论文标题
回复“在公元前3372 - 3371年在两个不同的位置未观察到的快速$^{14} $ c游览”
Reply to "Rapid $^{14}$C excursion at 3372-3371 BCE not observed at two different locations"
论文作者
论文摘要
可以通过高能量颗粒在大气中生产核素$^{14} $ c，而高能现象可以在大气中产生$γ$ - 砂。通过碳循环，在大气中产生的$^{14} $ co $ _2 $可以保留在年度树环中。在AD 775，AD 994，BC 660和BC 3371中，$^{14} $ c内容的快速增加事件发生了。最近，Jull等人的数据。 （2020）与BC 3371附近的记录不一致。我们再次测量了样本，发现$^{14} $ C记录与Wang等人的值一致。 （2017）。因此，我们的$^{14} $ c记录很强。不一致可能是由于木材样品的日历年龄的差异或事件的实际起源引起的。首先，在环宽度上进行跨性别的环境条件只能在其具有相同环境条件的树木之间进行。因为缺乏中国树木的树木学的主树环。必须使用来自加利福尼亚的主树环。因此，从树突年代学得出的日历年龄可能并不精确。其次，$^{14} $ C甚至可能不是全局。一个证据是$^{14} $ c内容的变化。
The nuclide $^{14}$C can be produced in the atmosphere by high energy particles and $γ$-rays from high-energy phenomena. Through the carbon cycle, some of $^{14}$CO$_2$ produced in the atmosphere can be retained in annual tree rings. Four events of rapid increase of the $^{14}$C content occurred in AD 775, AD 994, BC 660 and BC 3371 were found. Recently, the data of Jull et al. (2020) was inconsistent with our records around BC 3371. We measured our sample again and found the $^{14}$C records are consistent with the value in Wang et al. (2017). Therefore, our $^{14}$C records are robust. The inconsistency may be caused by the difference of calendar ages for the wood samples, or the physical origin of the event. First, crossdating on ring width can be performed only between trees whose growth has the same environmental conditions. Because the master tree-ring for dendrochronology is lack for Chinese trees. The master tree-ring from California has to be used. Therefore, the calendar ages derived from dendrochronology may be not precise. Second, the $^{14}$C even may be not global. One evidence is the variation of $^{14}$C content around AD 1006. The $^{14}$C contents of Californian trees increase 12\textperthousand~ in two years, while Japanese trees show no $^{14}$C increase.
