A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



Australian Speakers Agency


The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Climate Science (Key points & Scandals)

Sorted by Scientific Topic / Scandal


The Missing Hot Spot

The models are wrong (but only by 400%)

Hockey Stick Graph


Missing Heat

How the oceans drive the climate

Sea-Levels:   Last 200 years | Adjustments lift it by 10% | Australian (All sea level pages)

Temperature Sets

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.9/10 (13 votes cast)
Climate Science (Key points & Scandals), 7.9 out of 10 based on 13 ratings

7 comments to Climate Science (Key points & Scandals)

  • #

    do we have any discussions or references to the isotope analysis of atmospheric CO2 calculates the relative proportion of fossil derived CO2 , either ppm or % ?
    I have seen the isotope analysis results , but they never seem to translate the isotope ratio into real world ppm data.


    • #
      Gee aye

      Odd place for this.

      It is rather simple I think. The methods used for measuring relative abundances of isotopes are pretty much blind to the ppm of CO2 in the sample. The input sample also varies in ppm and ratios depending on time of year and collection location. To work out the ppm simply use the ratios and apply them to the ppm found at the time of collection using the assumption of concordance. The answer you get will be an estimate so should be stated as “estimated ppm”.


      • #

        Thanks Gee Aye,
        But assuming the “sample” being analysed is a representitive (400ppm CO2) , i thought the whole objective of the analysis was to establish how much Fossil derived CO2 was present.
        All i see is the isotope “ratio” changing from -7 to -8.5 ….but that tells me nothing about the ppm of fossil CO2 content.
        There must be a conversion method/ factor,


        • #
          Gee aye

          I’m unsure of what numbers you are quoting there.

          A made up example – C 12:13:14 = 2:1:1 then that would be 200:100:100 in 400ppm.


  • #

    I posted here because i was looking for information via the “reference pages”. Section, but could find nothing there


  • #
    zenon helinski

    Channel nine report that summer is now 1 month longer than 1i 1960 – is this true?


    • #

      True if you ignore the 100 years of data before that.

      Any 60 year warming trend will make warmer weather. There was a 60 year cooling trend before that, did they forget to tell you?

      PS: Almost no one will see this page, so you are better posting questions on other threads.


Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>