Toward Reconciling Radiocarbon Production Rates With Carbon Cycle Changes of the Last 55,000 Years
Copyright policy )Toward Reconciling Radiocarbon Production Rates With Carbon Cycle Changes of the Last 55,000 Years
Since it is currently not understood how changes in 14C production rate (Q), and in the carbon cycle, can be combined to explain the reconstructed atmospheric Δ14C record, we discuss possible reasons for this knowledge gap. Reviewing the literature, we exclude that changes in the content of atoms in the atmosphere, which produce cosmogenic 14C after being hit by galactic cosmic rays, might be responsible for parts of the observed differences. When combining Q with carbon cycle changes, one needs to understand the changes in the atmospheric 14C inventory, which are partially counterintuitive. For example, during the Last Glacial Maximum, Δ14C was ∼400‰ higher compared with preindustrial times, but the 14C inventory was 10% smaller. Some pronounced changes in atmospheric Δ14C do not correspond to any significant changes in the atmospheric 14C inventory, since CO2 was changing simultaneously. Using two conceptually different models (BICYCLE‐SE and LSG‐OGCM), we derive hypothetical Qs by forcing the models with identical atmospheric CO2 and Δ14C data. Results are compared with the most recent data‐based estimates of Q derived from cosmogenic isotopes. Millennial‐scale climate change connected to the bipolar seesaw is missing in the applied models, which might explain some, but probably not all, of the apparent model‐data disagreement in Q. Furthermore, Q based on either data from marine sediments or ice cores contains offsets, suggesting an interpretation deficit in the current data‐based approaches.
Key Points: No important change found in the level of precursor material, which produces cosmogenic radiocarbon after being hit by galactic cosmic rays. Transient changes in the bipolar seesaw are needed in applied carbon cycle models to improve interpretation of the radiocarbon cycle. Sediment core‐ and ice core‐based radiocarbon production rates differ systematically, suggesting missing processes.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002347
Helmholtz Association (亥姆霍兹联合会致力) http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100009318
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/31772
https://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/data/
https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.914500
https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.932965
https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.871273
Swedish Research Concil
Atmospheric Science, ddc:551.9, Paleontology, Oceanography
Atmospheric Science, ddc:551.9, Paleontology, Oceanography
1512
Adolphi, F., Bronk Ramsey, C., Erhardt, T., Edwards, R. L., Cheng, H., Turney, C. S. M., et al. (2018). Connecting the Greenland ice-core and U/ Th timescales via cosmogenic radionuclides: Testing the synchroneity of Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Climate of the Past, 14(11), 1755-1781. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-14-1755-2018 [OpenAIRE]
Adolphi, F., Muscheler, R., Friedrich, M., Güttler, D., Wacker, L., Talamo, S., & Kromer, B. (2017). Radiocarbon calibration uncertainties during the last deglaciation: Insights from new floating tree-ring chronologies. Quaternary Science Reviews, 170, 98-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. quascirev.2017.06.026
Adolphi, F., Muscheler, R., Svensson, A., Aldahan, A., Possnert, G., Beer, J., et al. (2014). Persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature Geoscience, 7(9), 662-666. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2225
Alanko-Huotari, K., Usoskin, I., Mursula, K., & Kovaltsov, G. (2007). Cyclic variations of the heliospheric tilt angle and cosmic ray modulation. Advances in Space Research, 40(7), 1064-1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2007.02.007 [OpenAIRE]
Alley, R. B., Finkel, R. C., Nishiizumi, K., Anandakrishnan, S., Shuman, C. A., Mershon, G., et al. (1995). Changes in continental and sea-salt atmospheric loadings in central Greenland during the most recent deglaciation: Model-based estimates. Journal of Glaciology, 41(139), 503-514. https://doi.org/10.3189/S0022143000034845
Andersen, K. K., Svensson, A., Johnsen, S. J., Rasmussen, S. O., Bigler, M., Röthlisberger, R., et al. (2006). The Greenland ice core chronology, 15-42 ka. Part 1: Constructing the time scale. Quaternary Science Reviews, 25, 3246-3257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.08.002
Anderson, R. F., Sachs, J. P., Fleisher, M. Q., Allen, K. A., Yu, J., Koutavas, A., & Jaccard, S. L. (2019). Deep-sea oxygen depletion and ocean carbon sequestration during the last ice age. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 33(3), 301-317. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB006049 [OpenAIRE]
Audi, G., Bersillon, O., Blachot, J., & Wapstra, A. (2003). The Nubase evaluation of nuclear and decay properties. Nuclear Physics A, 729(1), 3-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.11.001 [OpenAIRE]
Bard, E. (1998). Geochemical and geophysical implications of the radiocarbon calibration. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 62, 2025-2038. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-7037(98)00130-6
Bard, E., Arnold, M., Mangerud, J., Paterne, M., Labeyrie, L., Duprat, J., et al. (1994). The North Atlantic atmosphere-sea surface 14C gradient during the Younger Dryas climatic event. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 126(4), 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-821X(94)90112-0
- 1
- 2
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).2 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Top 10% influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).2 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Top 10% influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average
Citations provided by BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!