the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Does the pace of carbon emissions matter in an atmospheric general circulation model?
Abstract. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changes our climate and its variability. It impacts all parts of nature and society. Consequently, there is an ongoing societal discussion about speeding up the transition to net-zero carbon emissions. The faster emissions are reduced, the less carbon dioxide will accumulate in the atmosphere where it largely remains influencing climate for hundreds of years. What has not yet been broadly studied, is the question whether the rate of the emissions themselves in addition to the resulting concentration has significant impact on climate and weather. To address this question, we run simulations with the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Atmospheric Model version 2 (GFDL-AM2), with different CO2 forcing rates. In order to investigate mainly the atmospheric role, the oceanic boundary condition is supplied by a slab ocean. We find that for the the same warming level (2 °C) but different warming rates (e.g. annual rates of 1 % CO2 increase compared to 4 %), the differences in the annual average temperature and precipitation and day-to-day variability patterns are of the same order of magnitude between different simulations with the same rate and between different simulations with different rates. Thus, we find that without a significant influence of ocean circulation changes, the fast mixing times within the atmosphere and thereby the lack of an atmospheric memory, inhibits a significant role of the rate of CO2 emissions for weather variability. This result is not unexpected, but needed confirmation. In summary, the atmospheric dynamics alone do not allow for an influence of the rate of carbon emissions on the annual average and day-to-day variability in temperature and precipitation.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Earth System Dynamics. The peer-review process was guided by an independent editor, and the authors have also no other competing interests to declare.
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.- Preprint
(6203 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(30528 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on esd-2024-40', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Jan 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2024-40/esd-2024-40-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Anja Katzenberger, 31 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on esd-2024-40', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 May 2025
This study compares temperature and precipitation changes at 2°C warming in atmosphere model simulations with a slab ocean in which CO2 increases at 1 %/yr and 4%/yr. The authors find no significant differences.
Whereas the title of the paper implied to me that the authors would perhaps compare simulations in an earth system model with different rates of CO2 emissions but the same cumulative emissions, this is not the case, and the authors rely on simulations with a model with specified CO2 concentration which does not simulate the response to emissions at all. Moreover the model has no dynamical ocean, and therefore does not realistically simulate the transient climate response to changing atmospheric forcing. Given that the atmosphere-land system responds to changes in forcing generally on a timescale of months or years at most, there is no reason to expect that its response should be different in the different simulations the authors carry out. To add a historical perspective, the model set-up is similar to that used by Manabe and Wetherald (1975), albeit with a newer version of the GFDL model. Manabe and Wetherald (1975) explain that their model is only able to simulate the equilibrium climate response to changes in CO2. Also, for example, the IPCC First and Second reports explain how an interactive ocean is necessary to simulate transient climate change.
While the authors acknowledge that the model they use is not able to realistically simulate the transient response to changing levels of CO2, they argue that the fact that the atmospheric response is not sensitive to the rate of increase in forcing requires confirmation (ln 13). The authors do not cite any references arguing that the atmosphere might exhibit such a sensitivity. Overall I disagree that this requires confirmation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2024-40-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Anja Katzenberger, 31 Aug 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on esd-2024-40', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Jan 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2024-40/esd-2024-40-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Anja Katzenberger, 31 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on esd-2024-40', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 May 2025
This study compares temperature and precipitation changes at 2°C warming in atmosphere model simulations with a slab ocean in which CO2 increases at 1 %/yr and 4%/yr. The authors find no significant differences.
Whereas the title of the paper implied to me that the authors would perhaps compare simulations in an earth system model with different rates of CO2 emissions but the same cumulative emissions, this is not the case, and the authors rely on simulations with a model with specified CO2 concentration which does not simulate the response to emissions at all. Moreover the model has no dynamical ocean, and therefore does not realistically simulate the transient climate response to changing atmospheric forcing. Given that the atmosphere-land system responds to changes in forcing generally on a timescale of months or years at most, there is no reason to expect that its response should be different in the different simulations the authors carry out. To add a historical perspective, the model set-up is similar to that used by Manabe and Wetherald (1975), albeit with a newer version of the GFDL model. Manabe and Wetherald (1975) explain that their model is only able to simulate the equilibrium climate response to changes in CO2. Also, for example, the IPCC First and Second reports explain how an interactive ocean is necessary to simulate transient climate change.
While the authors acknowledge that the model they use is not able to realistically simulate the transient response to changing levels of CO2, they argue that the fact that the atmospheric response is not sensitive to the rate of increase in forcing requires confirmation (ln 13). The authors do not cite any references arguing that the atmosphere might exhibit such a sensitivity. Overall I disagree that this requires confirmation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2024-40-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Anja Katzenberger, 31 Aug 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
351 | 62 | 25 | 438 | 93 | 29 | 56 |
- HTML: 351
- PDF: 62
- XML: 25
- Total: 438
- Supplement: 93
- BibTeX: 29
- EndNote: 56
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1