Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
It's not my background, but I took a look at that paper, and I'm still not sure how they reached their conclusions. They start with a premise that is cited with a footnote that doesn't have a link(2), but then it seems it's mostly speculations after that - a lot of "correlation, not causation" examples and extrapolations.
They seem to conclude that:
Five processes were likely involved: 1) Increased nutrient supply; 2) Increased oxygenation of atmosphere and ocean; 3) Climate amelioration; 4) Increased rate of habitat formation and destruction; and 5) Moderate, sustained pressure from incessant environmental change.
Are those things only possible with plate tectonics?
I would definitely appreciate the opinion of someone smarter than I to help explain it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
12 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read