Global warming and the carbon cycle

Weeks 12
The inuence of human activity on the Earths climate has become an
issue of major concern, involving not just science but also politics,
economics and international relations. In this project, you will look at a
key scientic aspect of this issue the accumulation of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere before adopting the role of one of three types of specialist
in the subject. You will then work with fellow students to prepare and
write a scientic report.
During the rst two weeks of the project you will get a taste of all three
specialist areas. You will then discuss your ndings and results with the
rest of your team in your rst online meeting. During the meeting, and
based on your experiences over these rst two weeks, you will decide who
in your team takes which role: the carbon specialists, the laboratory
specialists and the modelling specialists.
At the end of the eight-week project period, each member of the team will
contribute a report about your project. A suggested list of sections for this
report is shown at the end of this document. Each team member will write
their own abstract, introduction and general background and conclusions.
The body of the report is to be written together by your team as a
document shared by the whole team.
In the sections of this guide that follow, you will cover some important
background knowledge about global warming and the carbon cycle. You
may have come across some of this material before in your studies but it is
re-presented here in the context of this team project. If you choose to be
the carbon specialist in your project team then you will delve much deeper
into the science behind global warming and the carbon cycle over the
coming weeks than if you become the laboratory or modelling specialist.
Global warming refers to the increasing temperature of the Earths
atmosphere. This issue is likely to remain a major issue for the foreseeable
future. Understanding this topic is far from easy the Earths climate is
extremely complicated. Furthermore, if a persons only exposure to the
science of global warming has been through the general media (news
stories, etc.) then it may be dicult for them to get a view of what is
really going on.

You may have come across this

background to global warming
in S104.

Arguments about whether the Earths atmosphere-ocean system really is or

is not warming up, and the causes of any eect, are now on many political
and economic agendas. Some groups deny the existence of global warming,
or at least any relationship with human activity on the planet, while other
groups are accused of scaremongering. There is no doubt that global
warming has become a fascinating topic regardless of the science behind it.

Rumours of catastrophe

1 Rumours of catastrophe
Sections 1 and 2 are adapted
from S104. We will be building
on these topics over the next
8 weeks during your project.

No doubt you have seen newspaper or magazine articles, web pages,

television programmes or news reports about the issues surrounding global
warming. Understandably, many of these stories focus on the potential
eects of a rise in the Earths temperature. Figure 1 shows a few such
headlines which could give you the impression that the world is facing
some sort of global catastrophe.

Figure 1 Cuttings from newspaper stories focusing on some of the

extreme consequences of global warming.
The overall concept of higher temperatures caused by global warming, and
the idea that global warming could have many uncomfortable
consequences, is already embedded in popular culture. Indeed, whenever
an unusual weather event occurs, people wonder whether it is a
consequence of global warming: be it a particularly powerful storm, or a
large number of hurricanes in one particular year, or a headline such as
hottest July on record.
However, care must be taken not to jump to conclusions. For those living
on the plains of the Midwest, tornados are not uncommon. Whereas most
UK residents would be extremely surprised to see a tornado coming their
way. In fact, very small tornados are not uncommon in the UK. Usually
they are weak and relatively benign; few will do any damage to buildings
for example. However, if you wait long enough, the more powerful
extreme event will happen, just as if you roll ve dice repeatedly for long
enough, eventually you will get ve sixes.
2

A balance of energy ows

Nevertheless, some unusual weather events may well be linked to an overall
global eect. The point is that it is hard to untangle the extreme event
from the overall slow, gradual underlying changes. To get to the bottom of
long-term changes usually means looking at the average behaviour over
long periods of time.

2 A balance of energy ows

The Earth is warmed mainly externally by the Sun. There is also a steady
internal contribution from radioactive elements, such as uranium, which
have been part of the Earth since its formation. The radioactive decay of
these elements is accompanied by the release of energy, warming the Earth
slightly, but this contribution is small compared to that of the Sun, and
stays practically constant over thousands of years.
The Sun emits electromagnetic radiation, some of which is incident on the
Earth. The Earth directly reects some of this radiation and absorbs the
rest. The Earth also emits radiation by virtue of being warm. The mean
temperature of the Earth is largely determined by the balance of these
energy ows. There are many possible inuences that can aect the
balance including: the output of the Sun, the shape of the Earths orbit,
the angle of the Earths tilt, the reective nature of the Earths surface,
and so on. Some of these factors have inuenced the Earths climate in the
past, leading to ice ages with global average temperatures that were 5 C
colder than today, and to warm periods that were 10 C hotter than today.

Figure 2 The Sun is our

major source of heat.

The Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) depends on the rate at

which the Earths surface gains energy, and the rate at which it loses
energy.
The Sun is the ultimate source of most of the energy arriving at the
Earths surface. The next largest is the energy that ows out from the
interior of the Earth, but that rate of energy ow is 2 000 times less than
the rate at which the surface receives solar energy. From now on the heat
from the interior will be neglected. The Earths surface loses energy by
various means. For now they will be grouped together to give one overall
rate of energy loss, as shown in the highly simplied model in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Rates of energy gain and loss by the whole of the Earths
surface, represented by arrows to and from the Earths surface.
The downward-pointing arrow in Figure 3 represents the rate at which the
whole of the Earths surface gains energy, and the upward-pointing arrow
that originates at the Earths surface represents the rate at which the
whole of the Earths surface loses energy. If the rates were equal then the
GMST would be constant. If the rates were not equal, the GMST would
change.

A balance of energy ows

If the rate of energy loss exceeded the rate of energy gain, what would
happen to the GMST?
In fact, the rates are not exactly equal every second and, through the day
and the year, there are moments when the gain slightly exceeds the loss,
and other moments when the loss slightly exceeds the gain. However, over
a period of a few years, the gains and losses balance out. This is why,
when the GMST is averaged over a few years, the average is very nearly
the same as over the previous few, or the following few, years.
To explore the relationship between the GMST and the rates of energy
gain and loss in more detail, it helps to begin by examining a simple
analogy that shares the key features of the system illustrated in Figure 3.
This analogy will help you understand how the system works in this sense,
you are constructing a model of the real system.

2.1 Models in science

Insight into the behaviour of complex natural systems can often be
obtained by constructing a model. In this context, a model is just a
simplied description of something in the real world. Scientic models aid
understanding by focusing only on some important aspects of the system.
For example, Figure 4a shows an aerial image of the Walton Hall area in
Milton Keynes, UK home to The Open Universitys main campus. If you
wanted to direct someone to a particular oce, you might draw a simple
sketch as in Figure 4b. The sketch is more usable than a photograph, and
gives the person trying to nd the oce enough information to do so.
However, Figure 4b is not much like reality it is a model of the real
situation. The important components of reality (the roads, the
roundabouts, where to turn left and right and where to park) are
represented in the model, and that is all that is needed.

Figure 4 (a) An aerial photograph of The Open University main campus

at Milton Keynes. (b) A simple sketch showing directions, which
represents a model of reality.
Looking back at Figure 3, you should now realise that this treatment of
the balance of energy gains and losses is itself a model of the real world
system. The entire Earths surface is being represented as a single
component, with a single gain and loss. Clearly, this is not like reality, but
4

A balance of energy ows

it is a model of reality that represents the main components in an
understandable way. Models that link a familiar, simple situation with a
more complicated phenomenon often aid our understanding. For example,
the motion of a simple pendulum illustrates the concept of periodicity
that can be also observed in the tides; reservoirs of water, pumps and
pipework provide a conceptual model of electric circuits; snooker provides
a macroscopic model for collisions between subatomic particles.

2.2 Modelling the behaviour of the GMST using a

leaky tank analogy
The aim here is to model the behaviour of the Earths GMST, i.e. develop
a simple description of how the GMST relies on the rates of transfer of
energy to and from the Earths surface. To do this, it is useful to consider
an analogy of the way energy transfers to and from the Earths surface.
The analogy we will use is a leaky tank into which water is pouring.
Figure 5 shows a tank of water with a tap feeding water in at a steady rate,
and a vertical slot cut in the side of the tank, letting water out. The rate
at which water is fed into the tank represents the rate of energy gain by
the Earths surface; the rate at which water leaks out of the slot represents
the rate of energy loss from the Earths surface. The level of water in the
tank represents the GMST: the higher the level, the higher the GMST.
In the leaky tank shown in Figure 5, the rate at which water ows out of
the slot depends on how much water is in the tank at a given moment.
The greater the depth of water in the tank, the greater the rate of water
loss from the slot.

A balance of energy ows

Figure 5 The leaky tank. (a) Initially the tank is empty, and the water is
owing in at a certain steady rate. The water level rises until the leak rate
equals the rate of input, whereupon the level becomes steady. (b) The
input rate is increased, and the water rises to a new steady level that is
higher. (c) The input rate is decreased, and the water falls to a new
steady level that is lower.
Figure 5a shows a sequence that starts with the tank empty, and the water
owing in at a steady rate. Initially, the leak rate is less than the rate of
input, so the water level rises. As the water level rises, there is a greater
length of slot to let the water out, so the leak rate increases, and it
continues to increase until the leak rate equals the rate of water input. At
this point, the water level stops rising, and it stays at the level it has
reached.
The water level is now in a steady state, i.e. it is not changing. Of course,
water is pouring into and out of the tank, so this is a dynamic steady state
rather than a static steady state. The crucial condition for the dynamic
steady state is that the input and output rates are equal. This equality of
rates can be expressed as:
input rate = output rate

(1)

The graph in Figure 6a shows how the water level in the tank changes with
time for the scenario in Figure 5a. You can see that in the rst 10 seconds
after the tap is turned on, the water level rises from zero to about 17 mm.
In the time interval 10 to 20 seconds after the tap is turned on, it rises
from 17 to about 30 mm, i.e. a further 13 mm in the next 10 seconds.

A balance of energy ows

Figure 6 showing how the water level rises with time for scenarios (a),
(b) and (c) in Figure 5.

How many millimetres does the water level rise in the time interval 20
to 30 seconds after the tap is turned on?
Thus, as the water level rises, the rate at which the level changes decreases
(i.e. the rate of change in level slows down ). In the graph this is
apparent from how the curve bends over. You can see that, ultimately, the
curve attens out and stays at the same water level the steady-state level.
At this constant level, the leak rate equals the rate of input.
Figure 5a starts with the analogy of a cold Earth (the empty tank) and the
Sun having just been turned on (the tap). The Earths surface gains solar
energy (the water) and so the GMST (the water level) rises. As it does so
(and this is a crucial point) the rate of energy loss from the Earths surface
increases. This must be happening in reality since if it did not the Earth
would never reach a steady mean temperature.
So, using the leaky tank as an analogy for the way energy transfers to and
from the Earths surface, a model has been developed for the behaviour of
the Earths GMST and how it relates to the energy gains and losses of the
surface. That is, given a consistent rate of energy supplied to the Earths
surface, a steady state will develop where the GMST remains at a constant
value. However, if the rate of energy supplied to the Earths surface
changes, a new steady state will develop, characterised by a dierent
GMST value.

A balance of energy ows

So by modelling the behaviour of the system in this way, you have gained
an insight to why the Earth has remained at (approximately) the same
temperature for a huge period of time (it has been in a steady state). The
slight variations in GMST that have occurred in the past are a result of
slightly dierent steady states being reached after changes in the rates of
gain and loss of energy to the surface.
The leaky tank itself can be modelled with mathematics and the
mathematical model will in turn be adaptable as a model of the GMST.
As we cannot do an experiment of the carbon cycle directly, some of your
team will continue to think about the leaking tank in more detail. In later
weeks, the laboratory specialists will run a series of experiments on leaking
tanks.

A taste of being an experimental specialist (Allow 1 h)

Before you start, read through all the instructions in this box carefully
and do a risk assessment to make sure you can work safely.
Find an old container that you no longer need (a thin ice-cream tub
or a disposable cup or a take-away container for example).
Although the example given above is for a box with a slit, here you
should concentrate on a simpler system: a box with a single hole.
Make a small hole in the container near the base to create a leaking
tank of your own. Remember that you can always make the hole
larger but you cannot easily make it smaller.
In a sink or bath, turn the tap on to the slowest steady ow you can
set. Measure the ow rate of water. You can do this with a measuring
jug (or any known volume) by timing how long it takes for say one
litre to ow from the tap.
With the tap still running at the same rate, place your leaking tank
in the water ow and time how long it takes to get to a steady depth
of water in the container; at the steady state the water level will stop
rising. You may have to try a few dierent ow rates from the tap to
get a conveniently measurable depth.
Repeat the experiment with dierent ow rates and measure the
height of the water above the hole at the steady state and the time it
takes to reach the steady state.
Plot a graph of your results what can you deduce from your data?
Over the next few weeks, the laboratory specialist will continue these
experiments with the aim of producing data similar to that shown in
Figure 6, but rst we need to delve more into the mathematics of the
problem.

Numerical solutions

3 Numerical solutions
At the end of the previous section we considered an experiment to model
the real world. We can also model the real world mathematically using
numerical methods. The method described here will give you a glimpse
into a branch of mathematics called numerical analysis, which specialises
in solving problems numerically on a computer.
We have just been considering the analogy to the Earths GMST using a
leaking tank. In your experiment, you have considered a tank with a hole
near the base, Figure 7.
Water is virtually incompressible, the only energy stored in the tank is the
gravitational potential energy. This drives the outow, for which the
kinetic energy density must equal the potential energy density:
1
(2)
g (zwater zhole ) = v 2
2
(Notes: energy density, (J m3 in SI units) is equivalent to pressure (N
m2 in SI units), as a joule is the same as a newton metre.
The rate of ow of water out of the hole is given by the area of the hole
multiplied by the speed of the water (this gives the volume of water
owing per second). If we let a be the area of the hole in the tank, then
the rate of the ow of water out of the tank Q (volume per second) is given
by a v and can be written as:

(3)
Q = a 2g (zwater zhole )

Figure 7 A diagram of a
tank with a hole. The hole is
at a height zhole with the
height of the surface of the
water at any time given by
zwater . The hole has an area
a and water with density
ows from the hole with a
speed v. The tank base has
an area A that is uniform for
all values of z.

If the hole is at the bottom of the tank, then zwater zhole = h where h is
the height of water in the tank giving:

(4)
Q = a 2gh
Finally, if the area of the tank base is given by A (so that V = Ah) then
we can rewrite this equation as:

2gV
(5)
Q=a
A
In your experiment you have had water owing into the tank from the tap
at a constant rate. If we call this constant rate of water owing into the
tank S then we can write an equation for the variation in the volume of
water in the tank with time:

1
2g
dV
= S CV 2 where C = a
(6)
dt
A
When calculating quantities with formulas like this it is prudent to convert
all quantities to SI units before inserting values.
Although this equation can be solved to nd an exact solution, we can also
use numerical analysis. More information about setting up dierential
equations can be found in the resource document Setting up dierential
equations.

Numerical solutions

A taste of being a modelling specialist (Allow 2 h)

Using the resource document Solving dierential equations by
computer: basic techniques as a guide, implement the Euler method
to create a mathematical model of the leaking tank, as described by
Equation 6, in either Maxima programming language or in a
spreadsheet.
Insert your own parameters into the constant C from your
experiment.
Does your model match your experimental results?
What factors might aect how well your model matches your
real-world experimental results?

10

The greenhouse eect

4 The greenhouse eect

In the following sections you will be introduced to some background
information that will lead to the development of the so-called ASD
model that the modelling specialists in your project team will be
developing. The information provided will give you an idea of the
type of research that will be required by the carbon specialists in your
team to help to direct the modelling and experimental work of other
team members.
Human civilization has developed in the period since the last ice age, so
our way of life is adapted to temperatures that are fairly cool in historic
terms. In the absence of human intervention, the Earths climate might be
expected to be fairly stable over a few thousands of years, but the eects
of industrialisation may have produced more rapid changes, and these
changes are likely to grow in the future.
The electromagnetic radiation emitted by the Sun covers a broad spectrum
that peaks near the visible range. Some of this radiation is reected (by
clouds or the oceans, for example), some drives chemical reactions such as
photosynthesis, but a large fraction is converted into heat energy, warming
our planet.
Any warm object emits a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. In the
ideal case, this spectrum follows a characteristic pattern, known as a
black-body spectrum (or a Planck spectrum). The peak of this spectrum
occurs at a frequency that is proportional to the absolute surface
temperature of the object.
The Sun has a surface temperature of 5 800 K, and its peak output is near
the visible range. The Earth is much cooler, with a surface temperature of
about 290 K, so the peak of its emission spectrum is at a frequency that is
roughly 20 times smaller rmly in the infrared range.
Molecules in the Earths atmosphere, such as water, methane and carbon
dioxide, do not absorb visible radiation very eciently, but they are strong
absorbers of infrared radiation, which excites their molecular vibrations
and rotations. Consequently, electromagnetic radiation incident from the
Sun passes down to ground level quite easily, but the infrared energy
re-radiated by the Earth is intercepted, and some of the energy nds its
way back to the ground. Gases that are strong absorbers of infrared
radiation are called greenhouse gases although in reality glass-box
greenhouses are not a perfect analogy.

Figure 8 In 1861, John

Tyndall discovered that water
vapour and carbon dioxide
are greenhouse gases, whose
presence in the atmosphere
warms the Earth signicantly.

From a human perspective, the presence of greenhouse gases is a good

thing. Without it, the surface of the Earth would be about 30 C colder
a very harsh environment for life. The early interest was on ice ages, and
whether they could be triggered by reductions in greenhouse gases. But
this is not the current situation. Over the last two or three hundred years
there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. Increases in greenhouse gases might be expected to lead to
increases in surface temperature, and this is the current concern.
There are several greenhouse gases, so why focus on carbon dioxide? One
reason is that human activity has led to an extremely rapid increase in this
gas. To understand why, we must go far back into history.
11

The greenhouse eect

During photosynthesis, a plant takes in carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere and converts it into other carbon-containing molecules that
become incorporated in the body of the plant. Normally, when the plant
dies, the carbon-containing molecules recombine with oxygen in the air,
producing gaseous carbon dioxide. So carbon from the atmosphere is
temporarily borrowed by the plant, and then handed back again. However,
if the plant dies in a swamp, it may not be easy for oxygen to reach it, and
decomposition is hindered. Under these circumstances, the carbon can be
locked up, ultimately forming deposits of fossil fuels such as coal or oil,
which accumulate over geological spans of time.

Figure 9 Burning fossil fuels

releases carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere.

In about 1780, mankind discovered how to drive machines using the energy
released by burning fossil fuels. At rst, the machines were in factories,
but they spread to modes of transport such as cars and planes. Heating
and the generation of electricity also relied heavily on burning coal or gas.
All of this activity released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Many natural factors aect the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. For example, erupting volcanos and breathing animals emit
carbon dioxide, while oceans and photosynthesising plants absorb it.
Under normal circumstances, a rough balance is maintained and the
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains more or less constant
over long periods of time. However, the burning of fossil fuels has
disturbed this balance. The slow capture of carbon in fossil fuels, which
took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate, is being released into the
atmosphere in just a few hundred years. Other industrial processes, such
as cement production, add further amounts of carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere. This is a leap into the unknown of epic proportions.
The rate at which industrial processes have released carbon dioxide can be
estimated, and the data are shown in red in Figure 10. An exponential
curve tting these data is shown in blue.

Figure 10 An estimation of the total rate of emission of carbon dioxide

into the atmosphere due to industrial processes (such as the burning of
fossil fuels and cement production). The zero of time is taken to be 1750,
the start of the industrial revolution [1 Pg = 1012 kg].
The data on which this graph is based can be found at:
cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ndps/ndp030.html.

12

Three awed arguments

5 Three awed arguments

By the rst half of the twentieth century, it was known that the burning of
fossil fuels was releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. Yet many people assumed that the global climate would not
change by much. Three main arguments were advanced to support this
view.
1. Some scientists assumed that the Earth would be self-regulating, so
that processes that increase the temperature would lead to other
processes that reduce the temperature. Any temperature change would
then be relatively modest.
2. The amount of carbon dissolved in the oceans is about fty times
greater than that in the atmosphere. We might suppose that the
additional carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels will
end up mostly in the oceans. If only a small fraction remains in the
atmosphere, this may be insucient to cause much warming.
3. Some scientists claimed that, even if the amount of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere does increase, this will make little dierence to global
temperatures at ground level. It was thought that existing levels of
carbon dioxide and water vapour are sucient to absorb nearly all the
infrared radiation emitted at the Earths surface. And so, the
argument ran, further additions would make no dierence.
Unfortunately, all these arguments are seriously awed.
The rst argument is merely a statement of faith, rather than a scientic
argument. So far as we know, the hypothesis that the Earth is
self-regulating cannot be derived from basic physical principles, and there
is no compelling reason to believe it. It is true that some mechanisms
provide negative feedback, inhibiting a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
For example, an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and the
accompanying rise in temperature, both increase the eciency of
photosynthesis. The resulting increase in plant growth removes some of the
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, limiting the accumulation of CO2 in
the atmosphere.
However, other mechanisms provide positive feedback, reinforcing a rise in
atmospheric carbon dioxide. For example, as the amount of carbon dioxide
dissolved in seawater increases, and as the temperature increases, the
ability of seawater to take up more carbon dioxide becomes restricted.
Also, as the temperature rises, more water will evaporate from the oceans,
and methane might be released from frozen ground in Siberia. Since both
water vapour and methane are greenhouse gases, temperatures could be
driven even higher. To say that the Earth is self-regulating may therefore
be wishful thinking.
For practical purposes, the second argument is incomplete because it lacks
any discussion of timescales. To give an analogy, after torrential rain we
know that the most of the rainwater will drain away, nding its way into
rivers and oceans. However, this does not mean that oods are impossible,
nor that they will last for a short time. A similar situation applies to
carbon dioxide. We know that it is being pumped into the atmosphere at a
very fast rate. If there is a bottleneck in the process of transferring carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere into the ocean, it will accumulate in the
atmosphere instead, and might stay there for ages.

13

Measurements of carbon dioxide

Finally, the third argument turns out to be too simplistic. In the 1950s
and 60s Gilbert Plass and Fritz Moller realised that that the ow of energy
through the atmosphere has to be modelled layer by layer, with the most
crucial layer being high up, where the Earth nally emits infrared
radiation into space. The addition of extra carbon dioxide moves this nal
emission layer outwards, where it is cooler. Because the nal layer is
cooler, it does not radiate so well, and more heat is trapped around the
Earth; this eventually feeds back into lower levels, and warms the Earths
surface. The detailed modelling of these energy ows lies beyond the scope
of this project. The only signicant point to remember is that increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide are expected to produce increases in global
temperatures at ground level.

6 Measurements of carbon dioxide

In 1938, the engineer Guy Callendar collated historic measurements of
atmospheric carbon dioxide and found a pattern of increasing levels over
time. By 1958, he had extended his analysis, and conrmed the increase
with greater condence (Callendar, 1958).
Around this time, improvements in infrared technology allowed
measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to be made
with unprecedented precision. Starting in 1958, and continuing for many
years, David Keeling measured the concentration of carbon dioxide at
Mauna Loa in Hawaii (Keeling, 1970). His results, known as the Keeling
curve, show an inexorable rise with small seasonal variations. Figure 11
shows the raw data in red, with an exponential t in blue.

Figure 11 The Keeling curve showing carbon dioxide concentration in

parts per million (ppm). The underlying trend is an exponential increase.
Superimposed on this is a seasonal variation related to the annual growth
and decay of plants in the Northern Hemisphere.
Full information about the Keeling curve is available from the web sites
scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/
keelingcurve.ucsd.edu.
The second site compares modern values with measurements of air
composition in ice cores going back 800 000 years. Before the industrial
revolution the typical concentration of carbon dioxide was 225 parts per
million (ppm), with uctuations of 50 ppm occurring slowly over
timescales of order 50 000 years. Since the Industrial Revolution (around
1750), there have been much larger increases (around 130 ppm) in only 250
14

Units of measurement for carbon dioxide

years. Clearly, carbon dioxide is entering the atmosphere at a faster rate
than it is being removed.
Tracking particular isotopes of carbon gives further evidence on the origin
of the surplus carbon dioxide. The isotope C14 is continually created when
cosmic rays collide with molecules in the upper atmosphere. It is
radioactive, and typically survives for about 6 000 years. It is therefore
permanently present in the atmosphere, but has vanished from fossil fuels,
which were laid down millions of years ago. If the carbon dioxide from
fossil fuel burning is making a signicant contribution to the total
atmospheric carbon dioxide, recent tree rings should show a decit in C14 ,
compared to tree rings formed before the industrial revolution. This decit
has been measured.
Two further pieces of evidence indicate that the surplus carbon dioxide is
linked to human activity rather than natural processes such as volcanic
eruptions.
1. The concentration of carbon dioxide is greater in the Northern
Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere; this is readily
understood because anthropogenic emissions occur mainly in the
industrialised countries north of the Equator.
2. For the last 50 years, anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have
increased almost exponentially; this is reected in the measured carbon
dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which has also increased
exponentially.

7 Units of measurement for carbon dioxide

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is sometimes expressed in
parts per million (ppm). If the amount of carbon dioxide is n ppm, there
are n carbon dioxide molecules in every million molecules of dry air (i.e.
air with all water vapour removed).
This way of measuring carbon dioxide is good enough for the atmosphere.
However, carbon dioxide is absorbed by seawater, by plants during
photosynthesis, and by rocks during weathering. In all these processes,
chemical reactions take place that convert carbon dioxide into other
carbon-containing compounds. In these reactions, the carbon dioxide
molecules are destroyed, but the number of carbon atoms remains xed.
Rather than tracking the carbon dioxide, it makes sense to follow the
carbon in these reactions.
For this reason, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is often
expressed in terms of carbon mass equivalents. This is the total mass of the
carbon atoms in the carbon dioxide molecules. A convenient unit is
1 petagram carbon mass equivalent, written as 1 PgC, which corresponds
to 1015 g = 1012 kg of carbon atoms. In the atmosphere, the carbon atoms
are in the form of carbon dioxide molecules, but carbon mass equivalents
can be used to quantify all stores of carbon, no matter what the carbon is
combined with.

15

Modelling the ow of carbon

Conversion rates
1 ppm CO2 in dry air 2.11 PgC
1 PgC 0.47 ppm CO2 in dry air.
Because a carbon dioxide molecule has a mass that is 44.01/12.01(= 3.66)
greater than the mass of a carbon atom, the total mass of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere is found by multiplying its carbon mass equivalent by 3.66.
In pre-industrial times, the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere was
280 ppm CO2 of dry air 591 PgC 2160 Pg of CO2
By 2014, the amount of carbon dioxide has grown to
400 ppm CO2 of dry air.
How many petagrams of carbon dioxide does this represent?
400 PgC of dry air 2.11 400 Pg CO2
3.66 2.11 400 Pg CO2
= 309 Pg CO2

8 Modelling the ow of carbon

To understand why carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, and its
ability to persist there for a long time, we need a quantitative model. It is
useful to imagine a series of reservoirs for carbon, representing the
atmosphere, the oceans, the biosphere and sedimentary deposits. In the
atmosphere, the carbon is in the form of carbon dioxide, but in other
reservoirs it may be in other forms such as carbonates, cellulose (biomass)
or fossil fuels. Over long periods of time, carbon atoms move through these
reservoirs in the so-called carbon cycle. In this cycle, some reservoirs
release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and some reservoirs absorb it.
Climate modelers have developed complex models involving many dierent
reservoirs. An example is shown in Figure 12, but even more elaborate
versions exist such as that shown in the fth report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPPC, 2013 Figure 6.1).

16

Modelling the ow of carbon

Figure 12 A model of the carbon cycle with reservoirs for the

atmosphere, fossil fuels, vegetation, marine biota, surface ocean,
intermediate and deep ocean and surface sediment, taken from Sarmiento
and Gruber (2002, p.31).
In Figure 12, reservoir sizes (also called carbon stocks) are given in PgC
and shown inside the boxes. Rates of ow are given in PgC yr1 and
shown on the arrows. Black gures refer to the situation that existed just
before the Industrial Revolution (around 1750). Red gures in boxes
represent the cumulative changes to pre-industrial carbon stocks that had
occurred by 1989, and red gures on arrows represent additional uxes
(above pre-industrial values) estimated for 1989.
The models have become very complicated. This is as it should be the
Earth is a complex system, and the implications are so important for
humanity that every avenue must be explored to achieve as much certainty
as possible. The latest report (2014) on the physical science basis of
climate change was compiled by 250 experts, is around 1500 pages long,
and cites 9 000 scientic papers (IPPC, 2013). There is clearly a danger of
getting bogged down in the detail, and this is something you must guard
against when writing your project report.
The scope of this project is strictly limited. The modelling specialist(s) in
your project team will develop simplied models of the carbon cycle, based
on two or three reservoirs. These models are not as reliable as those
developed by experts working with supercomputers, but this is not
important here. Simple models may not convince climate-change sceptics,
but they have the merit of exploring the main features of the problem in
the most direct way.
We will use a model with just three carbon reservoirs, in addition to the
fossil fuel source. The reservoirs are the atmosphere, the surface ocean
and the intermediate and deep ocean (referred to simply as the deep
ocean from now on). The model may be called the ASD model from the
initial letters of the reservoirs. Compared with Figure 12, you can see that
three reservoirs are being ignored:

marine biota (such as algae, plankton and sh)

surface sediment

vegetation, soil and detritus.

The rst two omissions are not very signicant. The marine biota carbon
reservoir is small, with relatively small net carbon ows, so it cannot play
17

Modelling the ow of carbon

a major role in the whole cycle. We will not include this reservoir, but we
must therefore add its net ow from the surface to the deep oceans. The
surface sediment carbon reservoir at the bottom of the ocean also involves
a tiny carbon ow, which does not recirculate on any reasonable timescale.
We therefore ignore it altogether.
The decision to ignore the carbon reservoir associated with vegetation, soil
and detritus is more drastic. Complex factors come into play. For example,
cutting down and burning trees releases carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere and reduces the capacity of a forest to absorb more carbon
dioxide. On the other hand, increased carbon dioxide concentrations
produce greater rates of photosynthesis, increasing the capacity of plants
to absorb more carbon dioxide.
It is not clear how things will evolve in the future. However, one of the
conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (2014) is
that the net balance of all terrestrial ecosystems, those aected by land use
change and those not, has been close to neutral since 1750. By ignoring
the vegetation carbon reservoir, we are in eect assuming that this
neutrality will continue.

Figure 13 Measurements of
temperature versus depth in
the Atlantic ocean, showing a
thermocline at 100200 m.

The division of the ocean into surface and deep regions may seem arbitrary,
but is a real feature (Craig, 1958). The surface and deep regions are
separated by a thin layer called the thermocline, where the temperature
drops more rapidly than in the layers above or below it (Figure 13). The
surface ocean is well-mixed by waves and convection. The deep ocean
is less well mixed because the narrow temperature range means that
convection is weak. The thermocline is typically a few hundred metres
below the surface. As a global average, the surface ocean contains about
2% of the total volume of the seawater, and the deep ocean about 98%.
It is essential for carbon to pass through the surface layer to reach the
deep ocean, where it is ultimately stored over long timescales. However,
the chemistry in the surface ocean is such that it acts as a bottleneck
anthropogenic carbon dioxide is being emitted so rapidly that it cannot get
through the surface layer quickly enough, and accumulates in the
atmosphere. The role of the surface ocean as a bottleneck makes it
important to treat the two regions separately. For simplicity, we assume
that the surface and deep oceans can both be treated as homogeneous.
A diagrammatic representation of the ASD model is shown in Figure 14.
The atmosphere, surface and deep ocean reservoirs are indicated by boxes
marked a, s and d, and the carbon mass equivalents for these reservoirs are
Ma , Ms and Md . The reserve of fossil fuels is shown by a circle, marked f .
This acts as a source of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. We
assume that there are ample reserves, so that fossil fuels are not about to
run out, but we do not need to know exactly how much remains.

18

Modelling the ow of carbon

Figure 14 The ASD three-box model of the carbon cycle.

Carbon ows between the reservoirs are shown by arrows in Figure 14, and
the rates of carbon transfer from one reservoir to another are denoted by
symbols such as Ras . It is important to note the convention used here.
Convention for subscripts
The symbol Rij represents the rate of ow of carbon equivalents to
reservoir i from reservoir j.
The units of Rij are carbon equivalents per unit time (e.g. PgC yr1 ).

See the notes on Setting up

dierential equations for further
discussion of this back-to-front
convention.

In addition to the various ows between reservoirs, carbon enters the

atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. The rate of ow of carbon
equivalents into the atmosphere from this source is denoted by F (t). This
is a function of time that has been increasing almost exponentially for the
last 250 years, as shown earlier in Figure 10.
To complete the model, we must make an assumption about the rate of
ow of carbon between the reservoirs. The following assumption is a good
starting point.
Flow rates of carbon between reservoirs
We assume that the rate of ow of carbon from one reservoir to
another is proportional to the amount of carbon in the initial
reservoir. So, if we are considering the ow of carbon to reservoir i
from reservoir j, the ow rate is proportional to Mj , and is given by
Rij = kij Mj ,

The notes on Setting up

dierential equations made a
similar assumption for migrating
human populations.

(7)

where kij is called the rate constant for ows to reservoir i from
reservoir j. This constant depends on the nature of the reservoirs, but
is independent of the amounts of carbon in them.
To give a specic example, the rate of ow of carbon to the atmosphere
from the surface ocean is given by
Ras = kas Ms ,

(8)

where kas is the rate constant for ows to the atmosphere from the surface
ocean.
19

Preparing for your rst meeting

We consider a small time interval t, during which the carbon mass
equivalent in the atmosphere changes by Ma . Following the method
described in the notes on Setting up dierential equations, and referring to
Figure 14, we see that
Ma = Ras t Rsa t + F (t)t,
where the contributions on the right-hand side have plus or minus signs
according to whether they increase or decrease Ma .
Using the linear proportionality specied in Equation 7, this can be
written as
Ma = kas Ms t ksa Ma t + F (t)t.
Dividing by t, and taking the limit as t tends to zero, we get the
following dierential equation
dMa
= kas Ms ksa Ma + F (t).
(9)
dt
for the rate of change of Ma , the carbon mass equivalent of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere.

Setting the foundations for the ASD model

Construct equations for the rates of change of Ms and Md using the
same approach as that leading to Equation (9).
The system of three rst-order dierential equations for Ma , Ms and Md .
The system contains various rate constants and the function F (t), which is
assumed to be known. By solving the system of dierential equations, for
an appropriate set of initial conditions, you can nd out how Ma , Ms and
Md depend on time. You can then compare your results with historical
data, and make predictions about the future.

9 Preparing for your rst meeting

At the end of the second week on the project you will need to have an
online meeting with the rest of your team. During this meeting you will
decide, as a team, who will take on each role. As far as possible, try to
split the members of your team evenly between the roles of carbon
specialist, laboratory specialist and modelling specialist. It will be helpful if
your chosen project manager is also one of the modelling specialists.
Before the meeting, have a look at the short brieng notes for each
type of specialist and think about the tasks that you have been doing
for the past two weeks:
What have you enjoyed most?
What have you found most dicult?
Which role will be the most fullling for you?
These questions will help guide you towards your role in the team.

20

Preparing for your rst meeting

References
Bolin, B. and Eriksson, E. (1959) Changes in the carbon dioxide content
of the atmosphere and sea due to fossil fuel combustion, in Bolin, B. (ed)
The Atmosphere and the Sea in Motion, New York, Rockefeller Institute
Press, pp. 13042.
Callendar, G.S. (1958) On the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, Tellus, vol. 10, no. 2, pp.2438.
Craig, H. (1958) A critical evaluation of the radiocarbon techniques for
determining mixing rates in the ocean and atmosphere, paper presented at
the Second UN International Conference for the Peaceful Use of Atomic
Energy, Geneva, 113 September.
IPPC (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis [Online].
Working Group 1 contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR5), Cambridge University
Press. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ (Accessed 9
March 2015).
Keeling, C.D. (1970) Is carbon dioxide from fossil fuel changing mans
environment? Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 114,
no. 1, pp. 1017.
Moller, F. (1963). On the inuence of changes in the CO2 concentration in
air on the radiation balance of the Earths surface and on the climate,
Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 68, no. 13, pp. 387786 [Online].
DOI. www.dx.doi.org/10.1029/JZ068i013p03877 (Accessed 9 March 2015).
Sarmiento, J.L. and Gruber, N. (2002) Sinks for anthropogenic carbon,
Physics Today vol. 55, no. 8, p.30. [Online].
www.dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1510279 (Accessed 9 March 2015).

21

Preparing for your rst meeting

Appendix: Project report plan

Figure 15 The structure of the project report. Each team member will
write an abstract and a general introduction as Question 1 (Q1) of the
EMA. The team should prepare the remainder of the introduction and the
sections on the method results and extension as a shared document that
team members each submit for Q2 of the EMA. The nal conclusion will
form Q3 of the EMA and is to be done individually. The references, which
will be marked as part of Q2, should combine elements from the individual
introduction (Q1)and the shared body of the report (Q2).

22