Talk:Carbon cycle

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Science 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please continue the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carbon_pool EMsmile (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now changed that redirect: carbon pool now redirects to carbon sink. EMsmile (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should [[carbon pool]] rather not redirect to here? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed section on Herbivore impacts 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed section on chemicals and pollution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further work needed on the lead 

message: 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?:
* Terrestrial carbon in the water cycle
* Terrestrial runoff to the ocean
* The ocean biological pump
* Fast and slow cycles
EMsmile (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Better structure needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  First sentence of "Terrestrial carbon in the water cycle" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Need clarification of following wordings in bold