the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A Comprehensive Global Ocean Radiocarbon Dataset (1700–2024) for Climate Applications
Abstract. Radiocarbon (14C) in the ocean, reported as fractionation-corrected Δ14C, is a key tracer of circulation, ventilation, and carbon-cycle exchange on decadal to centennial timescales. We present a harmonized global compilation of marine Δ14C observations spanning 1700–2024, comprising 68,543 measurements from two complementary streams: 58,216 ship-based dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) bottle samples (1955–2024) and 10,327 biogenic carbonate measurements from corals, bivalves, gastropods, and sclerosponges (1700–2020). The ship-based component builds on the Global Ocean Data Analysis Project (GLODAP) by adding data from additional hydrographic cruises and 68 peer-reviewed studies. The carbonate records provide time-resolved observations at individual sites, including historical periods prior to direct measurements, and they extend coverage to coastal, tropical, and deeper-habitat settings where direct seawater sampling remains sparse. All records were screened for metadata completeness, transcribed into a common reporting framework following Stuiver and Polach (1977), and assigned synthesis quality flags (DELC14QC) through primary quality control. Deep-ocean crossover diagnostics are archived separately for user advisory review and do not modify bottle DELC14QC. The merged ship-based and biogenic carbonate measurements together span pre-bomb baselines through the modern bomb-14C decline across global ocean basins. Version~1.2026 of the compilation is archived on Zenodo as flat CSV files with a per-contribution source table; release in Linked Paleo Data (LiPD) format is planned. The product captures pre-industrial baselines, the bomb-14C transient and its penetration into the interior ocean, and the post-peak decline through recent decades, and is intended to support ocean ventilation assessments, Earth system model evaluation, and multi-century carbon-cycle synthesis.
- Preprint
(7152 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(244 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-691', Patrick Rafter, 15 Sep 2026
-
RC2: 'Reply on RC1', Patrick Rafter, 16 Sep 2026
My copy and paste missed a few additional items (my "line by line" notes). I've pasted all of them below.
Line by line notes:
Line 3: “harmonized” at first struck me as an odd choice, but this word is used throughout the manuscript. If I were writing this, I would use this novel and useful description, although with a very brief (perhaps parenthetical) explanation of *exactly* what is meant.Line 15: “Is planned”. Although I fully endorse this release in the LiPD format, I find it is non-standard for manuscripts to “plan” to submit datasets. A great philosopher, long ago and perhaps far away once said “do or do not”. I think this is a massively useful compilation and entirely compatible with the ESSD format *and* I would either not mention LiPD or I would push this through in LiPD.
Line 313: A lot of discussion of LiPD and the LiPDverse. I’m confused because the text seems to suggest (?) that the data will be released in the LiPD framework... before / after acceptance in ESSD?
Line 345: I especially like this entire “crossover analysis” discussion. Very thoughtful.
Section 4.2: I am sure there are many other datasets in this compilation that can also be examined, but I think this section does a good job of using some of them as examples. I mention this because sometimes reviewers of these types of manuscripts tend to push the authors into more and more analyses… which is not always bad but I think it is unnecessary for this particular journal.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-691-RC2
-
RC2: 'Reply on RC1', Patrick Rafter, 16 Sep 2026
-
RC3: 'Comment on essd-2026-691', Siv K Lauvset, 30 Sep 2026
The paper presents a new compilation of ocean radiocarbon data which is considerably more comprehensive than previously available data compilations. The authors have done a thorough job of mining, compiling and quality controlling data from different sources. This data product will be incredibly useful for many purposes in ocean science. The manuscript is remarkably well-written (though in my mind with far too many semicolons), the illustrations are clear and detailed, and the information given is detailed and comprehensive. The manuscript does a very good job of describing the data and the data files themselves are nicely structured and intuitive to use. I have one issue I would like the authors to change and a few minor comments (detailed below), but the manuscript can be published after these minor revisions. I also recommend that the authors contact the GLODAP team when the paper is published and we’ll help promote it using the www.glodap.info website.
Major issue (sort of):
The authors repeatedly mention and describe a version of the data (in LiPD-format) that does not yet exist. This is not appropriate for ESSD where all data should be available for the reviewers and the readers. The readers are supposed to be able to access the data using the paper, and the paper can and should be used as a citation for the data. But that does not work in this case when the readers will not be able to access all data versions using this paper. Also, the paper will not age well since a lot of important information will be quickly outdated. That means that the paper will not get many citations. I understand the desire to publish the data product in LiPD-format. I recommend that the authors complete this version of the data and make it available during revision of this manuscript. Then the relevant text can be changed to describe an existing version. The data availability should also be updated accordingly.
If the authors are unable to complete the LiPD-version during revision then the text describing this version needs to be removed from the manuscript. The authors can instead add a brief “future work/plans” section to mention this planned update. But the update itself would then need to be published in a new paper (perhaps as part of a living data process).
Minor comments:
Line 14-15: Either publish the LiPD-version or remove this information
Line 46: I think that here it is more appropriate to cite Key et al. (2004), Olsen et al. (2016) and Lange et al. (2026) for GLODAP versions 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Lauvset et al. (2024) is cited when GLODAPv2.2023 is mentioned.
Line 137: I believe Swift and Diggs (2008) is a better reference to use for the WOCE exchange format.
Swift, J. and Diggs, S. C.: Description of WHP exchange format for CTD/Hydrographic data, CLIVAR and Carbon Hydrographic Data Office, UCSD Scripps Institution of oceanography, San Diego, CA, US, https://cchdo.github.io/hdo-assets/documentation/WHP_Exchange_Description.pdf (last access: 29 April 2024), 2008.
Line 191: The section referred to in parenthesis is called “Data and Code Availability”. Please correct.
Line 213-223: See major comment. Please update to describe an existing and available version of the data, or remove.
Line 233: Remove mention of LiPD unless the available data product is updated.
Line 239-240: As a matter of curiosity: are the authors planning a living data process in ESSD for this data product and future versions?
Table 2: See major comment. An ESSD paper should describe that that exist and are available to the reader. This table also presents planned versions which I find inappropriate.
Line 348-350: Please add a few words to elaborate on why the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean pairs are excluded. I know it is mentioned elsewhere but it bears repeating here.
Figure 6 caption: It is difficult to see the difference between the crimson and purple stars (both reading on paper and on screen). Please change to colors with more contrast, or use different markers.
Line 436-438: The sentence after the semicolon is incomplete so the use of semicolon is incorrect. The sentences are also difficult to understand as it is not obvious how Druffel et al (2017) relates to the Arctic data. Please revise for clarity.
Line 458-462: See major comment. The Code and Data Availability section should only present data that are actually available. The LiPD-version is not.
Line 465-466: I recommend the authors add a brief “future plans” section for information such as this.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-691-RC3
Data sets
A Global Ocean Radiocarbon (Δ¹⁴C) Dataset (1700–2023) from Dissolved Inorganic Carbon and Marine Carbonate Archives Mamnun et al. https://zenodo.org/records/18674659
Model code and software
v1.0: Compilation code for a global ocean radiocarbon (Δ¹⁴C) dataset (1700–2024) Nabir Mamnun https://zenodo.org/records/22100626
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 426 | 149 | 103 | 678 | 58 | 118 | 90 |
- HTML: 426
- PDF: 149
- XML: 103
- Total: 678
- Supplement: 58
- BibTeX: 118
- EndNote: 90
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Manuscript “A Comprehensive Global Ocean Radiocarbon Dataset (1700–2024)
for Climate Applications,” as reviewed by Patrick Rafter
Summary
Careful and thoughtful compilation studies like this manuscript discusses are essential if we are to “level up” ocean, climate, and carbon cycle research. The authors here have done an outstanding job and I have taken notes on how I could have improved my own compilation work. I am very much looking forward to working with this dataset, which I have already downloaded and quickly looked over.
All in all, this manuscript is the coolest study I’ve reviewed this year—maybe for the past few years. I have very few notes while reading, which speaks to a careful crafting of the manuscript. I thank the authors for this.
I am also happy to see a static / persistent DOI. (I am unsure I was able to do this with any of my earlier geochemical compilations.) Speaking of which, another thing my compilation studies failed to acknowledge is the future *submission* of data to the compilation. This is especially relevant for this study because I have several very useful (either unpublished or recently published) datasets that I would like to contribute to this compilation. If the text could explicitly state that new datasets are welcome—plus directions on submission—I think that might be useful.
Line by line notes:
Line 3: “harmonized” at first struck me as an odd choice, but this word is used throughout the manuscript. If I were writing this