Calc Equil 3 Missing Values Earth System Model

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the missing values in the equilibrium model, it is essential to apply the principle of mass balance, which states that the total inflows must equal the total outflows. The known value for plant uptake is 196940, and understanding that mass is conserved will help determine the missing ocean deposition and weathering values. If the system is in equilibrium, the sum of the influxes, including plant uptake, should match the sum of the outfluxes. Clarification on how to approach these calculations is crucial for accurately filling in the missing data points. Mastering these concepts will lead to a better understanding of the Earth System Model dynamics.
pink94
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Calculate the 3 missing values from the system above assuming that it is in equilibrium

i) Plant uptake = 196940

ii) Ocean deposition =

iii) Weathering of calcium phosphate minerals =

I can't seem to understand how you find the missing parts of the model image attached I know the inflows should be equal to the outflows but that's all
 

Attachments

  • dfdf.png
    dfdf.png
    28.9 KB · Views: 491
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you know what mass balance is? In a nutshell - mass is conserved, so if the mass of something is constant, sum of influxes must equal sum of outfluxes. If mass is not constant, gain (or loss) will be reflected by the fact influx and outflux are not identical.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
152
Views
9K
Replies
48
Views
11K
Back
Top