| 24 Oct 2025
A model intercomparison of radiocarbon-based marine reservoir ages during the last 55 kyr including abrupt changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
Abstract. Changes in the marine reservoir age (MRA) of the surface ocean are important information used for radiocarbon dating of marine sediment cores or archaeological artifacts. MRA changes are expressed relative to the atmosphere, and as such are dependent on the prevailing atmospheric radiocarbon calibration curve. The most recent estimate for evolving global average MRA for latitudes approximately < 50° is incorporated into the marine calibration curve Marine20, which was directly calculated from the atmospheric ∆14C record, IntCal20, using the carbon cycle box model BICYCLE, taking into account observed changes in the carbon cycle. These simulations did not consider changes in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) related to Dansgaard/Oeschger and Heinrich events. A recent study using the successor BICYCLE-SE suggested that abrupt AMOC changes would lead to changes in MRA of less than 100 14C yr in the non-polar surface ocean (about < 50°). To better support previous model-based MRA and to further constrain the impact of AMOC changes on MRA, we here assess transient simulations of the last 55 kyr performed by two Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs), LOVECLIM and Bern3D, and compare them to the published BICYCLE-SE box model results and previous output from the LSG ocean general circulation model. The setups within this MRA model intercomparison (MRA-MIP) are not identical, but all models are forced by atmospheric CO2 and ∆14C to have the surface ocean carbon cycle state as close as possible to reconstructions. Simulations with abrupt AMOC reductions during stadials display a rise in in MRA in the surface northern Atlantic (>50° N) and the deep Atlantic, for example during Heinrich stadial 1 of 300–1250 and 500–1300 14C yr, respectively, roughly in agreement with their reconstructed rises by about 1200–1300 14C yr. We find that the changes in the mean non-polar surface MRA (< 50° latitude) during abrupt AMOC changes in LOVECLIM are also in the order of ±100 14C yr, while in Bern3D simulating changes are up to ±200 14C yr. While the models tend to agree that a reduced AMOC leads to lower MRA in the low-latitude surface ocean, under some conditions the opposite is found (e.g. simulations with LOVECLIM across Heinrich stadial 1). Spatially resolved results of the models show that changes in surface MRA during stadials depict the general pattern of a radiocarbon bipolar seesaw (older surface water in the high north, younger in the high south and in the Indo-Pacific), in agreement with previously published reconstructions, but with model-specific details in the non-polar Atlantic. Throughout the last 50 kyr, the change in the multi-model mean in non-polar MRA of the 2 EMICs when compared with Marine20 is less than 100 14C years and within the uncertainties of Marine20. Furthermore, changes in the MRA of the high latitude Southern Ocean (> 50° S) are extremely model-dependent and for most times between 18 and 43 kyr BP the changes in the multi-model mean MRA are larger than the 95 % confidence interval of the non-polar MRA depicted in Marine20, making the construction of a similarly numerical model-based calibration curve for this region a challenging task.
Competing interests: LM and LCS are members of the editorial board of Climate of the Past.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Summary
Although I’m not a modeling expert, but I am a user of these datasets and this MIP manuscript is timely and well-written. Given all that I’ve learned in this manuscript (e.g., the “surface ocean” is not consistent between the models), the observation that these models are broadly showing similar values (at least for the lower latitudes) is pretty amazing. This MIP is mostly focused on large-scale observations, with a mostly qualitative discussion of the inter-model differences and/or comparisons with observations. But maybe that's fine for this first of its kind work. Otherwise, I’m happy to see this useful study published.
Line by line notes:
Line 12: Should define LSG earlier in the manuscript
19: “leads to a lower MRA” is too vague; should be supported with values
44: Incomplete sentence here
55: I believe that “LSG” is still undefined at this point in the manuscript!
62: I like “come-as-you-are”
70: The formatting of this equation makes it seem like it is all multiplied by “14C yr” when that is, in fact, the units of the equation. I see this in the later equation as well.
155: yes, once again this formatting could be confusing
178: I think it’s generally understood this publication is using planktic foraminifera radiocarbon compilation, so I think it would help to be explicit about this?
193: Should just be “Results and Discussion”?
213: Statistics could be used instead of “compare well” here
246: I think this run of one sentence paragraphs could be streamlined.
255: A run-on sentence, I believe.
256: “for the same model do we find”?
262: The manuscript likely needs some explanation of why / how there was a scaling of the eddy diffusivity to the AMOC proxy. This is unclear to me and likely other readers.
285: “dynamical behaviour” is not clear text. Does this refer to differences in model physics?
285: Notably, there is no LSG model comparison here—maybe the manuscript should quickly state why?
362: “…which model might be the..” (?)
Figure 2: I like the layout of the panels. However, the caption confused me at first. I might replace “for runs with abrupt AMOC changes” with “for runs with modeled abrupt AMOC changes”. When I first read this caption (before I read the paper), it almost sounded like the AMOC changes developed on their own!