the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantifying the Near-term Response of the Ocean CO2 Sink to Emissions Mitigation
Abstract. The ocean plays a critical role in sequestering carbon, yet how the air-sea carbon sink will respond to rapid reductions in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations remains a key uncertainty for climate mitigation and carbon accounting. In this study, we utilize the ECCO-Darwin ocean biogeochemistry model to simulate the ocean’s response to a range of near-term CO2 mitigation scenarios. Our results demonstrate an immediate but spatially heterogeneous weakening of the ocean carbon sink following reduced atmospheric forcing. Global air-sea carbon uptake decreases substantially within the first several years of mitigation, with the magnitude of the reduction scaling with the strength of the mitigation scenario. We find that the mitigation signal is primarily confined to the upper-500 m, reflecting dominant decadal-scale ventilation pathways. The most pronounced reductions in uptake occur in subtropical thermocline regions, western boundary currents, and the subpolar North Atlantic — regions characterized by intense ventilation and rapid air-sea equilibration. These findings align with recent CMIP-based long-term projections and observation-based inversions, confirming that the areas currently dominating anthropogenic carbon uptake are also the most sensitive to atmospheric forcing changes. Our results suggest that observational efforts to track mitigation impacts should be prioritized in these high-latitude and boundary current systems, where signals emerge earliest and most strongly. Ultimately, this study underscores the rapid sensitivity of the ocean carbon sink to changes in atmospheric forcing and highlights the necessity of sustained, strategically-placed observations to detect and attribute changes in the global carbon budget under future climate strategies.
- Preprint
(3644 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2314 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2870', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Jul 2026
-
RC2: 'Reviewer comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Aug 2026
The manuscript tests the effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 on oceanic carbon uptake using a model, while keeping other parameters such as circulation, temperature, and sea ice identical. The broad conclusions are physically sensible: lower atmospheric CO₂ reduces the air–sea gradient, uptake declines rapidly, and the resulting DIC anomaly is redistributed along upper-ocean ventilation pathways. I suggest some revisions to improve clarity.
The manuscript should explicitly define “mitigation”, as this word can be misleading. As implemented here, mitigation is not an emissions intervention but a prescribed atmospheric CO₂ concentration trajectory. The model does not simulate emissions, policy actions, carbon-dioxide removal, enhanced marine productivity, or the coupled feedback of altered ocean uptake on atmospheric CO₂. This distinction is essential because different mitigation strategies could produce different ocean responses. Please define the term consistently in the abstract, introduction, and methods and consider modifying the title to describe the imposed concentration forcing accurately.
Please show the biological DIC-budget terms rather than asserting that biological differences are negligible. Enhanced biological consumption and export could lower surface-ocean pCO2, partially restore the air–sea gradient, and modify the inferred response.
Some language incorrectly implies that circulation changes between runs. Physics is identical, so mitigation does not alter circulation in this experiment. Advection-budget differences arise because the same velocity field transports different DIC distributions. Statements about “the dynamic response of ocean circulation” (line 112) should instead refer to tracer redistribution by fixed circulation.
High-latitude and boundary-current systems show the largest modeled responses, but their strong natural variability and sparse observations may obscure the mitigation signal. Because the study does not perform a signal-to-noise or time-of-emergence analysis, it cannot conclude that these signals would be detected earliest in the real ocean.
Explain exactly how the atmospheric CO₂ scenarios were constructed. The backward shifting of SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6 concentration trajectories is insufficiently documented. Please provide the transformation, original and shifted years, treatment of the January 2000 transition, and complete atmospheric CO₂ time series. Clarify whether the scenarios represent lower concentrations, lower growth rates, or actual concentration declines. This information is necessary for reproducibility and interpretation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2870-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', A.R. Fay, 02 Sep 2026
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', A.R. Fay, 02 Sep 2026
-
RC2: 'Reviewer comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Aug 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 85 | 40 | 17 | 142 | 7 | 11 | 14 |
- HTML: 85
- PDF: 40
- XML: 17
- Total: 142
- Supplement: 7
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
See attached file