Talk:Carbon cycle/Archive 1

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)

I wish to pose a question for which I have seen no data either in encyclopedic form or chemical journals. How much carbon dioxide is dissolved and in solution in sea water at typical oceanic depths? It is well know that the solubility of carbon dioxide increases with increasing pressure, my question is really about how much is dissolved in the oceans. I have seen no nomographs or any explanatory notes. It is true indeed that there is some circulation between the depths of the oceans and surface waters but it is quite slow and the tendency for increased solubility with increasing applied pressure holds true for all systems, dynamic or otherwise. I have seen no data at all for the amount of carbon dioxide at the average depths of the oceans which are in excess of 1.5 km. Has this been measured? It would seem easy enough to take a "grab sample" seal it and bring it to the surface for analysis.Petitjean1 (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)petitjean1

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?

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)

The image would be more accurate if it included a volcano as these are massive emitters of CO2 SmokeyTheCat 13:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No they're not 85.211.137.174 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

How in the world can you claim that they are not massive emitters!? Please cite a credible on-line reference that clarifies your assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poptop43 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

This isn't right, sorry. The primary source of CO2 in the atmosphere is from volcanoes. Yes, CO2 is removed to the sea by weathering, but it would just reach equilibrium with dissolved CO2 without some means to convert the CO2 into rock. This is nearly always done through life, through formation of CaCO3. Venus gives us an idea of what would happen to Earth without this process. Venus was probably very similar to Earth originally, but either life never evolved there, or wasn't able to set up the right feedback cycles to keep the planet's atmosphere in equilibrium. We have enough CO2 here to lead to a similar runaway greenhouse effect and it is mainly formation of limestone by life that prevents it. Good reference here http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/~mdmccar/ocea213/readings/02_C_cycle_Long_T/Berner_1999_GSAToday_A_new_look_Long_Term_C_cycle.pdf Robert Walker (talk)

Sorry, realised that the second part of what I say there is wrong, the CO2 can be removed even without life by formation of limestone from the calcium dissolved in the sea by action of HCO2 on silicate rock. The first part is right though, so long as we have continental drift any CO2 removed in that way just goes into the mantle via subduction and then eventually over geological time comes up again from the volcanoes so it doesn't get rid of it permanently. You can't get rid of it permanently so long as we have continental drift - as I understand it anyway, Robert Walker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

Wash the carbon as carbonates or BICARBONATES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.150.252 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a section about the geological carbon cycle. It was clearly lacking, mentioned in the table near the head of the article, but with nothing at all about it later in the page.Robert Walker (talk)

Someone just removed the second para. where I said that without the greenhouse effect Earth would be as hot nearly as Venus. I can see why as the way it was expressed was indeed too speculative in nature for the context here. So have put in a new version that explains it better, describing directly how it works instead of talking about "what would happen if the geological cycle stopped working".

This is textbook stuff, and needs to be said, however I'm no expert on geology, someone more experienced should review this and improve this section. If you are a geologist please in the spirit of Wikipedia "Be bold" and dive in and edit it further :) Robert Walker (talk)

When something is clearly lacking like this then you don't need to be an expert on the subject to add it in as a "stub" as I did. But it's good to add a few citations to the published work on the subject as otherwise it can be easy for other editors to think it is of no substance and delete it with just a remark in the history log - as happened with part of my contribution here the other day (now fixed by rephrasing it and adding a citation). In a situation like my second para. here the other day, they should add a request for citations or for expansion, or rephrasing and clarification, rather than just delete it. But if they don't know the subject that well, it can be hard to distinguish contributions without references from the many completely unsupported additions to the wiki so it's good to add some citations to make it easier for those who patrol for the addition of nonsense and speculation to wikipedia.Robert Walker (talk)

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)

Try this: convert mass of atmosphere into moles (at 78% N2, 21% O2, 1% other [example argon]), that is 5e+15 tonnes made of gas at 0.78*28 g/mole + 0.21*32 g/mole + 0.01*40 g/mole = 1.73e+20 moles gas in atmosphere. 750 Gt carbon = (750e+9 tonnes * 1e+6 grams/tonne / 12 g/mole C) = 6.25e+16 moles C in atmosphere. Molar concentration = volume concentration in a gas; 6.25e+16/1.73e+20 = 0.000362 = 362 ppm @ 750 Gt. Recalculate for assumed 810 Gt C in atmosphere -> = 391 ppm. Where I think you got in trouble before was that you were calculating mass C/mass atmosphere, not mass CO2/mass atmosphere and not volume CO2/volume atmosphere (correct approach for "ppmv"). Cheers, T. MacKenzie PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.202.153.0 (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2012 (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

The amount of CO2 absorbed during the curing of concrete seems to have been neglected in this article unless the figures quoted are net values. CO2 absorbtion occurs when cement is used to make concrete. Absorption occurs rapidly during the cystalisation phase of the curing process, but also for some time afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.95.38 (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I'd double check those figures. The article appears to have been written by students, not peer reviewed, and appears to have a ProAGW slant. It also erroneously states that limestone does not play a role in the overall carbon cycle of the planet, which it clearly does at geologic timescales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.109.58.5 (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a more technical and but accurate diagram at http://science.hq.nasa.gov/oceans/images/global_flows_carbon.gif with better figures: should we use this as well given comments about bad (i.e. old (i.e. circa 2004)) figures in the current diagram? Mattjs 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It just dawned upon me also that it might be possible to do a block diagram like this without out using a jpeg but using Wiki functionality etc and therefore be able easily and readily update the figures (and use Gt rather than Pg...) ... ??? Mattjs 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• No let's stick with the one we have. Although supposedly less accurate it is of much more use to the average user. It contains more detail (eg about the influence of marine biotia), and it is much easier to see what is going on. It helps the understanding of the subject much more than the other diagram Mike Young 15:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, the carbon cycle picture is seriously misleading. For example, it gives an impression that carbon exchange between oceans and atmosphere happens in the same place, geographically, which thus easily justifies a simple subtraction of fluxes and getting a simple difference. In fact, equatorial areas outgas CO2, which then splits somehow between NH and SH, gets transported polarwise, and only then gets sinked back in some isolated areas. The picture clearly needs a correction.Alexei123 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen Notes and References in an article before - shouldn't these be merged together into one References section? 220.240.58.190 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are confusing and my new Ref turned up in the Notes section and the Notes are actually labeled References? 220.240.58.190 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for an informative and timely page! However, It states that "Over-fishing will reduce the amount of Marine Biota in the sea and thus decrease the amount of Carbon taken out of the atmosphere by sea creatures and thus be a direct cause of increased atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels, and consquent global warming" Wouldn't this only be true for autotrophic fish species? (I now know what autotrophic means, because I just read your article!) Wouldn't the kelp wrapper on your sushi be a bigger ecological threat from this point of view than the tuna inside it? Overfishing may be an economic concern, but why does it matter, from an environmental point of view, whether fish are eaten by sharks or starving children? But I'm just kibbitzing, and will leave it to someone else to change it if necessary.

BTW, just how many GtC/yr get taken out of circulation by "sinkers". Is this about equal to the 4 GtC/yr that is passed from marine biota to the deep ocean, or to the 0.2 that makes it to the bottom as sediment? Thanks! HuMcCulloch 18:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds very dubious. I'd take it out unless its sourced William M. Connolley 19:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It was sourced, as it happens, but to an article/essay that self-describes (see it's opening abstract) as a minority viewpoint. The essay contained no scientific support that I could determine (although it does have some cool diagrams!). There's also a whiff of "personal research" about it. The comparison of overfishing to AIDS, for instance, seems a bit of a stretch. Anyway, the upshot is that I judged the source to be unreliable, and so removed the point from the article. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write this about the over-fishing, but common sense tells me it should be true. If the shark eats the fish, he will grow bigger, breath out some of the carbon and will excrete the rest, which will liberate some nutrient in the water, which will grow the phytoplankton at the base of the food chain capturing carbon. When it dies, it will decompose or be eaten by scavengers, which will do the same. If we fish it and bring it to shore, it will grow a human on land, he will breath out some of the carbon and poop the rest in some toilets. These effluents are sent to a treatment system which in most case will unfix the nitrogen, so the base to capture carbon again will be reduced. I don't have a citation for this, but it certainly is there somewhere, but if that's wrong, please explain. Thanks. ThLB (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

In the section titled "In the atmosphere" under the subheading "Carbon can be released back into the atmosphere in many different ways" one of the points is "At the surface of the oceans where the water becomes warmer, dissolved carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere."

Isn't it actually where the water becomes COLDER that CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. My understanding of the chemistry is that warmer water can dissolve more CO2. Am I mistaken? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.211.242 (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You are in fact mistaken. Gas solubility in liquids increases as temperature goes down. You may be confused because it is the opposite for solids dissolved in liquids; that is, solid solubility in liquids increases as temperature goes up. 24.211.245.220 (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I too believe in the our part in global warming this cannot be given as pure fact, the minimum would be to cite it. as a reference from the article about greenhouse effect:

 "Anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a recent warming of the Earth's lower atmosphere as evidenced by the global mean temperature anomaly trend,[11] is believed to be the result of an "enhanced greenhouse effect" mainly due to human-produced increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere[12] and changes in the use of land.[13]"

And the citation from this article 

 "Other gases containing carbon in the atmosphere are methane and chlorofluorocarbons (the latter is entirely anthropogenic). The overall atmospheric concentration of these greenhouse gases has been increasing in recent decades, contributing to global warming."

If there is a reason to state this as fact, the article on greenhouse effect should be changed, at least for the sake of consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.11.57 (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The figures in the carbon budget page are a mess, and there's a denialist site in the references from which most of those figures are coming from. Someone please check it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelveraleon (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an oceanographer (though not a carbon cycle specialist), I would say that page should be deleted. As it is now, it's just incoherent babbling. There are some true factoids, but it doesn't really say anything. There's no such thing as THE carbon budget -- there's carbon budgets of the oceans, the biosphere, of stellar interiors, etc. 128.160.199.100 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

this shit suck

Yes, that was my reaction too. I put a db-g1 tag on it just now, it is just as you say: incoherent babbling along with a list of factoids a few of which contain numbers that could be completed to true sentences. The author has no talk page so can't be reached that way. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile I put a merge-to-this-article tag on carbon budget instead (deletion is wrong given that some people do use the term "carbon budget," more or less synonymously with "carbon cycle.") Intended upshot is to replace the text in carbon budget with a redirect to carbon cycle. Thanks to decltype (talk) for recommending this way of dealing with the article. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The deep ocean storage in the figure is shown as 38.100 GtC. Should that be 38,100 GtC instead? It seem peculiar to have 3 significant digits to the right of the decimal point and the quantity seems too small. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Per the carbon-cycle diagram in the articel (which is from GISS/NASA) and presumably reliable), 38.1 GtC is correct. We don't need the extra 00's though.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

For many years, there have been questions regarding CO2's role in the atmosphere: does increasing CO2 lead directly to global temp increases, or do warmer temperatures increase CO2 emissions from (eg) the oceans? As is well-known, the Antarctic ice-cores show paleo-temp increases leading CO2 increases by (ims) around 400 years, but the current scientific consensus is that CO2 content is the Earth-surface's thermometer.

Prof. Murray Salby , the Chair of Climate at Macquarie University has a new paper in press that argues that "emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. " Abstract. While it's premature for here (until the paper is actually published and digested), there's an interesting discussion in progress at Judith Curry's, with Curry commenting that "If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science," and other readers noting this has been simmering under the radar for awhile now. Happy reading -- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

New research will magically appear as each of the carbon scaremongering predictions fail to come true. Of course currently all the grants and funding is to promote AGW as fact, so that's the angle the scientists (who need to eat and feed their kids) are playing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.65.13 (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wait until next year, when the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report comes out. All the grant and funding courtesans will be coming out of the woodwork. There was another piece of recent news where a researcher makes the claim that holes in the Ozone Layer are the root cause of Global Warming. 10stone5 (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Prof. Murray Salby , the Chair of Climate: Error 404: Page Not Found William M. Connolley (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• New research in published this week's Nature Geoscience details a mechanism by which carbon is drawn down from the surface of the Southern Ocean to deeper water below. (France 24) (Phys.org)

from Portal:Current events/2012 July 29 99.181.140.183 (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

See Sallée, J. B.; Matear, R. J.; Rintoul, S. R.; Lenton, A. (2012). "Localized subduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the Southern Hemisphere oceans". Nature Geoscience. 5 (8): 579. Bibcode:2012NatGe...5..579S. doi:10.1038/ngeo1523. 99.181.137.23 (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In Main components -> atmosphere it says "Carbon dioxide leaves the atmosphere through plant respiration, thus entering the terrestrial and oceanic biospheres." Shouldn't this be photosynthesis not respiration?

I think you're right. Fixed William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The image gives CO2 drawdown by land plants as 120 GtC/yr plus an additional 3 GtC attributable to humans. My understanding was that the effect of humans was to decrease drawdown, namely by deforestation. So shouldn't it be 120 − 3 rather than 120 + 3?

Furthermore this table at the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, titled "Annual Net Flux of Carbon to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Change," estimates the amount at around half of this, 1.5 GtC/yr (2nd column) these days, slightly down from its peak of 1.7 in 1991. Where is the source supporting twice that amount? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A little bit of history would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.149.46 (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This article says: Because carbon uptake in the terrestrial biosphere is dependent on biotic factors, it follows a diurnal and seasonal cycle. In CO2 measurements, this cycle is often called a Keeling curve[citation needed]. It is strongest in the northern hemisphere, because this hemisphere has more land mass than the southern hemisphere and thus more room for ecosystems to absorb and emit carbon.

• Well, the problem is that oceans have much more room for ecosystems to absorb and emit carbon than continents do. Thus, it is very likely that the southern hemisphere consumes and produces more carbon dioxide and oxygen than the northern one.
• And another common problem with many articles related (such as greenhouse effect and others) is that both vegetals and animals need CO₂ just for living: beeing vegetals much more abundant than animals they need much more CO₂ for living than animals do. This is the reason why since the first vegetals appeared on Earth, oxygen has steadly increased and CO₂ has been very scarce. --Fev 05:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fev (talk • contribs)

IF Interested => NASA-TV/ustream and/or NASA-Audio (Thursday, November 12, 2015@12noon/et/usa)^[1] - NASA will detail the Role of Carbon on the Future Climate of the Earth - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• BRIEF Followup - REPLAY LINK (Audio; 66:01)^[2][3] => http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/77531778 - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• SUMMARY (and possible addition to article) (see below) - Comments Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

NASA scientists report that human-made carbon dioxide (CO₂) continues to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years: currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.^[2][3][4][5]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carbon cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/jan02/feature_carbon.htmlStoring
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/~mdmccar/ocea213/readings/02_C_cycle_Long_T/Berner_1999_GSAToday_A_new_look_Long_Term_C_cycle.pdfA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040602163557/http://www.carboncyclescience.gov:80/ to http://www.carboncyclescience.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This section doesn't seem well cited. The link to the Biodiversity loss page doesn't explicitly discuss human influences through human generated carbon in the biosphere. Additional citation is needed to really justify this statement. In addition the statement, "More directly, it often leads to the release of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems into the atmosphere." Should have a direct citation as well.

This section also doesn't seem well balanced, the rest of the Human influence section is much more concise and to the point while the portion on the effects of biodiversity loss seems close to opinion and is written a bit too persuasively. A more more direct rewrite may be needed to maintain an impartial perspective. - Filloa (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The section on human effects on the oceanic carbon cycle is also poorly cited. Reading through the NASA citations at the end of the section is seems that they cover a wide range of the missing citations, but just having a block citation at the end of the section is not sufficient. Additional citations would also strengthen the section. -Filloa (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The statement in the section of human influence could be strengthed by adding more data and covering more current ways of accounting carbon emission. Auddz (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There also appears to be a fact stated at the end of the first paragraph with no citation to support this data. This could be reinforced with an updated citation. Payne266 (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Is plant respiration comprised of only burning and rotting of plant? If not what other processes are involved? Paploof (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Carbon budget links here. However, both terms are only loosely connected. I had just tried to restore and extend the old article, which is not a redirect. My edit was reverted though, requiring a consensus. Is there a consensus? I would argue that carbon budget is about the total amount of CO2 equivalent emissions the world can afford to remain under, e.g., 2 degrees. Recent research assumes that 900 GtCe remain, which is about 20 years (given that 41 GtCe are emitted annually). Carbon cycle is about the processes described in this article. I cannot see why the former should just be a redirect to the latter, given the fundamental differences between these two concepts. Wouldn't you all agree? I don't know the old discussions, but it seems to me that carbon budget as a concept was not that established several years ago, when it was turned into a redirect. But given the importance of the concept in recent debates it is difficult to argue why this would just be a redirect. 80.71.142.166 (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The article was merged in 2013 after being tagged for merger since 2010 (the discussion is archived here). It wasn't done properly – I have only just added the tags documenting it. It seems that nothing from the article was carried over during the merger; there were concerns about the quality. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

To the extent there is a discussion of carbon budgets in this article, it's in the figures. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Although there are, of course relations between "carbon cycle" and "carbon budget", these topics should still not be confused or even merged in just one article. I would suggest to restore the old Carbon budget article and to develop it. It needs to cover the current academic discussions about this budget. 80.71.142.166 (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Emissions budget covers the topic you're describing, and even mentions "carbon budget" as a synonym. I think Carbon budget should be redirected there instead of here. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and made that change. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The figure at the top of the article claims that annual drawdown of atmospheric carbon attributable to photosynthesis has increased by 3 gigatonnes above its preindustrial level of 120 GtC. That's huge: it's three-quarters of the annual accumulation of CO2, namely 4 GtC. (These are the numbers shown in red in the figure.)

The article however says that land use changes have decreased drawdown by photosynthesis.

So how accurate is the +3 GtC drawdown increase in the figure? Is drawdown by photosynthesis increasing or decreasing? And if increasing, how do we know? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Good questions but they run the risk of turning this thread into a general WP:FORUM discussion, which we don't do here. if you click the image thumbnail the image info page will open. There you will find the reference on which this image is based. The reference is this one. Read that, and the various things it cites at the end in its own reference section. When you're done, consider adding your new underestanding to our article if there are places for improvement! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, there is a new article called Deep carbon cycling, which appears to be a direct copy of the existing text in THIS article's "Deep Carbon Cycle" section. Was there a discussion to spin-out that section into a new article? This is not my area of expertise but I find that new article to be unnecessary. It was also created as part of a college project. All comments are welcome. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, good catch. Yeah that seems unnecessary to me too and is concerning that they just copied and pasted over to new article, which was scored for a university class. Jayzlimno (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The instructor reviews in the other article are very useful for this article though Jayzlimno (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote the deep carbon cycle subpage and then received a recommendation to make it a separate wiki page. I would probably write a couple sentences and provide a link to the deep carbon cycle page instead of having the text be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjilrm (talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Support new article To be clear.... @Benjilrm: is the primary author at both places. Any attribution issues - if any do exist at all - are for relatively small additions. Thanks Benjilrm for working on it! I agree we should write about deep carbon cycling here in WP:SUMMARY style and cross link the sub page on the specific topic. Well done. It's less clear whether modifications to the text appeared here and were copied to the new article without attribution. That would technically fail to comply with our article-to-article copying rules for attribution, but it is a complicated and way down in the weeds and I woudn't worry about it, personally. We do need to seriously shrink the section here to 3 sentences at most. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I recommended the split in an email exchange the instructor because it seemed to unbalance this article. I could have explained the sequence of events to split out a daughter article a little better. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

All good news from everyone. Based on this discussion, I also recommend a brief summary of the topic here, with a note to the interested reader that full coverage is found at the new article. Having almost the exact same text in both places in unnecessary and confusing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Global carbon budget is now a redirect to this page. If I type in "global carbon budget" in Google, this seems to be a correct redirect. However, the term carbon budget (without global) is used quite differently as the amount of greenhouse gases we can still emit for a certain temperature goal. This is now covered under the article name emissions budget, but the term carbon budget is more common for this concept. From the perspective of editors here, do you think renaming emissions budget to carbon budget might lead to confusion? See the discussion at Talk:Emissions budget#Rename to carbon budget? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nature.com writes "The data could mean that the world’s landmasses are taking up 7% more carbon, and the ocean 7% less, than scientists had thought."^[1] and in the paper conclusion: "While this adjustment is within the uncertainties on these terms in the global carbon budget, it would nonetheless be an important correction."^[2]--LS (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I think not. This paper seems to report the existence of questions for more study. See FAQ 21 at Talk:Global warming/FAQ. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chidgk1, Epipelagic, Bikesrcool, and Femkemilene: With the recent improvements to the article and the lead, I am thinking this article would be a good one to nominate for the the climate translation project. However, I feel like the natural systems part of the lead is not sufficiently surveying the different parts of the science to balance out the second part which focuses on the human changes. Sadads (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The first line shouldn't include difficult words like pedosphere. NASA's introduction is significantly better: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle. It makes a distinction between the fast and the slow carbon cycle, which is maybe the addition we need to give more info about the natural system part. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

For the first sentence how about: The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the world's living things, soil, rocks, water, and air. — unsigned comment by Chidgk1 (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Optimal lead paragraphs for articles like these can be a challenge. If we are trying to keep things simple then "The carbon cycle is a biogeochemical cycle..." is not necessarily an optimal start. Wikipedia should keep things simple where possible, without dumbing things. The terms experts use should be there, but there can be soft entries into the use of technical terms. Their initial use can be accompanied with clear indications of what the terms mean, and/or the provision of alternative, more populist terms that are simpler to use (though maybe less precise). Getting a balance can be tricky. As a discussion point, the first lead sentence might be something like: The carbon cycle is the manner by which carbon is exchanged between living things, soils, rocks, water and air (the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere). — Epipelagic (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Femke Nijsse's comments and the distinction between the fast and slow carbon cycles. A translation would be a little premature right now, since the article itself, as well as the lead, also lacks appropriate acknowledgement of the role of the marine biological pump. This pump is responsible for much of long term carbon sequestration. The article on the pump itself also needs expanding, which I am currently working on. In the interim, I've added a section on the topic, but it is only preliminary and will need reworking. — Epipelagic (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sadads, you said above the science needs "to balance out the second part which focuses on the human changes". That suggests you think half the article should focus on human changes. I think, since this is the main article on the carbon cycle, it should focus on the science. There can be a separate article called something like "Human impact on the carbon cycle" – it is an important topic in its own right. But I see the main article on the carbon cycle as divided into five roughly equal parts: atmospheric, terrestrial, oceanic, geological and historical. The historical section would summarise the movement of carbon from the birth of the planet to the present, with perhaps half its content devoted to the anthropocene. — Epipelagic (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Epipelagic: I was more suggesting that we should have at least two well referenced paragraphs of the science framing, and wouldn't object to trimming down the human impacts part of the lead into something a bit more manageable -- I like it as it is now, but it feels a bit voluminous compared to the content in the article.Sadads (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)