3 ms·
The conclusions presented in the article seem a bit far-fetched. The article only mentions "upticks in charcoal particles (suggesting large fires had been burni
by nuerow 5y ago
The conclusions presented in the article seem a bit far-fetched. The article only mentions "upticks in charcoal particles (suggesting large fires had been burning)" and a presence of a "compound is typically found in the feces of livestock, such as cows and sheep".
Given that large fires do occur naturally and don't require human intervention, it sounds quite a leap to jump from that onto "humans did it".
- ggm 5y agoI thought this too. But reading your criticism, I felt "yea, but this is a news-take on a peer review paper: They will have had to address this to get above the threshold for publication" eg correlates to other events, evidence of known occupied areas and confounding wildfire signals. Its like treerings. They're going to work with sediment levels which include strong signals of widespread events, and volcanic events nearby, and discount them scientifically
- PedroBatista 5y agoI don't know if it's in the article but I remember the authors saying something about being able distinguish between livestock and human feces given the compounds.