3 ms·
Gotta love a good "prominent negative excursion". Which is to say, gotta love unabashed scientific writing. "Neutral bouyancy" would be another good one. We nee
by clebio 11y ago
Gotta love a good "prominent negative excursion". Which is to say, gotta love unabashed scientific writing. "Neutral bouyancy" would be another good one. We need better basic science writing, even if it is on the quagmire that is wikipedia.
- clebio 11y agoAnd by "quagmire" I mean... > We know the entire exogenic carbon cycle ... underwent a −0.2 % to −0.3 % perturbation in δ13C ... [citation needed] much? And yet, wikipedia is not standardized nor enforced for such things. Sorry for the digression.