“…Previous studies have examined climate responses to atmospheric CO 2 removal in terms of reversibility and hysteresis based on CO 2 ramp‐up and ‐down experiments by using climate models (An et al., 2002, 2021; Boucher et al., 2012; Bouttes et al., 2013; Garbe et al., 2020; Jackson et al., 2014; Jeltsch‐Thömmes et al., 2020; Kug et al., 2021; Long et al., 2020; Oh et al., 2022; Sgubin et al., 2015; Song et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2011, 2015). While some components have shown irreversible or clear hysteresis behaviors, such as thermosteric sea level (Boucher et al., 2012; Bouttes et al., 2013; Long et al., 2020), the Antarctic ice sheet (Garbe et al., 2020), the Intertropical Convergence Zone (Kug et al., 2021), and Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) (An et al., 2021; Jackson et al., 2014; Sgubin et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2011), the global mean surface air temperature (GSAT), a representative metric to measure the extent of global warming, has exhibited a roughly linear response, although it also exhibits a delayed cooling response to atmospheric CO 2 reduction (Boucher et al., 2012; Jeltsch‐Thömmes et al., 2020; Kug et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2015). Although delayed cooling or temperature hysteresis is a robust response in most climate models, how fast our climate will recover after carbon neutrality and carbon removal is quite uncertain and differs among climate models (Boucher et al., 2012; Jeltsch‐Thömmes et al., 2020; Kug et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2015).…”