Talk:Carbon flux

NPOV: If it's roughtly in balance, why is there such a fuss about increasing levels of carbon in the atmosphere? Kappa 20:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, good question. You don't suppose all those socialists and environmentalists are being dishonest, do you? Might they have an ulterior motive? Such as redistributing wealth by force? --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 13:51, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Lets see, if your logic holds, then atmospheric concentrations of CO2 should not be increasing. They are. The evidence is clear that more CO2 is being released into the atmosphere than is being sequesterd by plants. There is no consipiracy of the environmentalists. There is irrefutable evidence. Luckymonkey 23:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the pseudo-controversy, put in links to the Global Climate Change data on WIKI --Luckymonkey 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Luckymonkey[reply]

The article does not look correct in too many aspects. First, who is using this awkward and unconventional definition of a flux as a difference of fluxes? Reference please, we need to know our heroes.

Second, the statement that "Annual net carbon flux has been grossly calculated to be close to zero" is a plain nonsense, no matter who suggested this. Inspection of ice core data (CO2) shows that atmospheric CO2 did fluctuate in time, CO2 concentration was _always_ changing. It obviously implies that the "annual net carbon flux" was never a zero, otherwise the atmospheric CO2 would not fluctuate up and down so drastically as ice records show.

Third, the information about magmatic source of CO2 looks disconnected from other sources. More, the text uses odd unconventional units of CO2 flux - more conventional units are "gigatons of C per year", so people could compare this flux with ocean and land outgassing and uptakes.

I think the article must be completely re-written. Alexei123 08:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)alexei123[reply]

Agreed that this needs to be rewritten, but not by someone with a political axe to grind. There are qualified scientists who can do this. Let me see if I can interest one in this project Zyzzy2 02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)zyzzy2[reply]
- Where are the "qualified scientists"? No takers? The article says: "Atmospheric concentrations ... are currently higher than any time in the previous 400,000 years [3]." It is not a fact that the gas composition extracted from mechanically cushed ice samples exactly resembles the composition of prehistoric atmosphere: there are so many steps from the 2000-4000 years long process of gas occlusion, through hundreds of thousands of years of gradual pressurizing and clathrate formation with unknown solid-state chemistry, to abrupt extraction of the ice cores with rapid depressurizing, to storing those ice samples in open air for many months before conducting the actual gas analysis. There is no experimental confirmation nor detailed analysis that the absolute level of CO2 concentrations was preserved, only a wishful assumption that it is so, therefore the cited sentence is still an open hypothesis.Alexei123 04:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC) ==[reply]

Replace with redirect

This article started out as a POV fork. The subject is well covered at Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere#Concentration, and it should just be redirected there. Sagredo^Discussione? 18:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with article about ecosystem carbon flux

This title (Carbon Flux) really shouldn't redirect to the earth's CO2 concentration page. It should just be about carbon flux of ecosystems and that article should then point to the current redirect page when mentioning global carbon flux. Paultramarine (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]