Talk:Carbon cycle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What are the numbers on the carbon cycle picture? I cannot figure this out (I'm doing a school research project BTW). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- try the source of diagram but am still trying to make sense myself http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.html
-
- The black numbers are billions of tons of carbon stored in various reservoirs. The blue numbers are billions of tons of carbon that move from one place to another each year. Another easily accessible article on the carbon cycle is in the Feb. 2004 National Geographic. --Rick Sidwell 21:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] inorganic carbon cycle?
I believe a section on the inorganic cycle is needed as the atmosphere, ocean, sediments, and sedimentary rocks depend on this cycle. This cycle occurs on a much longer time scale as compared to the rapid organic carbon bio cycle mentioned in the article, and this scale is important to geologists such as myself.
- Go ahead I reckon. Although the time-scales are longer, it has obvious bearing on the extreme long-term fate of anthropogenic CO2, as well as its regulation across geological time. I'd suggest being careful when you add the text so that there's no confusion regarding processes and time-scales. From personal experience, it's easy to stuff up additions. :) Cheers, --Plumbago 11:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The graph seems to suggest the anthropogenic emissions of fossil-fuels are part of the natural carbon cycle. This however is misleading. Fossil carbon and biological carbon are distinct and though there is some interplay, fossil carbon by and large has a disrupting influence on the cycle which is one of the most fundamental concerns about climate change. Yes also theres the carbon climate prosses :-)
Is not that called the Long Term Carbon cycle?
[edit] Image
I love the image in this article, and think it is wonderfully helpful in understanding the subject, but wouldn't it be better at the top of the page, near the introduction? I know it's a large image, but still... ONUnicorn 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Carbon cycle re-balancing
There's a page on carbon cycle re-balancing that might be of interest to carbon cycle fans. I've suggested that it be deleted, but its creator and I would appreciate input from other parties. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Need page about geological carbon cycle
Wikipedia needs a separate page about the geological part of the carbon cycle because:
- The term "geological carbon cycle" is widely used.
- In at least one respect it's the most important part of the overall carbon cycle.
The geological carbon cycle consists of:
- Rain and weathering, which remove carbon (CO2) from the atmosphere and wash the carbon (as carbonates) down to the seabed.
- Subduction of the seabed and vulcanism, which pump CO2 into the atmosphere.
Subduction and vulcanism are powered by convection currents in the mantle and therefore by the heat of the earth's core. Eventually the core will cool and subduxction will cease. If no other factor has changed the earth's climate, rain and weathering will continue to remove CO2 but the proceeses which restore it to the atmosphere will cease. Photosynthetic orgnisms will become extinct, so all plants and animals (including humans) will become extinct.
No, this needs to be put in here, under Long Term Carbon Cycle. Here is a page describing same
http://www.carleton.edu/departments/geol/DaveSTELLA/Carbon/long_term_carbon.htm
80.7.195.184 21:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Total atmospheric CO2
I have also flagged this up on a page that references your figure of 810 e9 tonnes. My problem is that dividing this figure by the accepted (and easily verified) mass of the atmosphere of 5 e15 tonnes you get 162 ppm by mass of CO2 or 106ppmv of CO2 which is in contrast to the currently accepted figure of 380ppmv. Could you please explain the discrepancy? Colin Mill 09:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- The image in the article shows 750e9. Significant discrepancies are to be expected in this field. The discrepancy with 810e9 is less than your 300% ppmv difference. You did not explain your mass-to-volume calculation. Maybe you're using the volume of the atmosphere without compensating for decreasing density with altitude? (SEWilco 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC))
The total mass of the atmosphere can readily be calculated from sea-level pressure which is equal to the weight of gas overlying unit area (10 tonnes/sq.m) and the total area of the earth (5.1e14 sq.m). The following reference shows a number of sources that agree closely with this figure of 5 e15tonnes = 5 e18kg:-
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/LouiseLiu.shtml
The commonly quoted current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 380 ppm by volume (see:-http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm). Because CO2 is more dense than air (stp density of CO2= 1.977 kg m-2, stp density of air = 1.293) means that by weight this proportion becomes 380 x 1.977/1.273 = 590 ppm by weight (this is in reasonable agreement with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere). If you multiply the total mass of the atmosphere by this proportion you get a mass of CO2 in the atmosphere of 2,950 e9 tonnes. Colin Mill 22:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I found out that there is approximately .035% carbon in the atmoshere on a molar basis. -Universiy of Michigan
I calculated the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and got 2,730.8 Gigatons. I got the mass of the atmosphere from the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. I calculated the mass percent of carbon in the atmosphere and multiplied the two numbers.
I found out that 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide were produced during cement production in 1993. -Energy Information Administration
I found out that 100 million tons of carbon dioxide are emitted into the atmosphere each year from cement production. -Greenhouse Gas Online
Carbon dioxide emissions from cement production are estimated at 560 million tons per year. -Information Unit on Climate Change
Interesting facts:cement prodution is the third largest cause of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. While fossil combustion and deforestation produce a significantly larger amount of carbon dioxide, cement production accounts for 2.5% of total worldwide emissions from industrial sources. -Information Unit on Climate Change
Sam
Hi Sam - Many thanks indeed. I now see that the problem lies with the other web page:- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions) which has taken your figure for carbon in the atmosphere and used it as the figure for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which accounts for the near factor of 3 difference. OK I'll go to the discussion on that other page and flag their problem up. Colin Mill 11:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Did the other page violate WP:NOR or does it cite a source? Preferably a source which explains its calculation. (SEWilco 18:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
No, I think they simply misread the information in this article - I have subsequently found other sites where confusion between mass of carbon and mass of CO2 has occurred. Colin Mill 08:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is the current article on the carbon cycle in the ocean with some corrections I made in my environmental science class.
CARBON IN THE OCEANS
The sea contains around 38000 gigatons of carbon, mostly in the form of bicarbonate ion. Inorganic carbon, that is carbon compounds with no carbon-carbon or carbon-hydrogen bonds, is important in its reaction with water. This carbon exchange becomes important in controlling pH in the ocean and can also vary as a source or sink for carbon. Carbon is readily exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean in regions of oceanic upwelling, carbon is released to the atmosphere. Conversely, regions of downwelling transfer carbon (CO_2) from the atmosphere to the ocean. When CO_2
I found something differnt about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then Sam. I am also in the environmental science class and am working on the same project:
According to the "Center for Terrestial Ecosystem Carbon" (http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/ctec/Carbon/carboncycle.htm) there was around 578 Gigatones of CO2 in the 1700s. By 1999 there was around 766 Gigatones of CO2. It's estimated that the Gigatones of CO2 increase by 6.1 Gigatones per year.
Just thought I'd share. -Adam