[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: carbon constants: secondary species

Phosphate is not like borate insofar as its surface concentration does not
mimic that of borate, so it should drive some flux of carbon in the natural
carbon cycle.

Doesn't consideration of secondary species fall into the same category as
considering variation in mean atmospheric surface pressure, i.e., likely to
have some influence the natural carbon cycle, but have negligible impact on
calculations of anthropogenic CO2 uptake?  (The obvious thing for somebody
(else) to do is to run a (schematic?)  model with and without consideration
of secondary species and see how big a difference it really makes.)

With all of these issues the question is: Is consideration of factor X
important to solving problem Y? I doubt anyone has really come up with a
problem Y in which consideration of surface phosphate variation in carbon
chemistry is the critical missing factor. Nevertheless,  if it is easy  to
add to the model, doesn't significantly affect model run time,  and it will
make a (perhaps insignificant) improvement to the model, why not do it?



P.S.  I  wish our models were good enough so that failure to consider
variations in the concentration of secondary species were our largest
source of error.

Ken Caldeira
Climate System Modeling Group
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
7000 East Ave., L-103
Livermore CA 94550 USA

tel: (925)  423-4191 (new area code!)
fax: (925)  422-6388
e-mail:  kenc@LLNL.gov