Assessing Earth system responses in mitigation scenarios with activity-driven simulation of carbon dioxide removal

Assessing Earth system responses arising from carbon dioxide removal (CDR) requires developing and simulating pairs of scenarios – a mitigation scenario with deployment of CDR and a corresponding no-CDR baseline. The latter describes a world where no CDR is deployed, such that net carbon emissions are higher and a given temperature target may be missed. While over the past years a rich literature on mitigation scenarios with CDR has been emerging, no-CDR baselines have mostly been explored in stylized Earth system model (ESM) experiments. In such simulations, a no-CDR baseline simply assumes that CDR is “switched off”, while socio-economic constraints are not considered. However, the deployment of CDR in mitigation scenarios, created by integrated assessment models (IAMs), is embedded in a consistent socio-economic description of plausible futures, and disallowing CDR may affect climate drivers due to changes in the energy system and in land-use dynamics. Particularly, when moving towards an activity-driven representation of CDR in emission-driven ESMs, where the activity that draws down CO 2 from the atmosphere is explicitly modelled, the creation of no-CDR baselines comes with challenges and trade-offs. Here, we conceptualize a framework for emission-driven ESM simulations of IAM scenarios that allows us to determine carbon-cycle feedbacks and biogeophysical effects of CDR deployment using no-CDR baselines. We show that different options exist for the creation of no-CDR baselines, which offer different insights and have their specific advantages and limitations. We also demonstrate that internal variability of the climate system inherently limits our ability to detect the small signals related to CDR deployment and its feedbacks. Hence, unless a sufficiently large initial conditions ensemble is employed, stylized modelling approaches may remain preferable for some applications, e.g., the quantification of regional biogeophysical effects of CDR deployment. Both, the efficiency of CDR (defined as CO 2 removed per unit of resources employed) as well as related carbon-cycle feedbacks and biogeophysical effects are expected to be scenario- and model-dependent. Our simulation design of concentration- and emission-driven no-CDR baselines, together with an improved representation of CDR in the IAM – ESM modelling chain, opens an avenue towards estimating CDR efficiencies and their uncertainties under various future scenarios in upcoming model intercomparison activities.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Earth System Dynamics
Published
2026-09-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-1341-2026
Primary Topic
CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Assessing Earth system responses in mitigation scenarios with activity-driven simulation of carbon dioxide removal

Leon Merfort, Helene Muri, Matthew Gidden, Jörg Schwinger et al.
Earth System Dynamics
CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
article

Assessing Earth system responses in mitigation scenarios with activity-driven simulation of carbon dioxide removal

Leon Merfort, Helene Muri, Matthew Gidden, Jörg Schwinger, Étienne Tourigny, Timothée Bourgeois, Hanna Lee, Momme Butenschön, Lars Nieradzik, Shraddha Gupta, Yiannis Moustakis, Julia Pongratz, Nico Bauer, Daniele Peano, Raffaele Bernardello, Nadine Mengis, David Wårlind, P. Sauer
article en

Abstract

Assessing Earth system responses arising from carbon dioxide removal (CDR) requires developing and simulating pairs of scenarios – a mitigation scenario with deployment of CDR and a corresponding no-CDR baseline. The latter describes a world where no CDR is deployed, such that net carbon emissions are higher and a given temperature target may be missed. While over the past years a rich literature on mitigation scenarios with CDR has been emerging, no-CDR baselines have mostly been explored in stylized Earth system model (ESM) experiments. In such simulations, a no-CDR baseline simply assumes that CDR is “switched off”, while socio-economic constraints are not considered. However, the deployment of CDR in mitigation scenarios, created by integrated assessment models (IAMs), is embedded in a consistent socio-economic description of plausible futures, and disallowing CDR may affect climate drivers due to changes in the energy system and in land-use dynamics. Particularly, when moving towards an activity-driven representation of CDR in emission-driven ESMs, where the activity that draws down CO 2 from the atmosphere is explicitly modelled, the creation of no-CDR baselines comes with challenges and trade-offs. Here, we conceptualize a framework for emission-driven ESM simulations of IAM scenarios that allows us to determine carbon-cycle feedbacks and biogeophysical effects of CDR deployment using no-CDR baselines. We show that different options exist for the creation of no-CDR baselines, which offer different insights and have their specific advantages and limitations. We also demonstrate that internal variability of the climate system inherently limits our ability to detect the small signals related to CDR deployment and its feedbacks. Hence, unless a sufficiently large initial conditions ensemble is employed, stylized modelling approaches may remain preferable for some applications, e.g., the quantification of regional biogeophysical effects of CDR deployment. Both, the efficiency of CDR (defined as CO 2 removed per unit of resources employed) as well as related carbon-cycle feedbacks and biogeophysical effects are expected to be scenario- and model-dependent. Our simulation design of concentration- and emission-driven no-CDR baselines, together with an improved representation of CDR in the IAM – ESM modelling chain, opens an avenue towards estimating CDR efficiencies and their uncertainties under various future scenarios in upcoming model intercomparison activities.

Earth System DynamicsVol. 17(5)
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT), Lund University (SE), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO), Barcelona Supercomputing Center (ES), Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research (NO), Leibniz Association (DE), GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (DE), Kjeller Innovasjon (Norway) (NO), NORCE Research AS (NO), CMCC Foundation - Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (IT), Imperial College London (GB), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (DE), University of Maryland, College Park (US), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (ES)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.