. Carbon and the biosphere; proceedings of the 24th Brookhaven symposium in biology, Upton, , May 16-18, 1972. Carbon cycle (Biogeochemistry). ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND RADIOCARBON: II 101 Q < D < co CO — Nmo/Nao = 12 n o 2 3 4 C02 INCREASE (1959 TO 1969), % preindustrial atmosphere Fig. 5 Adjustment of the six-reservoir model to predict a given Suess effect relative to standard Su4g, or a given C02 increase in the atmosphere between 1959 and 1969. One curve was obtained by varying the deep-ocean to surface-layer transfer time, r^m; the other curve was obtai
. Carbon and the biosphere; proceedings of the 24th Brookhaven symposium in biology, Upton, , May 16-18, 1972. Carbon cycle (Biogeochemistry). ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND RADIOCARBON: II 101 Q < D < co CO — Nmo/Nao = 12 n o 2 3 4 C02 INCREASE (1959 TO 1969), % preindustrial atmosphere Fig. 5 Adjustment of the six-reservoir model to predict a given Suess effect relative to standard Su4g, or a given C02 increase in the atmosphere between 1959 and 1969. One curve was obtained by varying the deep-ocean to surface-layer transfer time, r^m; the other curve was obtained by varying Nmo/Nao, the ratio of preindustrial carbon in the ocean surface layer to that in the atmosphere. If not varied, T^m was 1500 years and Nmo/Nao was 2. The atmosphere—ocean transfer time, ram, was 6 years, and the biota was held to a constant size (/3 = 0). conditions), compared with ( in 1954) obtained from recent data. Indeed, to predict the observed Su48 exactly requires Nm0/Na0 less than 2 or Tjm greater than 1500, in total disregard for the shorter circulation time of the intermediate water relative to deep water. Thus our attempt to reconcile the model predictions with both the observed Suess effect and the recent atmospheric C02 increase results in conflicting demands. The former suggests a surface layer that is too small; the latter suggests one that is too large. The only means the model affords to reconcile the second discrepancy is to assume an increase in carbon stored in the land biota. We are aware that many biologists believe the land biota to be static or shrinking because of the destruction of forests and humus. The land biota is, nevertheless, a very complex system; a few percent increase could not be directly observed. The most important consequences of postulating a positive biota growth factor can be deduced from Fig. 6 and Table 2. The curves, obtained by. Please note that these images are extracted from scanned page images that
Size: 1566px × 1595px
Photo credit: © Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookcollectionbiodiversity, bookleafnumber111
