Talk:Carbon cycle

Wiki Education assignment: Biogeochemical Processes
— Assignment last updated by TheViruses8 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Science
Would it be relevant to mention the work of Joseph van't Hof and Svante Arrhenius (19th century) and the early predictions of global warming?

A lady scientist (Boston, USA) also provided proof of Global Warming in the early 1930's or so. She did the expt at home and provided clear proof. Since this hasn't been published, it does not go for wikipedia, right? Odenwald Monkey (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If any of these are supported by WP:Reliable sources (which you should read), then they can be added to the article, but only with references pointing to those sources. Unsourced material is subject to removal by any editor at any time. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also note that this may not be the most appropriate article to add this information to. Climate change might be better, depending on the nature of the material you have found. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Should carbon pool rather not redirect to here?
Carbon pool currently redirects to carbon cycle. I wonder if it should rather redirect to carbon sink? The term carbon pool only appears twice in its current redirect target of carbon cycle. I've also asked at the talk page of carbon pool. Or alternatively, the term carbon pool should be explained in this article. EMsmile (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please continue the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carbon_pool EMsmile (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now changed that redirect: carbon pool now redirects to carbon sink. EMsmile (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed section on Herbivore impacts
I am removing this section which was added by a student last year. I don't think this fits in a high level article on the carbon cycle. EMsmile (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Herbivore impacts: Increased herbivore populations can alter the amount of carbon dioxide produced from a ecosystem, overall impacting the carbon cycle. Large mobile herbivores have the ability to alter both the above and below ground composition of a ecosystem, through selective feeding, trampling, and waste, all of which decrease plant production. Selectively feeding on high quality plants decreases the aboveground plant composition, on the other hand trampling results in soil compaction resulting in higher soil bulk density and less soil oxygen. The amount of carbon dioxide released back into the atmosphere is increased due to large herbivores waste. The impact large herbivores have on the ecosystem suggest their importance to the carbon cycle, as with the help of natural disturbances, increased herbivore populations can shift a carbon sink to a source. The boreal forest is a prime example of how increased herbivore populations can negatively impact a ecosystem. Increased herbivore populations significant negative impact on the ecosystem, suggests that they can even be identified as a invasive species. EMsmile (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed Further reading
I've removed this further reading list as I don't think that it adds value: EMsmile (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (Article about the missing carbon sink.)

Removed section on chemicals and pollution
I've removed section on chemicals and pollution because I don't think this belongs here. It's about Human impact on marine life and about marine pollution - we have other articles for that. It doesn't really alter the fundamental carbon cycle but is just about pollution. EMsmile (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Man-made chemicals: Smaller amounts of man-made petrochemicals, containing fossil carbon, can have unexpected and outsized effects on the biological carbon cycle. This occurs in part because they have been purposely created by humans to decompose slowly, which enables their unnatural persistence and buildup throughout the biosphere. In many cases their pathways through the broader carbon cycle are also not yet well-characterized or understood.

Plastics:

Close to 400 million tons of plastic were manufactured globally during year 2018 with annual growth rates approaching 10%, and over 6 gigatons produced in total since 1950. Plastics eventually undergo fragmentation as a typical first step in their decay, and this enables their widespread distribution by air and water currents. Animals easily internalize microplastics and nanoplastics through ingestion and inhalation, accompanied by risks of bioaccumulation. Biodegradable plastics placed into landfills generate methane and carbon dioxide which cycles through the atmosphere unless captured. A major review of the scientific evidence as of year 2019 did not identify major consequences for human society at current levels, but does foresee substantial risks emerging within the next century. A 2019 study indicated that degradation of plastics through sun exposure, releases both carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Bioplastics with a more natural and rapid carbon cycle have been developed as an alternative to other petroleum-based single-use plastics. EMsmile (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Further work needed on the lead
The lead is currently quite short (only around 200 words) with about half being about the natural cycle and the other half about climate change. I think this balance is a bit off. I suggest the length of the lead should be about doubled, and then about three quarters should explain what the natural carbon cycle is and then one quarter talk about climate change. There were some previous discussions about this as well, see talk page archive here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carbon_cycle/Archive_1#Improve_lead_for_translation?. EMsmile (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Better structure needed
I think we should improve the structure a bit. I like the existing section headings called "main components" and "human influence on carbon cycle". But there are these four main headings which are unclear to me. Can they be grouped under a suitable new main heading like "Interactions with other cycles" or "Related systems" or "Types" or anything like that?: EMsmile (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Terrestrial carbon in the water cycle
 * Terrestrial runoff to the ocean
 * The ocean biological pump
 * Fast and slow cycles


 * Yes, I agree. The first three of the four sections you mention above are focused on processes and interactions involved in the fast carbon cycle. The section in the article called  "Deep carbon cycle", which immediately follows the ones you mention above, is focused on processes and interactions involved in the slow carbon cycle. These five sections altogether could be reorganised under two main headings, "Fast carbon cycle" and "Slow carbon cycle". — Epipelagic (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, could you please make those changes accordingly? Is this distinction into fast and slow well accepted or are there other ways of categorising this as well? Would it help if we have a new section called "Types" or "Sub-cycles" to explain this? Also, should this section heading be modified: "Main components", i.e. is it main components of fast or slow or both? And the section on human influence: does it then refer to the fast or slow cycle or to both? Sorry if these questions are a bit daft; think of me as a typical clue-less reader of this Wikipedia article. :-) (does something equivalent also apply to the water cycle?). EMsmile (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The section "main components" might be better titled "main compartments", as they are referred to in biogeochemical cycle. This section is focussed on the physical parts of the earth where the cycling takes place, and is a more like a static map of where different things happen. The following sections involving the fast and slow cycles are more focussed on the dynamics of what is happening, the mechanics of the processes and interactions involved. The section "human influence on carbon cycle" is more concerned with the fast cycle, since we are naturally more worried by what happens over the next hundred years than the next million years. But finding ways to move carbon into the slow cycle might well be a solution we are looking for. — Epipelagic (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this made it a lot clearer for me. I've now made some changes to the section headings accordingly, can you please check if you agree with how I have changed it (or improve/correct what I've done)? Thanks a lot. EMsmile (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The terms "fast carbon cycle" and "slow carbon cycle" are helpful as descriptive terms when it comes to organising the layout of this article, but I'm not sure they should be highlighted in the article so much. The terms are used in the academic literature, but not so widely as to justify this much use in the article. I added more sources and (later) will tone down the emphasis in the article. — Epipelagic (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this clarification, Epipelagic. That's very useful. Are you happy with the way these terms are used and explained in the article now or would you prefer to see further changes? What about the article and its structure overall, is it OK like this now or does it have specific weaknesses? EMsmile (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

First sentence of "Terrestrial carbon in the water cycle" section
I don't understand why this section "Terrestrial carbon in the water cycle" starts with this sentence: "In the diagram on the right:". What is it trying to say? Is it trying to say "The terrestrial carbon in the water cycle includes:"? EMsmile (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now changed it to: "The movement of terrestrial carbon in the water cycle is shown in the diagram on the right and explained below" EMsmile (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Need clarification of following wordings in bold
1."Halocarbons are less prolific compounds developed for diverse uses throughout industry; for example as solvents and refrigerants. Nevertheless, the buildup of relatively small concentrations (parts per trillion) of chlorofluorocarbon, hydrofluorocarbon, and perfluorocarbon gases in the atmosphere is responsible for about 10% of the total direct radiative forcing from all long-lived greenhouse gases (year 2019); which includes forcing from the much larger concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane.", 2.Ocean, including dissolved inorganic carbon and living and non-living marine biota. Can anybody help? Thanks.ThomasYehYeh (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I also don't understand this. I guess it's related to radiative forcing, perhaps that article explains it? If not, you could try to ask on the talk page of WikiProject climate change. EMsmile (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)