Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric <sup>14</sup>C Data

David Evans Andrews

doi:doi:10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12

| Peer-Reviewed

Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric ¹⁴C Data

David Evans Andrews

Published in Earth Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 4)

Received: 5 July 2020 Accepted: 4 August 2020 Published: 13 August 2020

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The variable “∆¹⁴C”, commonly used in radiocarbon dating and tracing applications to quantify ¹⁴C levels, is a measure of the ratio of the radioisotope ¹⁴C to other carbon in a sample. After atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s nearly doubled atmospheric ¹⁴C, the later evolution of ∆¹⁴C allowed insights into the dynamics of carbon exchange between the atmosphere and terrestrial and marine sinks. But a few authors without backgrounds in isotope measurements have confused ∆¹⁴C with excess ¹⁴C concentration. They erroneously interpret the present recovery of ∆¹⁴C to near its pre bomb test value as evidence that atmospheric ¹⁴C concentration has returned to its earlier value. From this they reach further incorrect conclusions about the fate of anthropogenic CO₂ introduced into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning. An estimate of the true time dependence of atmospheric ¹⁴C concentration over the past century, calculated from averaged atmospheric ∆¹⁴C and CO₂ data is presented. The data show that ¹⁴C concentrations remain over 30% above 1950 values, and have begun to increase, even as ∆¹⁴C continues to fall. This confirms the prediction of a conventional model of the carbon cycle. The unconventional models of carbon dynamics motivated by the mistake, on the other hand, are excluded by the properly interpreted ¹⁴C data.

Published in	Earth Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12
Page(s)	126-129
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Carbon Accumulation, Radiocarbon, Atmospheric CO₂

References

[1]	Essenhigh, R. H. (2009). Potential dependence of global warming on the residence time (RT) in the atmosphere of anthropogenically sourced carbon dioxide. Energy & Fuels, 23, 2773−2784.
[2]	Harde, H.(2017). Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO₂ residence time in the atmosphere. Global and Planetary Change, 152, 19-26.
[3]	Harde, H. (2019). What humans contribute to atmospheric CO₂: Comparison of carbon cycle models with observations. Earth Sciences. 8 (3), 139-159. doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20190803.13.
[4]	Berry, E. X. (2019). Human CO₂ emissions have little effect on atmospheric CO₂. International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 3 (1), 13-26. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13.
[5]	Cawley, G. C. (2011). On the atmospheric residence time of anthropogenically sourced CO₂. Energy Fuels 25, 5503–5513, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef200914u.
[6]	Koehler, P., Hauck, J., Volker, C,. Wolf-Gladrow, D. A., Butzin, M, Halpern, J. B. et al.(2017) Comment on “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO₂ residence time in the atmosphere by H. Harde”. Global and Planetary Change. 164, 67-71.
[7]	Caldeira, K., Raul, G. H., and Duffy, P. B. (1998). Predicted net efflux of radiocarbon from the ocean and increase in atmospheric radiocarbon content. Geophysical Research Letters, 25 (20), 3811-3814.
[8]	Turnbull, J., Rayne, P., Miller, J., Naegler, T., Ciais, P., Cozic, A. (2009). On the use of ¹⁴CO₂ as a tracer for fossil fuel CO₂: Quantifying uncertainties using an atmospheric transport model., Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D22302. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012308
[9]	Levin, I. and Hesshaimer, V. (2000). Radiocarbon: A unique tracer of global carbon cycle dynamics., Radiocarbon, 42 (1), 69–80.
[10]	Turnbull, J. C., Mikaloff Fletcher, S. E., Ansell, I., Brailsford, G. W, Moss, R. C., Norris, M. W, et al. (2017). Sixty years of radiocarbon dioxide measurements at Wellington, New Zealand: 1954–2014. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 14771–14784. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-14771-2017.
[11]	Hua, Q., Barbetti, M., Rakowski, A. Z. (2013). Atmospheric radiocarbon for the period 1950–2010. Radiocarbon, 55, pp. 2059–2072. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.v55i2.16177
[12]	Graven, H., Allison, C. E., Etheridge, D. M., Hammer, S., Keeling, R. F., Levin, I., et al. (2017). Compiled records of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO₂ for historical simulations in CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4405–4417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4405-2017.
[13]	Stenstrom, K. E., Skog, G., Gerogiadou, Genberg. J., Johansson, A. (2011). A guide to radiocarbon units and calculations. Lund University, LUNFD6 (NFFR-3111) /1-17/ (2011). https://www.hic.ch.ntu.edu.tw/AMS/A%20guide%20to%20radiocarbon%20units%20and%20calculations.pdf
[14]	Stuiver, M. and Polach, H.(1977). Discussion: Reporting of ¹⁴C data”. Radiocarbon, 19 (3), 355-363. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/493/498
[15]	World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gasses http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/
[16]	Suess, H. E. (1955), Radiocarbon concentration in modern wood”, Science, 122, 415-417.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

David Evans Andrews. (2020). Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric 14C Data. Earth Sciences, 9(4), 126-129. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

David Evans Andrews. Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric 14C Data. Earth Sci. 2020, 9(4), 126-129. doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

David Evans Andrews. Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric 14C Data. Earth Sci. 2020;9(4):126-129. doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12,
  author = {David Evans Andrews},
  title = {Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric 14C Data},
  journal = {Earth Sciences},
  volume = {9},
  number = {4},
  pages = {126-129},
  doi = {10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20200904.12},
  abstract = {The variable “∆14C”, commonly used in radiocarbon dating and tracing applications to quantify 14C levels, is a measure of the ratio of the radioisotope 14C to other carbon in a sample. After atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s nearly doubled atmospheric 14C, the later evolution of ∆14C allowed insights into the dynamics of carbon exchange between the atmosphere and terrestrial and marine sinks. But a few authors without backgrounds in isotope measurements have confused ∆14C with excess 14C concentration. They erroneously interpret the present recovery of ∆14C to near its pre bomb test value as evidence that atmospheric 14C concentration has returned to its earlier value. From this they reach further incorrect conclusions about the fate of anthropogenic CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning. An estimate of the true time dependence of atmospheric 14C concentration over the past century, calculated from averaged atmospheric ∆14C and CO2 data is presented. The data show that 14C concentrations remain over 30% above 1950 values, and have begun to increase, even as ∆14C continues to fall. This confirms the prediction of a conventional model of the carbon cycle. The unconventional models of carbon dynamics motivated by the mistake, on the other hand, are excluded by the properly interpreted 14C data.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric 14C Data
AU  - David Evans Andrews
Y1  - 2020/08/13
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12
T2  - Earth Sciences
JF  - Earth Sciences
JO  - Earth Sciences
SP  - 126
EP  - 129
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5982
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12
AB  - The variable “∆14C”, commonly used in radiocarbon dating and tracing applications to quantify 14C levels, is a measure of the ratio of the radioisotope 14C to other carbon in a sample. After atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s nearly doubled atmospheric 14C, the later evolution of ∆14C allowed insights into the dynamics of carbon exchange between the atmosphere and terrestrial and marine sinks. But a few authors without backgrounds in isotope measurements have confused ∆14C with excess 14C concentration. They erroneously interpret the present recovery of ∆14C to near its pre bomb test value as evidence that atmospheric 14C concentration has returned to its earlier value. From this they reach further incorrect conclusions about the fate of anthropogenic CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning. An estimate of the true time dependence of atmospheric 14C concentration over the past century, calculated from averaged atmospheric ∆14C and CO2 data is presented. The data show that 14C concentrations remain over 30% above 1950 values, and have begun to increase, even as ∆14C continues to fall. This confirms the prediction of a conventional model of the carbon cycle. The unconventional models of carbon dynamics motivated by the mistake, on the other hand, are excluded by the properly interpreted 14C data.
VL  - 9
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

David Evans Andrews

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Montana, Missoula, USA

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

David Evans Andrews. (2020). Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric 14C Data. Earth Sciences, 9(4), 126-129. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

David Evans Andrews. Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric 14C Data. Earth Sci. 2020, 9(4), 126-129. doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

David Evans Andrews. Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric 14C Data. Earth Sci. 2020;9(4):126-129. doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12,
  author = {David Evans Andrews},
  title = {Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric 14C Data},
  journal = {Earth Sciences},
  volume = {9},
  number = {4},
  pages = {126-129},
  doi = {10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20200904.12},
  abstract = {The variable “∆14C”, commonly used in radiocarbon dating and tracing applications to quantify 14C levels, is a measure of the ratio of the radioisotope 14C to other carbon in a sample. After atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s nearly doubled atmospheric 14C, the later evolution of ∆14C allowed insights into the dynamics of carbon exchange between the atmosphere and terrestrial and marine sinks. But a few authors without backgrounds in isotope measurements have confused ∆14C with excess 14C concentration. They erroneously interpret the present recovery of ∆14C to near its pre bomb test value as evidence that atmospheric 14C concentration has returned to its earlier value. From this they reach further incorrect conclusions about the fate of anthropogenic CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning. An estimate of the true time dependence of atmospheric 14C concentration over the past century, calculated from averaged atmospheric ∆14C and CO2 data is presented. The data show that 14C concentrations remain over 30% above 1950 values, and have begun to increase, even as ∆14C continues to fall. This confirms the prediction of a conventional model of the carbon cycle. The unconventional models of carbon dynamics motivated by the mistake, on the other hand, are excluded by the properly interpreted 14C data.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric 14C Data
AU  - David Evans Andrews
Y1  - 2020/08/13
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12
T2  - Earth Sciences
JF  - Earth Sciences
JO  - Earth Sciences
SP  - 126
EP  - 129
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5982
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12
AB  - The variable “∆14C”, commonly used in radiocarbon dating and tracing applications to quantify 14C levels, is a measure of the ratio of the radioisotope 14C to other carbon in a sample. After atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s nearly doubled atmospheric 14C, the later evolution of ∆14C allowed insights into the dynamics of carbon exchange between the atmosphere and terrestrial and marine sinks. But a few authors without backgrounds in isotope measurements have confused ∆14C with excess 14C concentration. They erroneously interpret the present recovery of ∆14C to near its pre bomb test value as evidence that atmospheric 14C concentration has returned to its earlier value. From this they reach further incorrect conclusions about the fate of anthropogenic CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning. An estimate of the true time dependence of atmospheric 14C concentration over the past century, calculated from averaged atmospheric ∆14C and CO2 data is presented. The data show that 14C concentrations remain over 30% above 1950 values, and have begun to increase, even as ∆14C continues to fall. This confirms the prediction of a conventional model of the carbon cycle. The unconventional models of carbon dynamics motivated by the mistake, on the other hand, are excluded by the properly interpreted 14C data.
VL  - 9
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download