Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1875
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1875
19 May 2026
 | 19 May 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).

Decomposition of the Zero Emissions Commitment into thermal warming pipeline and carbon buffering components

Benjamin M. Sanderson, Marit Sandstad, Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Stuart Jenkins, Charles Koven, Glen Peters, Roland Séfèrian, Andrew H. MacDougall, Ashwin Seshadri, Victor Brovkin, John Dunne, Abigail L. S. Swann, Torben Koenigk, Rosie A. Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris D. Jones, Hongmei Li, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Nadine Mengis, Anastasia Romanou, Lori T. Sentman, Chris Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn

Abstract. The Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC), the residual warming after anthropogenic CO2 emissions cease, remains poorly constrained and directly affects remaining carbon budget calculations. We fit a simple coupled carbon-climate model to ten Earth System Models (ESMs) in the flat10 Model Intercomparison Project. Near-zero multi-model mean ZEC can be decomposed into unrealised ocean warming contributing roughly +0.2 K at 50 years post-cessation, which is almost exactly offset by ~-0.2 K of cooling from atmospheric CO2 drawdown into land and ocean carbon sinks. Yet the thermal term carries more than twice the inter-model spread of the carbon term; as such, in the context of current ESMs, reducing ZEC uncertainty depends more strongly on equilibrium climate sensitivity and the slow ocean heat uptake timescale than on carbon-cycle parameters. Individual models split into a carbon-dominated majority (eight of ten, negative ZEC) and a thermal-dominated minority (positive ZEC), distinguished primarily by their realised warming fraction and equilibrium climate sensitivity. The simple model yields a compact analytical formula for ZEC in terms of component climate and carbon-cycle parameters, reproducing ESM-simulated values to within ~0.03 K (less than 5% of the ~0.6 K inter-model spread). The decomposition also reveals that the carbon cycle buffers ZEC against uncertainty in committed warming to an existing energetic imbalance: recent downward revisions of the realised warming fraction (the ratio of transient to equilibrium warming) imply substantially more committed warming at fixed atmospheric composition, yet this additional heat is strongly attenuated before it appears in ZEC. A reduction of 10 per cent in the realised warming fraction would increase the radiatively committed warming by ~0.5 K at cessation, but this shifts the 50-year ZEC by only ~0.05 K. This allows potential for process-level constraints on climate and carbon-cycle components on ZEC to narrow carbon budgets. Out-of-sample testing on the flat10-cdr experiment shows that CO2 predictions diverge from ESMs within ~50 years of the emission trajectory departing from the training rate, so the framework does not extend to full climate reversibility under sustained negative emissions. Structural limitations, including under-sampled land biosphere diversity across ESMs, may further emerge at higher warming levels or on multi-centennial timescales.

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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Marit Sandstad, Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Stuart Jenkins, Charles Koven, Glen Peters, Roland Séfèrian, Andrew H. MacDougall, Ashwin Seshadri, Victor Brovkin, John Dunne, Abigail L. S. Swann, Torben Koenigk, Rosie A. Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris D. Jones, Hongmei Li, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Nadine Mengis, Anastasia Romanou, Lori T. Sentman, Chris Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn

Status: open (until 30 Jun 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Marit Sandstad, Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Stuart Jenkins, Charles Koven, Glen Peters, Roland Séfèrian, Andrew H. MacDougall, Ashwin Seshadri, Victor Brovkin, John Dunne, Abigail L. S. Swann, Torben Koenigk, Rosie A. Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris D. Jones, Hongmei Li, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Nadine Mengis, Anastasia Romanou, Lori T. Sentman, Chris Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn

Data sets

Global Mean flat10 data Ben Sanderson et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15267556

Benjamin M. Sanderson, Marit Sandstad, Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Stuart Jenkins, Charles Koven, Glen Peters, Roland Séfèrian, Andrew H. MacDougall, Ashwin Seshadri, Victor Brovkin, John Dunne, Abigail L. S. Swann, Torben Koenigk, Rosie A. Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris D. Jones, Hongmei Li, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Nadine Mengis, Anastasia Romanou, Lori T. Sentman, Chris Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 19 May 2026
Download
Short summary
When humanity stops emitting carbon dioxide, will temperatures keep rising, stabilize, or fall? Our study reveals in most models, temperatures remain nearly stable, but this hides a balance between the warming in response to radiation imbalance, and the cooling due to uptake of carbon in the land and ocean. Understanding this balance helps refine how much more CO2 we can safely emit.
Share