Cited by 27Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesTree-ring climate responsesGeology and Paleoclimatology Research

Investigating the Interhemispheric 14C Offset in the 1st Millennium AD and Assessment of Laboratory Bias and Calibration Errors

Open access
Hogg, Alan, Palmer, Jonathan, Boswijk, Gretel, Reimer, Paula, Brown, David·2009·Radiocarbon

Abstract

Past measurements of the radiocarbon interhemispheric offset have been restricted to relatively young samples because of a lack of older dendrochronologically secure Southern Hemisphere tree-ring chronologies. The Southern Hemisphere calibration data set SHCal04 earlier than AD 950 utilizes a variable interhemispheric offset derived from measured 2nd millennium AD Southern Hemisphere/Northern Hemisphere sample pairs with the assumption of stable Holocene ocean/atmosphere interactions. This study extends the range of measured interhemispheric offset values with 20 decadal New Zealand kauri and Irish oak sample pairs from 3 selected time intervals in the 1st millennium AD and is part of a larger program to obtain high-precision Southern Hemisphere 14 C data continuously back to 200 BC. We found an average interhemispheric offset of 35 ± 6 yr, which although consistent with previously published 2nd millennium AD measurements, is lower than the offset of 55–58 yr utilized in SHCal04. We concur with McCormac et al. (2008) that the IntCal04 measurement for AD 775 may indeed be slightly too old but also suggest the McCormac results appear excessively young for the interval AD 755–785. In addition, we raise the issue of laboratory bias and calibration errors, and encourage all laboratories to check their consistency with appropriate calibration curves and invest more effort into improving the accuracy of those curves.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033822200034238

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Laboratory error multipliers for other legacy datasets were left at the 2004 values, except for Belfast and Waikato where intra-laboratory multipliers had already been included in reported uncertainties; for these datasets multipliers were set to 1 to avoid applying them twice.

    “The laboratory error multipliers for the other legacy datasets were also left at the 2004 values with the exception of the more recent data from Belfast and Waikato where intra-laboratory multipliers had already been included in the reported uncertainties (McCormac et al. 2004; Hogg et al. 2009; datasets 2/1, 2/2, 3/1 and 3/2). The laboratory error multipliers for these datasets were therefore set”

    From The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP) (2020) · cites this paper as Hogg et al. 2009

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 14C offsets between the Southern and Northern Hemispheres are well documented, while offsets within the Northern Hemisphere are less well understood.

    “While 14 C offsets between the Southern and Northern Hemispheres are well documented (McCormac et al. 1998; Stuiver and Braziunas 1998; Hogg et al. 2009; Turney et al. 2016a), offsets within the Northern Hemisphere are less well understood.”
  • Irish oak data from the Waikato laboratory for intervals AD 245-335, 745-785, and 895-935 had accidentally been left out of IntCal13 and are now included.

    “Irish oak data from the Waikato laboratory (Hogg et al. 2009) for the intervals AD 245 -335, 745 -785, and 895 -935 had accidentally been left out of IntCal13 and are now included.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hogg, A., Palmer, J., Boswijk, G., Reimer, P., & Brown, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Waikato (NZ)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
Corresponding author
Hogg, Alan
Venue
Radiocarbon
Published
2009
Volume
51
Issue
4
Pages
1177-1186
ISSN
  • 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-5755
OpenAlex
W2119637832
Cited by
27
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Commons (University of Waikato) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
  • University of Waikato
  • University of Auckland
  • Marsden Fund
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Tree-ring climate responses
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
Keywords
first millennium AD, kauri, dendrochronology, calibration curve, laboratory bias, radiocarbon chronology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review