BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 9.9% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 352 faulty-reasoning hits from 867 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 17.6% and a BS Rank of 4% (21,093 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 96.40% of the article peer group.

fotograzia // Getty Images 
Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story: 
Some scientists think that in five billion years, as the Sun ages and transforms into a Red Giant, Earth will be swallowed whole, effectively ending its 10-billion-year-long existence. 
However, due to the Sun’s increasing luminosity, life on Earth will be gone long before that celestial cataclysm takes place. 
A new study predicts that plant life will possibly hold out on Earth more than 1.8 billion years from now—a much higher estimate than past studies have suggested. 
All good things come to an end, including life on Earth. 
In roughly 5 billion years, the Sun will exhaust its stores of hydrogen and begin burning helium, transitioning into a Red Giant and swallowing Earth in the process ( maybe ). 
While a couple extra billion years sounds nice—that is, if humanity can even make it past a couple thousand—the planet will run into problems sustaining life long before the Sun’s transition into gianthood. 
As our host star (a G-type main-sequence yellow dwarf), continues to burn hydrogen, it’s also increasing its luminosity by roughly 1 percent every 110 million years . 
Currently, the Sun produces roughly one-third more energy than it did at the birth of the Solar System , and that increasing luminosity will be a big problem in about 1.8 billion years, according to a new study in the journal JGR Atmospheres . 
“The ultimate life span of Earth's biosphere is limited due to the steady brightening of the sun as it progresses in age,” the authors wrote. 
“Earth’s long-term carbon cycle may respond by drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into carbonate rocks, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect and offsetting the increased sunlight.” 
As the authors note, previous studies have assumed that the lowering of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will essentially doom macro-sized organisms, including plants that rely on the gas for photosynthesis . 
The first calculations based on this disruption of Earth’s carbonate-silicate cycle initially put the end of plant life at just 100 million years from now . 
Future revisions raised that number up to as much as 1.5 billion by making distinctions between different types of photosynthesis processes used by different plants. 
Some 95 percent of plant life on Earth relies on C3 photosynthesis, which requires CO 2 concentrations of roughly 150 parts per million. 
C4 photosynthesis plants on the other hand—like corn , grasses, and many weeds—require only 15 parts per million. 
Even more drastic are crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) photosynthesis plants like cacti and orchids, which require CO 2 levels as low as 1 part per million 
For this new study, the team created 29 climate models, which ran various scenarios that could impact Earth’s vegetative biosphere far into the future (the models’ two key parameters being carbon dioxide levels and temperature ). 
Two of the most extreme scenarios modeled an Earth that’s too hot for life: one in which the CO 2 levels remain unchanged (a process known as “weak weathering”), and in the other in which there isn’t enough CO 2 to support life but the temperature remains stable (“strong weathering”). 
In the weak-weathering scenario, plants that utilize CAM photosynthesis survive until roughly 1.87 billion years from now, while the strong-weathering model ends plant life at around 1.35 billion years in the future. 
However, using CAM photosynthesis as a threshold, even the strong-weathering scenario raises survivability up to 1.84 billion years from now. 
Regardless of which timeline plays out, this plant apocalypse will occur around the same time that the Earth’s oceans will be lost to space (also due to the Sun’s increased luminosity). 
The authors also note that one limitation of the study is that it only assesses how photosynthesis works today, and not as how it might one day evolve. 
“Life on Earth is resilient, and limits posed by thermal stress or starvation may only reflect our observations of the biosphere today rather than hard limits on how the biosphere may evolve,” the authors wrote. 
“We acknowledge that the results of this study should be examined with other 3-D models, and that a community effort that compares model results at high insolation and low would be the best way to constrain these timescales.” 
If nature has shown us anything in past four billion years, it’ll find a way to survive until the very end. 
Darren lives in Portland, has a cat, and writes/edits about sci-fi and how our world works. 
You can find his previous stuff at Gizmodo and Paste if you look hard enough. 
This Root Could Help Treat Balding, Studiea Find 
Is the ‘Betz Mystery Sphere’ Really Alien Tech? 
We May Have Been Wrong About the Origin of Life 
Stuck Stem Cells Culprit for Gray Hair 
Chernobyl Stewards May Pass Mutations to Children 
An 1877 El Niño Wreaked Havoc. 
It May Do So Again. 
The Truth Behind Japan’s “Atlantis” 
Scientists Just Solved a Major Coffin Mystery 
Earth’s Hidden Eighth Continent Is No Longer Lost 
We May Have Botched Our Global Warming Timeline 
An Ancient Bridge Lost to History Has Reemerged 
A New Formula for Pi Is Here 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 4.6%Popular Mechanics: 4.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 4.3%Popular Mechanics: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.9%Popular Mechanics: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.9%Darren Orf: 2.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.9%This article: 1.5%Darren Orf: 2.7%Popular Mechanics: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias1.5%This article: 4.4%Darren Orf: 4.0%Popular Mechanics: 3.6%Framing Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.9%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Darren Orf: 3.5%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Optimism Bias6.5%This article: 3.8%Darren Orf: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Pessimism Bias3.8%This article: 4.8%Darren Orf: 6.2%Popular Mechanics: 5.3%Negativity Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 2.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 7.7%Popular Mechanics: 5.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.4%Darren Orf: 4.5%Popular Mechanics: 4.2%Hasty Generalization2.4%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.3%Darren Orf: 3.7%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion6.3%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 3.7%Popular Mechanics: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.8%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 3.3%Popular Mechanics: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 2.3%Popular Mechanics: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 2.4%Popular Mechanics: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.9%Darren Orf: 8.0%Popular Mechanics: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice9.9%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.6%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

867 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker0.5%attributed speech863writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coveragefotograzia // Getty Images • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
0%flagged-word coverage
4 attributed words100% of attributed speech19% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-10.0 ptsWriter: 10.0%fotograzia // Getty Images: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.