4.8 Article

Dual clumped isotope thermometry resolves kinetic biases in carbonate formation temperatures

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-17501-0

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. DFG [INST 161/871-1, ME 4955/1-1, MU 2845/6-1, SCHO 1274/8-1, SCHO 1274/11-1, HA 8694/1-1]
  2. Investment in Science Fund at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
  3. University of Innsbruck
  4. NERC [NE/J020842/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Surface temperature is a fundamental parameter of Earth's climate. Its evolution through time is commonly reconstructed using the oxygen isotope and the clumped isotope compositions of carbonate archives. However, reaction kinetics involved in the precipitation of carbonates can introduce inaccuracies in the derived temperatures. Here, we show that dual clumped isotope analyses, i.e., simultaneous (47) and (48) measurements on the single carbonate phase, can identify the origin and quantify the extent of these kinetic biases. Our results verify theoretical predictions and evidence that the isotopic disequilibrium commonly observed in speleothems and scleractinian coral skeletons is inherited from the dissolved inorganic carbon pool of their parent solutions. Further, we show that dual clumped isotope thermometry can achieve reliable palaeotemperature reconstructions, devoid of kinetic bias. Analysis of a belemnite rostrum implies that it precipitated near isotopic equilibrium and confirms the warmer-than-present temperatures during the Early Cretaceous at southern high latitudes. Some palaeotemperature proxies suffer from inaccuracies related to kinetic fractionations occurring during carbonate mineral growth. Here, the authors show that dual clumped isotope thermometry can identify the origin of these kinetic biases and allows for the reconstruction of accurate environmental temperatures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available