THE CHEMICAL EVOLUTION OF THE OCEAN 



223 



TABLE III 



COMPOSITION OF OCEAN^ 



Na. 

 CI. 

 Ca. 

 Mg 

 C. 

 S.. 

 K.. 

 Br. 

 O.. 

 H.. 



306.37 



552.17 



11.96 



37-69 

 0.41 



25 . 62 



II .07 

 1.88 



52.83 



I . 1400 

 2 .0700 

 0.0500 

 o. 1400 

 0.0020 

 0.0900 

 o . 0400 

 0.0078 



85 . 7900 



10.6700 

 100.0000 



I. 41 .80 



2 -55 -57 

 0-05.53 



OI7-43 

 0.00. 19 

 o. 11.87 



0.05 .02 

 0.00.87 



1-570 

 2.850 

 0.070 

 o. 190 

 0.003 



0.125 



0.060 



O.OIO 



118.400 

 14. 700 



1. Composition of sea salt — Diltman in Van Hise, p. 942. 



2. Composition of ocean — Clarke in Van Hise, p. 944. 



3. Bulk of salts in ocean divided by antilog 16 according to Van Hise, p. 944. 

 I do not understand how he gets these figures; they seem to be 1.24 (X antilog 14) 

 greater than column 2, whereas, according to Van Hise's figures, the multiplier should 

 be 1. 32 X antilog 14. 



4. Column 2 multiplied by i . 375 giving weight of salt in units of antilog 16 tons, 

 if the volume of the ocean is 3,200,000 cubic miles. 



ing or results materially. If there has been such an accumulation, 

 there must have been such a change in the chemical character of 

 the water as there really appears to be upon careful study of the 

 analyses of deep waters. 



If the amount of sodium now in the ocean be N, and of chlorine 

 C, and there is brought in each year by the rivers w, of sodium, 

 and c of chlorine, and if we subtract from n a quantity d to obtain 

 the net increase of sodium after allowing for that blown inland by 

 the breezes or buried in the sediments laid down, etc., and let rd 

 be a similar correction to be applied to the chlorine, then the ratio 

 of sodium to chlorine (let the ratio be R) in the ocean x years ago 

 would be, accepting a uniform rate of accumulation. 



R = 



and 



{N-x{n-d)) 

 (C-x(c-Rd)) 



N-CR 



n—cr —d {i — rR) 



I After Van Hise, p. 193. 



