The Potential Impact of Nuclear Conflict on Ocean Acidification

Lovenduski, Nicole S.; Harrison, Cheryl S.; Olivarez, Holly; Bardeen, Charles G.; Toon, B.; Coupe, Joshua; Robock, Alan; Rohr, Tyler; Stevenson, Samantha

doi:10.1029/2019gl086246

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, these are now identified as additional sources of uncertainty in decadal predictions and long‐term projections (Lovenduski et al, 2019; McKinley et al, 2017). The timescales on which additional human interventions in the climate system, such as solar radiation management or nuclear conflict, would mimic these externally forced changes and modify the ocean carbon sink should be considered (Lauvset et al, 2017; Lovenduski et al, 2020). Finally, since the changing growth rate of pCO 2 atmosphere is the primary driver of recent variability in the ocean carbon sink, the ocean sink should be expected to slow as reductions in the pCO 2 atmosphere growth rate occur in response to climate change mitigation efforts (Peters et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

External Forcing Explains Recent Decadal Variability of the Ocean Carbon Sink

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ocean has absorbed the equivalent of 39% of industrial-age fossil carbon emissions, significantly modulating the growth rate of atmospheric CO 2 and its associated impacts on climate. Despite the importance of the ocean carbon sink to climate, our understanding of the causes of its interannual-to-decadal variability remains limited. This hinders our ability to attribute its past behavior and project its future. A key period of interest is the 1990s, when the ocean carbon sink did not grow as expected. Previous explanations of this behavior have focused on variability internal to the ocean or associated with coupled atmosphere/ocean modes. Here, we use an idealized upper ocean box model to illustrate that two external forcings are sufficient to explain the pattern and magnitude of sink variability since the mid-1980s. First, the global-scale reduction in the decadal-average ocean carbon sink in the 1990s is attributable to the slowed growth rate of atmospheric pCO 2. The acceleration of atmospheric pCO 2 growth after 2001 drove recovery of the sink. Second, the global sea surface temperature response to the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo explains the timing of the global sink within the 1990s. These results are consistent with previous experiments using ocean hindcast models with variable atmospheric pCO 2 and with and without climate variability. The fact that variability in the growth rate of atmospheric pCO 2 directly imprints on the ocean sink implies that there will be an immediate reduction in ocean carbon uptake as atmospheric pCO 2 responds to cuts in anthropogenic emissions. Plain Language Summary Humans have added 440 Pg of fossil fuel carbon to the atmosphere since 1750, driving up the atmospheric CO 2 concentration. But not all of this carbon remains in the atmosphere. The ocean has absorbed 39%, substantially mitigating anthropogenic climate change. Though this "ocean carbon sink" is a critical climate process, our understanding of its mechanisms remains limited. Of great interest is the unexplained slowdown of the ocean carbon sink in the 1990s and a subsequent recovery. In this work, we use a simple globally-averaged model to show that two processes external to the ocean are sufficient to explain the slowing of the ocean carbon sink in the 1990s. First, a reduced rate of accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere after 1989 reduced the atmosphere-ocean gradient that drives the ocean sink. Second, the eruption of Mt Pinatubo led to changes in ocean temperature that modified the timing of the sink from 1991 to 2001. We illustrate that the most important control on the decade-averaged magnitude of the ocean sink is variability in the growth rate of atmospheric CO 2. This implies that as future fossil fuel emission cuts drive reduced growth of atmospheric CO 2 , the ocean sink will immediately slow down.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

External Forcing Explains Recent Decadal Variability of the Ocean Carbon Sink

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also emphasize that neither BOATS nor CESM resolves the potential impacts of nuclear-war–driven changes in ocean acidification (as described in ref. 38 ) on marine organisms. Work is currently underway to simulate the response of coccolithophores to acidification in CESM ( 79 ); future studies will explore this idea further.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While fishing pressure has a major impact on fish populations and their ability to reproduce, the production of fish biomass also depends on environmental characteristics, most importantly net primary production (NPP) and water temperature ( 36 , 37 ). Since a nuclear war is expected to cause global cooling and decrease oceanic NPP ( 3 , 15 , 38 ), it is likely to have a significant impact on global fish catch. However, it is unknown how these global-scale shifts in NPP and temperature could combine to affect marine ecosystems and marine food productivity, and whether these effects would worsen or mitigate the predicted losses in agricultural food production.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine wild-capture fisheries after nuclear war

Scherrer

Harrison

Heneghan

et al. 2020

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nuclear war, beyond its devastating direct impacts, is expected to cause global climatic perturbations through injections of soot into the upper atmosphere. Reduced temperature and sunlight could drive unprecedented reductions in agricultural production, endangering global food security. However, the effects of nuclear war on marine wild-capture fisheries, which significantly contribute to the global animal protein and micronutrient supply, remain unexplored. We simulate the climatic effects of six war scenarios on fish biomass and catch globally, using a state-of-the-art Earth system model and global process-based fisheries model. We also simulate how either rapidly increased fish demand (driven by food shortages) or decreased ability to fish (due to infrastructure disruptions), would affect global catches, and test the benefits of strong prewar fisheries management. We find a decade-long negative climatic impact that intensifies with soot emissions, with global biomass and catch falling by up to 18 ± 3% and 29 ± 7% after a US–Russia war under business-as-usual fishing—similar in magnitude to the end-of-century declines under unmitigated global warming. When war occurs in an overfished state, increasing demand increases short-term (1 to 2 y) catch by at most ∼30% followed by precipitous declines of up to ∼70%, thus offsetting only a minor fraction of agricultural losses. However, effective prewar management that rebuilds fish biomass could ensure a short-term catch buffer large enough to replace ∼43 ± 35% of today’s global animal protein production. This buffering function in the event of a global food emergency adds to the many previously known economic and ecological benefits of effective and precautionary fisheries management.

show abstract

“…Recent findings indicate that various nuclear war scenarios could induce an El Niño-like pattern of unprecedented magnitude across the Pacific, with associated reductions in equatorial Pacific phytoplankton productivity of about 40% [ 15 ]. Researchers recently identified large and abrupt exacerbations in global ocean acidification as consequences of nuclear conflict including potential inability for marine calcifying organisms like shellfish and corals to maintain their shells or skeletons in a corrosive environment [ 16 ].…”

Section: Current Evidence On the Consequences Of Nuclear Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ending nuclear weapons before they end us: current challenges and paths to avoiding a public health catastrophe

Ruff

2022

J Public Health Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)—an important planetary health good—entered into legal force in January 2021. Evidence of the consequences of nuclear war, particularly the global climatic and nutritional effects of the abrupt ice age conditions from even a relatively small regional nuclear war, indicates that these are more severe than previously thought. None of the nine nuclear-armed states is disarming; instead, all invest enormously in new and more hazardous nuclear weapons. Nor has any of the 32 states claiming reliance on another state's nuclear weapons yet ended such reliance. These factors, abrogation of existing nuclear arms control agreements, policies of first nuclear use and war fighting, growing armed conflicts worldwide, and increasing use of information and cyberwarfare, exacerbate dangers of nuclear war. Evidence-based advocacy by health professionals on the planetary health imperative to eliminate nuclear weapons has never been more urgent.

show abstract

The Potential Impact of Nuclear Conflict on Ocean Acidification

Cited by 10 publications

References 59 publications

External Forcing Explains Recent Decadal Variability of the Ocean Carbon Sink

External Forcing Explains Recent Decadal Variability of the Ocean Carbon Sink

Marine wild-capture fisheries after nuclear war

Ending nuclear weapons before they end us: current challenges and paths to avoiding a public health catastrophe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About