B011-10
Asymmetry in the climate-carbon cycle response to positive and negative CO2 emissions

Monday, 7 December 2020: 16:36
Virtual
Kirsten Zickfeld1, Deven Azevedo1, Sabine Mathesius2 and Damon Matthews3, (1)Simon Fraser University, Geography, Burnaby, BC, Canada, (2)Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada, (3)Concordia University, Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Montreal, QC, Canada
Abstract:
The majority of emissions scenarios that limit warming to 2°C, and nearly all emission scenarios that do not exceed 1.5°C warming by the year 2100 require negative emissions. Negative emission technologies (NETs) in these scenarios are required to offset emissions from sectors that are difficult or costly to decarbonize and to generate global ‘net negative’ emissions, allowing to compensate for earlier emissions and to meet temperature targets after overshoot. It is commonly assumed that the carbon cycle and climate response to a negative CO2 emission is equal in magnitude and opposite in sign to the response to an equivalent positive CO2 emission, i.e. that the climate-carbon cycle response is symmetric. This assumption, however, has not been tested for a range of emissions. Here we explore the symmetry in the climate-carbon cycle response by forcing an Earth system model with positive and negative CO2 emission pulses of varying magnitude and applied from different climate states. Our results suggest that an emission of CO2 into the atmosphere is more effective at raising atmospheric CO2 than a CO2 removal is at lowering atmospheric CO2, indicating that the carbon cycle response is asymmetric, particularly for emissions/removals > 100 GtC. The surface air temperature response, on the other hand, is largely symmetric. Our findings suggest that the emission and subsequent removal of a given amount of CO2 would not result in the same atmospheric CO2 concentration as if the emission were avoided. Furthermore, our results imply using simple models used to estimate negative emission requirements may result in underestimating the amount of negative emissions needed to attain a given CO2 concentration target.