the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Conditions for Instability in the Climate-Carbon Cycle System
Abstract. The climate and carbon cycle interact in multiple ways. An increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the climate through the greenhouse effect, but also leads to uptake of CO2 by the land and ocean sink, a negative feedback. However, the warming associated with a CO2 increase is also expected to suppress carbon uptake, a positive feedback. This study addresses the question: ‘under what circumstances could the climate-carbon cycle system become unstable?’ It uses both a reduced form model of the climate-carbon cycle system as well as the complex land model JULES, combined with linear stability theory, to show that: (i) the key destabilising loop involves the increase in soil respiration with temperature; (ii) the climate-carbon system can become unstable if either the climate sensitivity to CO2 or the sensitivity of soil respiration to temperature is large, and (iii) the climate-carbon system is stabilized by land and ocean carbon sinks that increase with atmospheric CO2, with CO2-fertilization of plant photosynthesis playing a key role. For central estimates of key parameters, the critical equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) that would lead to instability at current atmospheric CO2 lies between about 11 K (for large CO2 fertilization) and 6K (for no CO2 fertilization). The latter value is close to the highest ECS values amongst the latest Earth Systems Models. Contrary to a previous study that did not include an interactive ocean carbon cycle sink, we find that the stability of the climate-carbon system increases with atmospheric CO2, such that the glacial CO2 concentration of 190 ppmv would be unstable even for ECS greater than around 4.5 K in the absence of CO2 fertilization of land photosynthesis.
- Preprint
(5136 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(268 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3703', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Sep 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3703/egusphere-2025-3703-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-3703-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3703', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Sep 2025
General comments
This interesting manuscript describes a simple/conceptual model, and secondarily the intermediate-complexity JULES model, to explore in what circumstances carbon cycle instabilities can occur. The results are interesting—instability depends on ECS and CO2 fertilization—and the authors nicely document that the two models produce qualitatively similar results, although computational limits preclude a full comparison. The methods are generally clear and well written, and this is appropriate for EGUsphere and will be of interest to a wide audience.
There are some significant problems. First, there’s very little acknowledgement of previous research and similar studies—the discussion is particularly inadequate in this respect. Second, this is not a mathematical journal, and I think it would be worth defining many terms and methods more fully, i.e. clarifying the methods in many places. There are some structural problems. Finally, some aspects of the methods and study are unclear.
In summary, this is an interesting experiment that will be of wide interest, but the current ms needs major revisions to acknowledge previous literature; make it more appropriate for the journal’s readership; and improve the structure and flow of the text.
Specific comments
- Line 4: perhaps clearly define what you mean by “unstable”
- 11: a final sentence would be useful, laying out implications of this study
- Introduction: have no other papers explored this since Cox 2006?
- 69: “fitted to the outputs of more”
- 72: “II”?
- 132: What’s the total quantity of carbon in the simple model system, and at steady state how much is partitioned into atmosphere, land, and ocean? How does it compare to e.g. GCP2024 numbers?
- 157: this isn’t a specialist journal, so it seems important to define what a Hopf bifurcation is; same comment re “bifurcation diagram” in line 200 and “eigenvalues of the Jacobian” in line 208. Some readers will understand, many will not
- 222-250: belongs in the methods
- 262-274: this just restates previous material; remove or greatly condense
- The discussion is completely inadequate; in particular, I doubt that no one else has performed exercises like this in the last 20 years (see #3 above), and it’s important to compare and situate these results in the context of current scholarship. Currently there are almost no literature citations.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3703-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,113 | 52 | 11 | 1,176 | 25 | 26 | 23 |
- HTML: 1,113
- PDF: 52
- XML: 11
- Total: 1,176
- Supplement: 25
- BibTeX: 26
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1