News of the day...
Out of context: Reply #2045
- Started
- Last post
- 4,824 Responses
- GeorgesII0
Here's what disturbs me most when people link article that are so outlandish but hidden under the banner of science peeps will relink it without even reading through the lines
- there's a good thread on /r/science right now
https://theconversation.com/eart…There is a serious problem with this article.
The major mass extinctions are measured from looking back.
Declaring that we are in one, especially in the early stages, is just simply not possible. You can't take an instaneous rate, project it forward for tens of thousands of years, and declare that it will stay that way for LONGER THAN OUR CIVILIZATION HAS EXISTED. It's insane and yet, that's what they are doing here.
Background extinction rates aren't an instantaneous constant rate. "Background" extinction includes period of low rates and period of high rates. The PETM, as an example, had a significant turnover, was caused by global climate change larger than what we are predicting-- and ALSO wasn't above the background extinction rate as measured.
Anyways, bad public reporting on what is fundamentally an important topic.