Are we in the Anthropocene? Geologists could define new epoch for Earth(nature.com)
nature.com
Are we in the Anthropocene? Geologists could define new epoch for Earth
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04428-3
39 comments
This does not make us a geological era: we're an event.
200 million years from now, the descendants of some crafty octopus or african-grey parrot would most likely call us the 5th global extinction event: one certainly thin layer due to depletion of things to burn.
Best case we're fusion-powered and the rest looks like The Expanse, worst case we lose technology for lack of resources and overabundance of conflicts, then it's clever hominids and their superstitions waiting for an asteroid, pandemic, volcanoes to come knocking...
A distinct layer arising due to unusual circumstances that did not exist before, or after, the time that the layer was created in the geologic record would, basically by definition, make it a geological era.
If we were studying an extraterrestrial planet and discovered that there had been intelligent creatures in the deep past of that world that then went extinct, who had altered their world while they were around as much as we have, we'd probably select it as the #1 dividing line in the geological record for that planet. And not just for intelligence-centric reasons. It would be a logical way to segment it. For example, you're gonna have long-lived synthetic isotopes in the layers above, and not in the layers below.
If we were studying an extraterrestrial planet and discovered that there had been intelligent creatures in the deep past of that world that then went extinct, who had altered their world while they were around as much as we have, we'd probably select it as the #1 dividing line in the geological record for that planet. And not just for intelligence-centric reasons. It would be a logical way to segment it. For example, you're gonna have long-lived synthetic isotopes in the layers above, and not in the layers below.
An era is too long. It is controversial as a proposed epoch/series which is two levels down from an Era/Erathem in the geological time scale hierarchy.
>we're an event
I've heard us described as the Anthropocine Extinction
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-the-anthropocene.html
I've heard us described as the Anthropocine Extinction
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-the-anthropocene.html
> then it's clever hominids and their superstitions waiting for an asteroid, pandemic, volcanoes...
..., global warming.
But in all seriousness, do humans alter the Earth's surface more than e.g., insects or worms do? Has anybody quantified this?
..., global warming.
But in all seriousness, do humans alter the Earth's surface more than e.g., insects or worms do? Has anybody quantified this?
How can this question be serious? Across the street from me there is a 20 story building made with concrete that was hauled from dozens or hundreds of miles away, food from a thousand miles away with cars parked in the parking lot made with materials strip mined on the other side of the planet.
You severely underestimate the amount of earth moved by insects and worms, by a lot.
I was at the Australian Museum a couple weeks ago, and when I looked at the dinosaur skeletons I realized that one of the most confounding things future paleontologists would discover at this sedimentary layer would be all the completely intact giant birds.
Wow, that's an amazing thought! And then they'll have to come up with some theory like Punctuated Equilibrium, because they'll see these forms haven't changed in 66 million years...
It's worse than that. They completely disappeared. Just to reappear without a change 66 million years later.
(Or, alternatively, what happened would be completely obvious, but I still can imagine our scientific community divided over this and some convoluted explanation.)
(Or, alternatively, what happened would be completely obvious, but I still can imagine our scientific community divided over this and some convoluted explanation.)
Aren't those all models made of plaster?
If we're talking about the ones stored in museum vaults somewhere- then future species will think the hominids coexisted with those giant avians, possibly as their supplicants or praetorians.
If we're talking about the ones stored in museum vaults somewhere- then future species will think the hominids coexisted with those giant avians, possibly as their supplicants or praetorians.
> A million years from now, there will be a sedimentary record as distinct and unusual as that caused by the Chixculub crater impact
Are you a time-traveler or a prophet?
Are you a time-traveler or a prophet?
You can already see it by taking a sediment core from any undisturbed lake bottom in the world, just look for first appearance of the bomb radioisotopes and DDT residues as you go up the core from deeper to shallower layers.
One thing I’m not clear on - is the Anthropocene proposed as the successor of the Holocene? If so, it feels slightly premature, as the effects of anthropogenic climate change do not - yet - appear to be anywhere near the scale of those that define the beginning of the Holocene (glacial retreat and sea level rise).
> it feels slightly premature
I saw a note several years ago (written in opposition to an Anthropocene Epoch) which sketched a fun range of names, contingent on future outcomes. I'm regrettably failing to find it, but something very vaguely like (I'm making these up): from 0k glacial minimum, to late holocene thermal excursion, to holocene thermal maximum, to holocene extinction event, to anthropocene epoch, to post-anthropocene epoch, to end-Quaternary mass extinction.
My fuzzy understanding is one pro-Epoch argument is that projections exceed past Holocene variance, there's existing global stratigraphic signals, and it's ok that those events are spread out in time, as that's been the case at other boundaries. And one anti-Epoch argument is that while the Great Acceleration makes a fine event signal, human impacts so precede it (eg late pleistocene megafauna extinction), that it makes a poor epoch divider.
Sci-hub didn't have the TFA-linked paper. :/ Here's a recent "pro" paper[1], rich in detail. And a recent anti[2]. [1] https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/114765/Scot... [2] https://anthroecology.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/gibbard...
I saw a note several years ago (written in opposition to an Anthropocene Epoch) which sketched a fun range of names, contingent on future outcomes. I'm regrettably failing to find it, but something very vaguely like (I'm making these up): from 0k glacial minimum, to late holocene thermal excursion, to holocene thermal maximum, to holocene extinction event, to anthropocene epoch, to post-anthropocene epoch, to end-Quaternary mass extinction.
My fuzzy understanding is one pro-Epoch argument is that projections exceed past Holocene variance, there's existing global stratigraphic signals, and it's ok that those events are spread out in time, as that's been the case at other boundaries. And one anti-Epoch argument is that while the Great Acceleration makes a fine event signal, human impacts so precede it (eg late pleistocene megafauna extinction), that it makes a poor epoch divider.
Sci-hub didn't have the TFA-linked paper. :/ Here's a recent "pro" paper[1], rich in detail. And a recent anti[2]. [1] https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/114765/Scot... [2] https://anthroecology.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/gibbard...
From TFA "marked by pollution and other signs of human activity".
Even if all CO2 initiated climate change halted and we magically pulled all the excess carbon out of the atmosphere, there would still be a stark and unambiguous geological marker of our presence in the form of plastics and radioactive material. The article points that out.
Even if all CO2 initiated climate change halted and we magically pulled all the excess carbon out of the atmosphere, there would still be a stark and unambiguous geological marker of our presence in the form of plastics and radioactive material. The article points that out.
Holocene sea level rise:
The rise, of ~60m, took place over most of the Earth as the volume of the oceans increased during deglaciation and is dated at 11,650–7000 cal. BP
That's a sea level rise of 13 mm/year, on average. Current seal-level rise estimates are about 4 mm/year, and model projections point to as much as 19 mm/year by 2100. It's certainly comparable. These are however relatively slow processes on the scale of a human lifetime, and one could argue human civilization could adapt to these conditions... at some cost, which might be quite high.
The rise, of ~60m, took place over most of the Earth as the volume of the oceans increased during deglaciation and is dated at 11,650–7000 cal. BP
That's a sea level rise of 13 mm/year, on average. Current seal-level rise estimates are about 4 mm/year, and model projections point to as much as 19 mm/year by 2100. It's certainly comparable. These are however relatively slow processes on the scale of a human lifetime, and one could argue human civilization could adapt to these conditions... at some cost, which might be quite high.
I think it is important to make the distinction between the state, and the rate of change.
I think we we could be in a rapid transition phase, but the state is still very much close to the old state, opposed to the new state.
I think we we could be in a rapid transition phase, but the state is still very much close to the old state, opposed to the new state.
Personally I prefer Cthulucene https://www.e-flux.com/journal/75/67125/tentacular-thinking-...
We're in the advertocene, where advertisements have persuaded humans to redefine themselves based on the products they buy, resulting in an overconsumption that has quickly dried up all important natural resources.
A period that was punctuated briefly by the Demoscene
Some have proposed capitalocene, and it's very fitting
The Technocene? Though that sounds like a new-age club.
advertere is latin, unfortunately, so Tropicene?
I'd rather we not name it after ourselves. Natural phenomena could come and trounce whatever we're doing to the planet and make the choice moot.
Also seems a rehash of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/519144a from some years back.
Also seems a rehash of this: https://www.nature.com/articles/519144a from some years back.
I'd rather not name it after ourselves because we're so obviously terra-forming the planet for whatever the next dominant lifeform is going to be.
Seems needless, and possibly amusing to extraterrestrial archaeologists after we've blown ourselves to extinction.
> Formalizing the Anthropocene would unite efforts to study people’s influence on Earth’s systems, in fields including climatology and geology, researchers say. Transitioning to a new epoch might also coax policymakers to take into account the impact of humans on the environment during decision-making.
Ah, it's purely political.
> Formalizing the Anthropocene would unite efforts to study people’s influence on Earth’s systems, in fields including climatology and geology, researchers say. Transitioning to a new epoch might also coax policymakers to take into account the impact of humans on the environment during decision-making.
Ah, it's purely political.
> Ah, it's purely political.
I think this is how the human race will die: a bunch of rich assholes grabbing what ever they can at the expense of the rest of humanity as a bunch of people try to stop it, meanwhile the remaining bulk of humanity is on the sidelines saying shit like "Ah, it's purely political"
I think this is how the human race will die: a bunch of rich assholes grabbing what ever they can at the expense of the rest of humanity as a bunch of people try to stop it, meanwhile the remaining bulk of humanity is on the sidelines saying shit like "Ah, it's purely political"
If it isn't purely political, surely you would have something to say about it specifically rather than replying with snark. Replying with snark is the epitomy sitting on the sidelines.
Nah, "Ah, it's purely political." is about as snarky as you can get.
We are both being snarky here so drop the holier than thou.
We are both being snarky here so drop the holier than thou.
I said it's purely political because it is. What about "Transitioning to a new epoch might also coax policymakers to take into account the impact of humans on the environment during decision-making" sounds scientific to you? The motivation is to persuade based on opinion, which is not science. Geological evidence (in the loosest of terms) of a single species makes a new epoch not.
One of the paleontologists quoted in the article describes it perfectly:
> “There is no geologic record of tomorrow,” she says.
That's irrefutable.
The very fact that this is being pushed by a group called the "Anthropocene Working Group" is reason enough to be skeptical of the very concept they are pushing. Their agenda is not based on science, but theology.
> “We were starting from scratch,” says Jan Zalasiewicz, a geologist at the University of Leicester who formerly chaired the AWG and remains a voting member. “We had a vague idea about what it might be, [but] we didn’t know what kind of hard evidence would go into it.”
Again, not science. In fact, that's the antithesis.
One of the paleontologists quoted in the article describes it perfectly:
> “There is no geologic record of tomorrow,” she says.
That's irrefutable.
The very fact that this is being pushed by a group called the "Anthropocene Working Group" is reason enough to be skeptical of the very concept they are pushing. Their agenda is not based on science, but theology.
> “We were starting from scratch,” says Jan Zalasiewicz, a geologist at the University of Leicester who formerly chaired the AWG and remains a voting member. “We had a vague idea about what it might be, [but] we didn’t know what kind of hard evidence would go into it.”
Again, not science. In fact, that's the antithesis.
The TFA-linked paper[1] is regrettably paywalled. And sci-hub doesn't have it. [1] https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade2310
Here's a long recent paper with overlapping authors: "Epochs, events and episodes: Marking the geological impact of humans" https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/114765/Scot...
Here's a long recent paper with overlapping authors: "Epochs, events and episodes: Marking the geological impact of humans" https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/114765/Scot...
> "Years of debate among the group’s multidisciplinary members led them to identify a host of signals — radioactive isotopes from nuclear-bomb tests, ash from fossil-fuel combustion, microplastics, pesticides — that would be trapped in the strata of an Anthropocene-defining site. These began to appear in the early 1950s, when a booming human population started consuming materials and creating new ones faster than ever."
There's also just the sheer mass of material being moved and redistributed due to things like mega-dams, large-scale mining and earthmoving, construction etc.
> "Human activities have increased fluvial sediment delivery by 215% while simultaneously decreasing the amount of fluvial sediment that reaches the ocean by 49%, and societal consumption of sediment over the same period has increased by more than 2,500%."
"Earth’s sediment cycle during the Anthropocene" (2022)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00253-w
I don't know why anyone would want to deny this reality, other than to avoid international regulation of certain kinds of activities, like burning coal, for example.