Research roundup: 6 cool science stories we almost missed

Crushing soda cans for science, why dolphins swim so fast, how urine helps mushrooms communicate, and more

See full article...

 

[KChat]

Maybe I just need more coffee, but are these numbers presented backwards? Or are they older, not younger than previously thought?

Thanks to microscopic fossils, the Melbourne researchers found that the formation is younger than previously thought: 8.6 to 14 million years old, compared to the previous estimate of 7 to 14 million years.

ETA: the more I think about this, they almost have to be backwards - with finding a fossil 7M years old expanding the date range.

Edit 2: it seems they dated the lowest? layers, which constrained the formation to be older, not younger.

1. Shallow shelf conditions after ca 12.6 Ma led to the deposition of the youngest carbonate unit in the region, the yellow Port Campbell Limestones with similar conditions persisting until at least 8.6 Ma. The brittle cemented yellow Port Campbell Limestone prevails in the upper half of most cliff sections and in the upper part of most sea stacks of the Twelve Apostles.
2. Uplift, karstification and erosion, terminated Port Campbell Limestone deposition after 8.6 Ma. Northwest–southeast compression formed broad open anticlines and synclines with minor thrust faulting.

And the pillars themselves were created due to erosion in the last few thousand years:

The present cliffs and sea stacks in the Port Campbell region were created since the Last Glacial Maximum (23 000–20 000 year ago) as the sea-level rose 125 m forming the present shoreline. In the last few thousand years, the sea has eroded the brittle Port Campbell Limestone forming cliffs and promontories. Arches formed where the sea undermined promontories, and these continuously collapse forming sea stacks. Therefore, while the layers of the Twelve Apostles record millions of years of Earth history, the sea stacks and cliffs represent a relatively short and ephemeral part of that history.

**Looks like the disconnect is that the original estimate was 7-15 million years ago, & it has been constrained to 8.6-14M years ago. So the oldest part of the formation is younger, while the youngest parts are older than originally thought.

 

[KChat]

The AI is painfully obvious in some of these articles. I guess Ars never said anything about promoting OTHERS AI bullcrap.

So are you accusing the researchers of using AI when writing their original papers? I'm confuzzled.

Regardless, it's a bold accusation with zero facts asserted to bolster your position. So I'm just gonna assume you're full of shit.

 

[KChat]

I too puzzled over this for longer than I feel comfortable admitting, but if the formation is indeed younger than previously thought, then the author has the old and new ranges reversed. As the dates are given, the formation is now older than previously thought.


Edit:

I don't think the study itself ever mentions either age range, but the lead author, Stephen Gallagher, did say this in the University of Melbourne media release: "Early preliminary research indicated the ancient limestone layers ranged between 7 to 15 million years old, but we discovered microscopic fossils that more accurately dated the layers as 8.6 to 14 million years old,"

Source: University of Melbourne media release

So the formation is now believed to be younger, and the typo was in the original estimate of the age range.

Per your edit: but that would make it older, not younger... right? Tell me I'm not taking crazy pills here...

ETA: I guess the fact that they contracted the oldest age makes it younger & takes precedence over the youngest age now being further back. IDK. My brain hurts...