Over the first half of the semester, I've been reading Vaclav Smil's comprehensive book The Earth's Biosphere. It's an incredible work of scholarship, and I recommend it to anyone with a solid foundational understanding of both biology and geology who's ready for "the big picture": an overall review which will give contextual perspective on each of the details of how the living portion of our planet works. It's a remarkable book, really. It covers so much, in such a precise, well-written manner, that it makes my head spin. It has forty pages of references (in small type)! As an example of the multidisciplinary nature of the book, I offer the following graphic from page 134:

In one image, Smil integrates information about seven variables: clay varieties, latitude, biome type, depth of weathering in the crust, precipitation, temperature, and evaporation! That's an incredible accompishment graphically, but he does the same thing in just about every sentence.

I read the book originally because a potential student recommended it as providing a "balanced" look at climate change. Curious to see what that meant, I checked it out of the library here on campus, and read it. It has an excellent and comprehensive scientific discussion of climate change, with a particular focus on how the Earth's biosphere will effect it, and be effected by it.

I feel obliged to give an example of something I learned, so here's amazing fact #3546 from the book: photosynthesis is really inefficient! Plants vary in how photosynthetically efficient they are, but the values range from plants that capture 0.1% of incoming solar radiation to the really efficient ones, which max out at capturing about 2% of incoming solar radiation. That's so not efficient! I had no idea.

Of course, no book is perfect, and I'll offer two complaints about The Earth's Biosphere: (1) A general theme is woven throughout the book of examining the work of neglected Russian scientist Vladimir Vernadsky, who made critical advances to our understanding of the biosphere, but hasn't gotten enough credit. Smil goes overboard in giving Vernadsky his due: it's Vernadsky this, Vernadsky that, every couple of pages through the whole book. I got sick of reading about him, and wished Smil could stick to the (excellent, fascinating) science, divorced from the persons who wrought it. (2) Every now and again, he threw in a superflous graphic, like this one:

Is the fish really supposed to be ~16 m tall? What's the point of this graphic anyhow? To show that fish live below the ice? Seems to me you could just say so. (Plus, the graphic needs the scientific name italicized, as in the caption.) I don't mean to snipe -- most of the book is super, but stuff like this irritates me. A fly in the ointment, I guess. The book's worth reading regardless.

Labels: books, climate change, global warming