Doesn't the saturation that they talk about refer to CO3-2, and not CaCO3?
Where on Earth has this idea of moving the pelagic limestones come from!? It's completely outlandish and really NEEDS a source if it's to remain present. Not to mention wouldn't it be more sensible to move it to land? Since then there's a double effect of dropping sea level and raising land level. 188.8.131.52 12:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed - removed. Vsmith 12:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
In what sense is the CCD 'the equivalent of a marine snow-line'? This line probably needs rewriting/removing Snarfevs 12:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think what's meant here is that above the CCD, calcium carbonate is stable, so will not dissolve on the seafloor. Below the CCD, it is unstable and so dissolves at the seafloor. Viewing the seafloor as a range of mountains, stable deposits of calcium carbonate (= chalk) would appear to give the "higher altitudes" (= shallower seafloor; above the CCD) a dusting of snow. This link shows a stylised series of plots (left column) in which the CCD increases in depth down the page. Anyway, as you've correctly pointed out, the article is somewhat opaque on this point at present. I'll see what I can do. Bit busy at this precise moment though. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your response - that's a very helpful depiction. I will endeavour to draw something similar for inclusion in about a week's time Snarfevs 12:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I should have said before that I knocked up the plots shown on the website above. My co-workers favoured static versions with an ugly colourscale, but I did do animated versions as well. The animation to the right is an example. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
and at greater depths in equatorial regions, and lower depths in the polar regions.