![]() | Carbon-14 received apeer review by Wikipedia editors, which is nowarchived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia'sMain Page in theOn this day section onFebruary 27, 2008,February 27, 2009,February 27, 2010,February 27, 2012,February 27, 2016,February 27, 2017, andFebruary 27, 2020. |
![]() | This![]() It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
| |
This page has archives. Sections older than730 days may be automatically archived byLowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
COMMENTED OUT UNTIL AN EXPLANATORY CAPTION (clarifying the meaning and relationship of each one of the entries) IS WRITTEN FOR THIS BOX:
Lighter: Carbon-13 | Carbon-14 is an [[Isotopes ofCarbon|isotope]] of [[Carbon]] | Heavier: Carbon-15 |
Decay product of: Nitrogen-18 Boron-14 | Decay chain of carbon-14 | Decays to: Nitrogen-14 |
The article tells:
Many man-made chemicals are derived from fossil fuels (such as petroleum or coal) in which 14C is greatly depleted because the age of fossils far exceeds the half-life of 14C.
My questions are: should there be mentioned the chemical compound called the hydrocarbons instead of fossil fuels?
For the man-made chemical petroleum products, such as oil or diesel oil, are produced or derived from the hydrocarbons they claim.
And do You think that is possible to extract oil from the hydrocarbons called the coal?
Just an inquiry...Kartasto (talk)07:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to latest edit by the userHeyElliott human-made chemicals are derived from fossil fuels (such as petroleum or coal)...
There is, however, an article concerning the Abiotic staff in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
The text inside it is guiding us:
The presence of methane on Saturn's moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is cited as evidence of the formation of hydrocarbons without biological intermediate forms...
My interpretation regarding the termintermediate is related to the consept of fossils (without biological intermediate forms).
May I inquiry how do You interpret further the abiotic hydrocarbons such as methane for this article?Kartasto (talk)04:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User User:Gah4 wrote:
Chemicals can be made from recent organic matter, such as vegetable oils. So, biodiesel will be new, and refined from oil wells will be old. So, it should say fossil fuel when it is sourced from oil well products.
I would like to know if the vegetable oils are chemicals by definition?
So biodiesel is likewise produced from hydrocarbons, such as the new vegetable oil?
The definition of the fossil after Wikipedia explains:
A fossil (from Classical Latin fossilis, lit. 'obtained by digging') is any preserved remains, impression, or trace of any once-living thing from a past geological age. Examples include bones, shells, exoskeletons, stone imprints of animals or microbes, objects preserved in amber, hair, petrified wood and DNA remnants. The totality of fossils is known as the fossil record.
And:
Specimens are usually considered to be fossils if theyare over 10,000 years old
Are those vegatable oils digged?Kartasto (talk)05:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the body, the article says:
The sidebar says something slightly different:
The sidebar, unfortunately, doesn't mention whether that's a molar fraction or a mass fraction, nor whether that's the abundance within in the atmosphere or some sort of average (atmosphere & ocean?).
Neither the article nor the sidebar give references for the figures.
I found a recent paper which reports a "standard isotopic fractional abundance"14rstd (14C/C) = 1.170 × 10−12:
It also mentions an earlier figure of 1.176 × 10−12 which, it says, is not quite correct.
Ithink that the 1.170 × 10−12 figure is a molar fraction in the atmosphere, not a mass ratio, but I'm not 100% certain. Does anyone know for sure?
Also, I don't know whether or not that "standard" ratio is believed to be the "preindustrial" (1700s?) level. Does anyone know?
It is my understanding that the combination of now-mostly-decayed "14C bomb spike" (increase) and Suess dilution (decrease) have given us a current (2024) atmospheric14C/C ratio which is, coincidentally, almost exactly equal to the preindustrial ratio. However, that won't last. Fossil CO2 emissions are continuing to reduce the ratio.
I also found a paper which makes it sound like the terminology used in the academic literature is a bewildering mess:
It gets worse. Here's a plot indicating that (14C/C) was at roughly 50% higher 24,000 years ago! I have no idea whether that is correct. If it is correct, it suggests a much higher rate of 14C production in the stratosphere in the past (presumably indicating a strong cosmic radiation flux, perhaps due to a weaker solar magnetosphere), and it means that "preindustrial" is a rather imprecise term, in this context.
Correction (20 May 2024): The reason14C was roughly 50% higher 24,000 years ago is simply that the total carbon (mostly CO2) level was 1/3 lower 24K years ago. The total amount of14C in the air was about the same. Since14C is formed from14N (rather than12C or13C), the rate of14C formation is independent of the amount of CO2 in the air, and when the CO2 level is higher the14CO2 is a smaller fraction of it.
NCdave (talk)03:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC) (edited 20 May 2024)[reply]