbon in the deep ocean, the authors added in the discussion of the revised manuscript that they expect an exacerbated reduction in future Southern Ocean ventilation from the ice-sheet meltwater. The future influence of meltwater, and especially Antarctic meltwater, on regional and global climate under RCP4.5 or RCP8.5 scenarios is likely to result in strong Southern Ocean changes. The authors mentioned the ACCESS-ESM1.5 model that was used in Purich & England (2023) to investigate the effect of ice-sheet meltwater in the Southern Ocean. ACCESS-ESM1.5 is based on ACCESS1.3, so I wonder if it would have been possible to investigate the effect of ice-sheet meltwater using this model instead of ACCESS1.3? Or otherwise via sensitivity experiments?

Section 3.1.2 discusses how warming stimulates euphotic POC respiration and affects particle sinking rates. This section could provide a clearer distinction between the direct and indirect effects of warming on these processes.

L210: please detail the change in C:P uptake ratio

L306: relative to complete surface saturation

L386: Note that if we had

Reference

Purich, A., & England, M. H. (2023). Projected Impacts of Antarctic Meltwater Anomalies over the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Climate, 36(8), 2703–2719. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI- D-22-0457.1

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (07 May 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of “The ocean’s biological and preformed carbon pumps in future steady-state climate scenarios” by Benoît Pasquier et al.

The authors have addressed my previous comments in their answer and the new version of the manuscript is now much improved. In their revision, the authors have clarified the methodology and expanded the discussion of their results. There is just a minor point regarding the timescales considered in this study which I think should be addressed. The authors state that their steady state study captures the response of the system on all timescales. I think it could lead to confusion (as discussed by the authors, some timescales are not taken into account in the biogeochemical simulations, for example seasonal timescales) and I suggest clarifying this point in the manuscript. Besides, I have noticed a few additional minor and technical comments on specific sections of the text.
Overall, the paper has novel aspects with a partitioning of preformed and regenerated dissolved inorganic carbon in accounting for the source and sink processes and it makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of carbon pump and its changes under two climate change scenarios. I look forward to seeing the final manuscript published after these final issues are addressed.

Please see all my detailed and technical comments below.

L. 4-6: “Focusing on steady-state changes from preindustrial conditions allows us to capture the response of the system on all timescales, not just on the sub-centennial timescales of typical transient simulations.” I don’t think it allows capturing the response of the system on all timescales and I suggest this sentence needs revising.
L. 51: I suggest removing “they probe all the timescales of the system and”.
L. 74: change “analysed” to analyzed, as used throughout the manuscript.
L. 94: I suggest rephrasing this sentence as for example: “Instead, our steady-state solutions allow us to determine what the asymptotically long-term …”
L. 141: I suggest defining r
L. 219-220: In response to a previous comment, the authors have added here a sentence in which they refer to Fig. D3. The contributions from each export pathway shown on this figure are described in the next sub-sections. I suggest moving this sentence in one of the next sub-sections and here referring to this next sub-section, or, at least, guiding the reading of this figure, by indicating, for example, the relevant contributions (and the colour of the corresponding curves).
L. 559-562: I suggest rephrasing the last part of the sentence.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (10 May 2024) by Edouard Metzger

Dear co-authors,

Your manuscript greatly improved as highllighted by the reviewers. However some minor comments from both reviewers need to be adressed for final acceptance.

Best regards

Edouard Metzger

Report #1

The authors improved the manuscript and answered to the comments and questions of the reviewers. I recommend publication in Biogeosciences after addressing the minor comments below. The line numbers correspond to the ones in the revised manuscript with track changes.

I understand that ACCESS1.3 is state-of-the art climate model and that previous publication optimized the PCO2 biogeochemistry model embedded in the ACCESS1.3 circulation. The choice of this model is clearly justified for this study. Regarding the influence of meltwater input from terrestrial ice sheets on the ventilation and storage of carbon in the deep ocean, the authors added in the discussion of the revised manuscript that they expect an exacerbated reduction in future Southern Ocean ventilation from the ice-sheet meltwater. The future influence of meltwater, and especially Antarctic meltwater, on regional and global climate under RCP4.5 or RCP8.5 scenarios is likely to result in strong Southern Ocean changes. The authors mentioned the ACCESS-ESM1.5 model that was used in Purich & England (2023) to investigate the effect of ice-sheet meltwater in the Southern Ocean. ACCESS-ESM1.5 is based on ACCESS1.3, so I wonder if it would have been possible to investigate the effect of ice-sheet meltwater using this model instead of ACCESS1.3? Or otherwise via sensitivity experiments?

Section 3.1.2 discusses how warming stimulates euphotic POC respiration and affects particle sinking rates. This section could provide a clearer distinction between the direct and indirect effects of warming on these processes.

L210: please detail the change in C:P uptake ratio

L306: relative to complete surface saturation

L386: Note that if we had

Reference

Purich, A., & England, M. H. (2023). Projected Impacts of Antarctic Meltwater Anomalies over the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Climate, 36(8), 2703–2719. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI- D-22-0457.1

Report #2

Review of “The ocean’s biological and preformed carbon pumps in future steady-state climate scenarios” by Benoît Pasquier et al.

The authors have addressed my previous comments in their answer and the new version of the manuscript is now much improved. In their revision, the authors have clarified the methodology and expanded the discussion of their results. There is just a minor point regarding the timescales considered in this study which I think should be addressed. The authors state that their steady state study captures the response of the system on all timescales. I think it could lead to confusion (as discussed by the authors, some timescales are not taken into account in the biogeochemical simulations, for example seasonal timescales) and I suggest clarifying this point in the manuscript. Besides, I have noticed a few additional minor and technical comments on specific sections of the text.
Overall, the paper has novel aspects with a partitioning of preformed and regenerated dissolved inorganic carbon in accounting for the source and sink processes and it makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of carbon pump and its changes under two climate change scenarios. I look forward to seeing the final manuscript published after these final issues are addressed.

Please see all my detailed and technical comments below.

L. 4-6: “Focusing on steady-state changes from preindustrial conditions allows us to capture the response of the system on all timescales, not just on the sub-centennial timescales of typical transient simulations.” I don’t think it allows capturing the response of the system on all timescales and I suggest this sentence needs revising.
L. 51: I suggest removing “they probe all the timescales of the system and”.
L. 74: change “analysed” to analyzed, as used throughout the manuscript.
L. 94: I suggest rephrasing this sentence as for example: “Instead, our steady-state solutions allow us to determine what the asymptotically long-term …”
L. 141: I suggest defining r
L. 219-220: In response to a previous comment, the authors have added here a sentence in which they refer to Fig. D3. The contributions from each export pathway shown on this figure are described in the next sub-sections. I suggest moving this sentence in one of the next sub-sections and here referring to this next sub-section, or, at least, guiding the reading of this figure, by indicating, for example, the relevant contributions (and the colour of the corresponding curves).
L. 559-562: I suggest rephrasing the last part of the sentence.

Hide

AR by Benoit Pasquier on behalf of the Authors (23 May 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (31 May 2024) by Edouard Metzger

AR by Benoit Pasquier on behalf of the Authors (01 Jun 2024) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

24 Jul 2024

The biological and preformed carbon pumps in perpetually slower and warmer oceans

Benoît Pasquier, Mark Holzer, and Matthew A. Chamberlain

Biogeosciences, 21, 3373–3400, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3373-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3373-2024, 2024

Short summary

Benoît Pasquier, Mark Holzer, and Matthew A. Chamberlain

Viewed

Total article views: 519 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
368	118	33	519	24	19

HTML: 368
PDF: 118
XML: 33
Total: 519
BibTeX: 24
EndNote: 19

Views and downloads (calculated since 07 Dec 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2023	118	41	11	170
Jan 2024	44	11	2	57
Feb 2024	54	12	4	70
Mar 2024	61	11	4	76
Apr 2024	19	15	4	38
May 2024	22	13	2	37
Jun 2024	40	9	3	52
Jul 2024	10	6	3	19

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 07 Dec 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2023	118	41	11	170
Jan 2024	44	11	2	57
Feb 2024	54	12	4	70
Mar 2024	61	11	4	76
Apr 2024	19	15	4	38
May 2024	22	13	2	37
Jun 2024	40	9	3	52
Jul 2024	10	6	3	19

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 518 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 518 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 24 Jul 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (6594 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

How will the future ocean sequester carbon? We find that for an ocean perpetually warmer with slower circulation, biological productivity declines despite warming-stimulated growth because of lower nutrient supply from depth. This throttles the biological carbon pump, which still sequesters more carbon because it takes longer to return to the surface. The deep ocean is isolated from the surface allowing more carbon from the atmosphere to pass through the ocean without contributing to biology.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0