Summary of the Snowball Earth article

 

 

Write a summary of the Snowball Earth article. Your summary should highlight
the geological processes and concepts associated with both the evidence of a snowball/hothouse Earth and
the hypothesized mechanisms responsible for snowball/hothouse Earth. You should specifically include the
following processes/features in your discussion:
Plate tectonics and volcanism
The relationship between sedimentary rocks and their formation environment
Isotopic analysis
The summary should be concise and no more than a page or so in length (double-spaced, 12 point font, 1 inch
margins).

 

 

 

 

 

SAMPLE SOLUTION

Snowball Earth concept, first coined by Kirschvink (1992), and followed from detailed sedimentalogic and carbon isotopic investigations of Cryogenian glacigenic sequences in northern Namibia (Hoffman et al., 2015). The novel formulation focused on a global climatic mechanism to explain: (1) the abundance of Neoproterozoic glacigenic strata on most continents, including evidence of widespread continental glaciers within a few degrees of the paleo-equator; (2) that many glacial intervals were sharply bounded by thick carbonate sequences (including later-defined cap carbonates) or contained carbonate fragments; and (3) that some glacial intervals included a return of sedimentary iron formation (IF) deposition after a billion year absence from the geologic record.

buse among activists and lawyers attempting to circumvent democratic procedures. Unlike the U.S., which has been at the forefront of collective actions with its far-reaching class action regime, European states have traditionally been hesitant to adopt such an expansive and powerful redress mechanism. While great uncertainty exists as to the scope and potential impact of its private right of action, the immediate complaints pending in European courts highlight the potentially devastating roles that private actors may end up playing in GDPR enforcement.
Generally, individuals have two routes to vindicate an alleged infringement of their privacy rights under the GDPR. First, under Articles 77 and 78(2), they can lodge a complaint against the infringing company with a supervisory authority, and if the supervisory authority fails to conduct an investigation, the private actor can seek a judicial remedy against the supervisory authority. Second, under Articles 79 and 82, the private actor can seek a judicial remedy directly against the infringing company for damages. Additionally, Article 80(1) allows non-profit organization – like NYOB – to represent (and even receive compensation on behalf of) an individual, as long as the organization’s statutory objectives are in the public interest and the organization is active in the space of data rights.

In its complaints against Google, Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, NOYB alleges that the companies’ privacy policies “forced” consent in violation of Article 4(11)’s enhanced requirement that consent be “freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous.” NOYB claims that consent is illegitimate in situations where it is offered in a “take it or leave it” fashion because there is not a genuine choice to accept or decline without repercussion. For example, NOYB argues that consumers must either accept Google’s entire privacy policy and consent to all data processing or be denied access to the service entirely and give up access to their Gmail account, which is the default requirement to use Android phones and for signing into YouTube and several other Google Internet services.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.