Search

The marine biological carbon pump (BCP) stores carbon in the ocean interior, isolating it from exchange with the atmosphere and thereby coregulating atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). As the BCP commonly is equated with the flux of organic material to the ocean interior, termed "export flux," a change in export flux is perceived to directly impact atmospheric CO 2 , and thus climate. Here, we recap how this perception contrasts with current understanding of the BCP, emphasizing the lack of a direct relationship between global export flux and atmospheric CO 2 . We argue for the use of the storage of carbon of biological origin in the ocean interior as a diagnostic that directly relates to atmospheric CO 2 , as a way forward to quantify the changes in the BCP in a changing climate. The diagnostic is conveniently applicable to both climate model data and increasingly available observational data. It can explain a seemingly paradoxical response under anthropogenic climate change: Despite a decrease in export flux, the BCP intensifies due to a longer reemergence time of biogenically stored carbon back to the ocean surface and thereby provides a negative feedback to increasing atmospheric CO 2 . This feedback is notably small compared with anthropogenic CO 2 emissions and other carbon-climate feedbacks. In this Opinion paper, we advocate for a comprehensive view of the BCP's impact on atmospheric CO 2 , providing a prerequisite for assessing the effectiveness of marine CO 2 removal approaches that target marine biology., (© 2024 The Authors. Global Change Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This document is a response to concerns raised by Reershemius and Suhrhoff regarding a study conducted by Kantola et al. The authors of the response acknowledge that Reershemius and Suhrhoff did not find any faults with the derivation in the paper, which they state are factually true. They also mention that Reershemius and Suhrhoff arrived at a similar result in their own unpublished work. The response addresses specific implementation details raised by Reershemius and Suhrhoff and argues that these concerns lack merit. The authors appreciate the constructive engagement and transparency of data. [Extracted from the article]