Talk:Δ18O

Untitled
So is the abundance d18O positively or negatively correlated with temperature.

negatively; low ocean surface temp will give you a high delO18 --Boris Wawrik 21:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this calculated as (sample-standard)/standard ? --Boris Wawrik 21:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(sample-standard)/standard is the same as (sample/standard) - 1 --Thilo Kübler

THE FORMULA IS WRONG!!! I EDITED IT YESTERDAY AND IT WASNT ACCEPTED! BUT IM RIGHT I REEDIT IT AGAIN.

Explaination: If its cold delta18O is positive. if its cold theres less 18O in the sample. Therefore the formula must be (16O/18O)/(16O/18O)SMOW - 1. I saw that the wrong formula is also in the other wikipedia article about 18O. I edit it there as well. a right source (german) would be http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauerstoff (chapter "Indirekte Temperaturmessung") --Thilo Kübler  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.117.202.122 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is the name of d18O and how is it pronounced?
Could anyone with knowledge of the topic write in the main article what is the name in English of the d18O parameter and how is it pronounced in English. I suppose that the pronounciation could be something like "delta-eighteen-ou", or "di-eighteen-ou". I have no idea what its name is. Thank you for the interesting article.

Pmronchi (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a delta, so delta-eighteen-o
 * Cheers, Thouny (talk)

Sources and Citations
The intro gives a good general understanding of delta18O, and its practical applications. However, the strengths and weaknesses of delta18O as a proxy are not addressed in the article. Could that be added to expand upon the intro, or into the mechanism section? Also, the references for this article could be expanded upon and updated. There are not any citations in the mechanism section, and all of the sources are from 1953-2005. Maybe this link (https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/65936) could be cited to update the information since it was published in 2010. (http://www.ajsonline.org/content/298/4/324.short) This source is not as current, but could help expand upon the information in the article. FuSha (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)FuShaFuSha (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Dubious chart
That chart has a 150+kyr period labeled as a 41kyr cycle... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.246.116 (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. Further information and primary references regarding the 41 kyr orbital cycle period are found here. + m t  10:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)