‘Irreversible’ changes to the Earth provide striking evidence of new epoch, University of Leicester experts suggest
Geological critics of a formalised Anthropocene have alleged that the idea did not arise from geology; that there is simply not enough physical evidence for it as strata; that it is based more on the future than on the past; that it is more a part of human history than the immensely long history of the Earth; and that it is a political statement, rather than a scientific one.
Members of the international Anthropocene Working Group, including professors Jan Zalasiewicz, Colin Waters and Mark Williams of the University of Leicester’s Department of Geology and Dr Matt Edgeworth of the University’s School of Archaeology and Ancient History, have considered these various criticisms at length.
In a paper published in the journal Newsletters on Stratigraphy, the 27 co-author group suggests that the Anthropocene has already seen irreversible changes to the Earth, rather than just to human societies.
Professor Zalasiewicz explained: “As a striking and novel concept, the Anthropocene has attracted considerable support from geologists but also a range of criticism, questioning whether it should really join the Jurassic, the Pleistocene and other well-known units on the Geological Time Scale.
“This criticism is an essential part of the testing of this concept – for the Anthropocene to be taken seriously, the science behind it must be robust and based on sound evidence.
“Our research suggests changes to the Earth have resulted in strata that are distinctive and rich in geological detail through including such things as artificial radionuclides, plastics, fly ash, metals such as aluminium, pesticides and concrete.
“And, while the term does reflect change of significance to human society, and may be used in social and political discussions, it is based upon an independent reality.”
The Anthropocene – the concept that humans have so transformed geological processes at the Earth’s surface that we are living in a new epoch – was formulated by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen in 2000.
It has since spread around not just the world of science, but also across the humanities and through the media into public consciousness.
It is now being analysed by an international group of scientists – the Anthropocene Working Group – as a potential new addition to the Geological Time Scale, which would be a major step in its global scientific recognition.
Professor Mark Williams said: “These responses do not mean that the Anthropocene will be instantly formalised. There is still much work to do to gather the evidence for a formal proposal based upon a ‘golden spike’ – a physical reference point in strata, somewhere in the world, to define the beginning of this proposed new epoch.
“And, the benefits of formalising the Anthropocene, both for geologists and for wider communities, still need to be demonstrated in detail. But, these comprehensive responses show that the Anthropocene cannot be dismissed as a scientific fad.
“Humans really have made epoch-scale changes to the Earth’s geology, and analysis of these changes towards their formalisation in geology will continue.”
###
The paper, ‘Making the case for a formal Anthropocene Epoch: an analysis of ongoing critiques’, published in the journal Newsletters on Stratigraphy is freely available online at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/schweiz/nis/pre-prints/content-nos_00_0_0000_0000_zalasiewicz_0385_prepub
Cretinceous Era?
Cacascene
Hockeyscene
Syfyoscene
Greeno$cene
NonCausaProCausascene
Quasiscene. Pseudoscene. Unscene. Depresscene. Opresscene. Marxscene.
I think people should remember that of all of the 7 man made wonders of the ancient world, only the Great pyramid at Giza remains. Most of the others were put asunder by massive natural geological events. We humans and our works are but speck in Geologic time and to believe our activities during our miniscule time as a part of the fauna of this planet warrant the name for a new Geologic Epoch is just plain silly. Of course what does a truck driver know?
And in time they will go too…
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/30/san-benedetto-basilica-norcia-destroyed-italy-earthquake
Not to mention wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Cassino
Rebuilt but not the same.
Three of the canonical Seven Wonders of the Ancient World were destroyed by earthquakes. Two were destroyed by human activity–fire and barbarian invasion–and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon might never have existed.
Besides which, I don’t know why the Temple of Artemis (Diana) at Ephesus was considered all that much more impressive than the Temple of Athena at Athens, aka the Parthenon (as in virgin).
“the Hanging Gardens of Babylon might never have existed.” You are correct
The Hanging Gardens of Babylon were 300 miles north at Assyrian Nineveh, on the Tigris River by Mosul in modern Iraq.
The Hanging Gardens of Nineveh built by Sennacherib of Assyria in around 700BC
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/features/the-biggest-wonder-about-the-hanging-gardens-of-babylon-they-weren-t-in-babylon-8604649.html
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16179911-the-mystery-of-the-hanging-garden-of-babylon
Thermophobocene
Academicquackocene
The Obscene
Oops! Someone beat me to it.
Apocalypscene and, more recently, attocalypscene.
Attoveritascene
Hoping the appropriate magnitudes: exafalsitascene
Placeboscene. Homeopathoscene. And as it happens, the official proposal suits anthroposophy like a glove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy
Very, interesting… from my point of view…..the most interesting was Lord Monkcton…the rest…..as far as I can tell rendered to be only rubbish…at some point likely more in the terms of extreme one, no different in essential than the AGW, with only one distinction…. where the AGW rocks and this guys do not at all….
A full and most “fuck up” possible, under any cards….
Thanks very much to the good Lord M.,,,,, the rest mostly rubbish…..regardless….. no much there, of any difference,,,,,, where liberal or conservative in essential have no much difference in it all when it comes to power…..maybe not too bad….but still too fucked up……
A real waste…of politics!
Cheers
oh…shite…my comment is in the wrong post..its suppose to be in the previous one, the Eric’s one….and the Heartland site….
really sorry..
cheers
Simply am waiting my for my comment in this post to be allowed……
cheers
A very good article found in the archives of the Geological Society of America (GSA).
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/26/3/article/i1052-5173-26-3-4.htm
The final line from the abstract pretty much sums up the “issue”-> “The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.”
I think you are probably right. At most, we will be responsible for a few anomalies.
Of course this is political. Most science coming from universities is political. That’s the threat to science and humanity. Most times when sience is turned political at this scale people get abused, fleeced and eventually killed. UN Agenda 21 anyone? http://green-agenda.com