Articles | Volume 13, issue 3
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Effect of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation on atmospheric pCO2 variations
- Final revised paper (published on 04 Jul 2022)
- Preprint (discussion started on 08 Jul 2021)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
RC1: 'Review of esd-2021-42', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Aug 2021
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Amber Boot, 27 Oct 2021
RC2: 'Comment on esd-2021-42', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Sep 2021
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Amber Boot, 27 Oct 2021
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (13 Nov 2021) by Kirsten Zickfeld
AR by Amber Boot on behalf of the Authors (07 Dec 2021)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (09 Dec 2021) by Kirsten Zickfeld
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (30 Dec 2021)
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (05 Jan 2022)
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (02 Feb 2022) by Kirsten Zickfeld
AR by Amber Boot on behalf of the Authors (23 Mar 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (10 Apr 2022) by Kirsten Zickfeld
AR by Amber Boot on behalf of the Authors (20 Apr 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (05 May 2022) by Kirsten Zickfeld
AR by Amber Boot on behalf of the Authors (15 May 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (02 Jun 2022) by Kirsten Zickfeld
Boot et al assess the impact on pCO2 of a few oceanic feedbacks using a simple box model. A few parametrizations are added to the box model to represent missing feedbacks (change in temperature due to change in pCO2, changes in biological production as a function of changes in circulation and biological efficiency, rain ratio, and river input). Parameters values are assessed following the AUTO software program. It is suggested that internal pCO2 oscillations can arise due to these feedbacks when the AMOC is ~15Sv. In principle, such an exploration of parameter space is useful. In addition, since the implemented feedbacks are usually included in more complex models, this set up could help highlight the impact on pCO2 of these feedbacks. However, I find the paper hard to follow and more importantly I have some concerns with some of the assumptions taken to define the feedbacks in the internal oscillation scheme.
The study scans a large range of parameters yielding pCO2 values of 70-300 ppm, but without really trying to assess physical plausability. For example, in Figure 4, multipliers 0.1-10 are included in the parametrizations, but without much justification. What can the authors deduce from their results? What are the probable ranges?
The discussion needs to put the results back in context and discuss them in light of previous experiments. In the Introduction, the authors cite previous studies that simulated the impact of AMOC changes on the carbon cycle with Earth system models (in which most of the feedbacks explored were included). Can your results help understand better these previous simulations?
L. 41: I am not sure that “not well understood” is appropriate, since a lot of studies have highlighted the impact of AMOC on pCO2 and the reverse as highlighted in the 2 following paragraphs. It is however a complex interaction.
L 272: Please amend: “Fig. 4a, b is yellow..”
L. 295: What is the meaning of “we continue in the piston velocity”?