From the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
Determining when humans started impacting the planet on a large scale
Humans have so profoundly altered the Earth that, some scientists argue, our current geologic epoch requires a new name: the Anthropocene. But defining the precise start of the era is tricky. Would it begin with the spread of domesticated farm animals or the appearance of radioactive elements from nuclear bomb tests? Scientists report in ACS’ Environmental Science & Technology a method to measure levels of human-made contaminants in sediments that could help pinpoint the Anthropocene’s onset.
The geologic record can sometimes provide clear-cut evidence of epoch changes. For example, when a meteorite collided with Earth 66 million years ago, levels of the metal iridium from the space rock spiked in sediments around the world. This clearly marked the end of the Cretaceous period. However, trying to define the start of the proposed — and much debated — Anthropocene could be more complicated. Human influence over the climate and environment began with the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s, and accelerated dramatically in the second half of the 20th century. Many markers of human impact on the planet from agriculture, waste disposal and other activities have been archived in the planet’s sedimentary records. The rise in industrial chemicals, such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals, is another example of a human-driven activity that has been captured in sediment layers. To explore the record of synthetic compounds as a possible marker to help define the Anthropocene, Aurea C. Chiaia-Hernández, Juliane Hollender and colleagues turned to a new analytical technique combined with sophisticated data analysis to characterize patterns of contamination over time.
The researchers applied high-resolution mass spectrometry to investigate synthetic chemical contamination in two lakes in Central Europe. They examined 1-meter long cores from each lake bottom, capturing the past 100 years of sediment layers. According to the analysis, the lakes’ sediments contained few synthetic contaminants before the 1950s. But during the 1950s, concentrations of industrial chemicals started to appear in the samples, which is consistent with the boom in industrial activities post-World War II. The researchers say this record clearly demonstrates the beginning of large-scale human impact on the environment. It also shows a decline in contamination following the installation of wastewater treatment plants in the 1970s, providing evidence for successful mitigation measures. Additionally, the introduction of new pollutants that are now finding their way into surface waters can be discovered.
###
The authors acknowledge funding from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, the Swiss National Science Foundation and Eawag.
The paper’s abstract is available here: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b03357
One has to wonder if with all the pollution controls we have in place globally now, is there any sign of those chemicals that the authors claim signaled the start of the Anthropocene? Would the lack of those chemicals now signal the end of that epoch? It seems quite flimsy to me to base the beginning of entire epoch on a few lakes in Central Europe, especially since those chemical signals may be completely absent from the sediment layers forming now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

A couple of World Wars just before don’t count?
And when the get done with determining the exact date of the beginning of the anthropocene they can start working on answering the age-old question of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
T Gannett
If the American Chemical Society didn’t find many traces of the fatal chemical weapons released copiously in Central Europe especially during the WWI, what’s all the fuss about the more recent, beneficial chemicals? They too will be undetectable in a similar geological blink of an eye.
This is all very presumptuous and rather egotistical. I am now expecting a rather irritated Universe to swiftly arrange a large asteroid strike or sudden ice age. 😉
IFF there is an Anthropocene, it started when humans first started making significant geological changes to the Earth’s surface.
Egyptians, Mayans come to mind !!
I think the Africans were probably burning grassland before that.
And aborigines in Australia.
But for a chronostratigraphic Stage or Series to be defined, it must be biostratigraphically identifiable worldwide wherever that boundary exists. That certainly does not qualify for anything the Egyptians or Mayans did.
You could theoretically find human fossils or trace fossils across the world going back at least 30,000 years, but in reality you would hardly ever find anthropogenic signs in rocks this old. Biostratigraphic markers are always based on marine fossils, so a terrestrial biomarker would be unique and unrealistic because the scarcity of terrestrial sedimentary rocks and terrestrial fossils.
The ca. 1950 suggestion from this paper actually makes sense, because that’s probably the earliest time you could look back and always find an anthropogenic marker if you were millions of years in the future looking back at rocks formed today.
Besides, if you were a geologist from a million years in the future studying this boundary and trying to determine a chronostratigraphic age for it, you already understand that chronostratigraphic boundaries don’t always occur at the same exact moment on all places on Earth, and +- a few tens of thousands of years would be quite precise in geologic time.
Roger Pielke Sr. points out that land use has an important effect on climate. link
Scientists measure pollens in sediments to get an idea of what the local plant life was doing. link Pollens are part of the fossil record. link
Early agriculture leaves a mark on the pollen record so I would say that the anthropocene extends back to at least 9500 BC. link Future paleontologists will be able to see evidence of human activity.
On the other hand, various animals have a big effect on the environment. Does that mean that the buffalo herds that roamed the plains should have their own epoch? link
I would go along with this thinking, and the big ticket item here was the plough as this allowed for re-use of the same piece of land for cultivation and can be considered as the start of permanent human settlements. The switch from hunter-gatherer to planting and harvesting is the big switch in human civilisation and is a pre-requisite for the further development of a society.
Of course, it then took many thousands of years before the impact of permanent settlements can be seen in geological differences so this isn’t really a good dating mechanism. At the same time, a few thousand years is pretty much the blink of an eye in geological terms – we are all too hung up on the asteroid impact change mechanism. Most geological ages take a very long time to come about, so to sit there and talk about any modern date is hubris of the highest order. The last 200 years (since the industrial revolution in the UK and the subsequent use of fossil fuels, starting with coal) are still absolutely nothing in geological terms.
Rob: You are correct, the plow. For example
https://youtu.be/vLNQyJqcE5I
Note the Canadian flag on the plow platform. Thanks to warming, there is even more land up there to plow.
Minor addendum to my previous post. The US flag is also flying. Maybe they are plowing parallel to the border.
Rob nails it. Stratigraphic time units do not actually have a starting day, at so and so hour and minute. Some boundaries are sharp, like the K-T boundary, but start at different times on the planet and can vary tens of thousands of years. So arguing 1950, 1800, 4,000 B.C., or whenever you can find the oldest human fire pit, is nonsense, all answers would be correct from a retrospective point of view if that is indeed the exact time that the anthropogenic signature shows up in the rocks where you are looking.
But, according to these “researchers” the anthropocene didn’t start until a manufacturing plant was built upwind of these lakes.
2 data points is not a definitive trend of anything! It seems these fools have never read the parable of the 3 blind men examining an elephant.
These three blind men have their heads up the elephants butt, they just think it’s the trunk.
Exactly what I was thinking…
Göbekli Tepe. 10th millenium BCE
I prefer Josh’s ‘Adjustocene’. It seems a more accurate description.
I have to agree – if there is to be an ‘Anthropocene’ then I think it should start when we entered the world of virtual statistics/observations. Its getting to the state – certainly for me – where the actual temperature of the world is undecipherable from all the adjustments made. Considering we have entered an age of incredible accuracy, how come the recording of the climate has become less so by fiddling about with the results without promulgating the raw data?
Visicalc and its progeny are the real culprit, without these tools you would actually have to use your brain when looking at the data.
Bingo!
They don’t have a more accurate start date than mid 1950’s ? Given the accuracy of the models they use I’m sure they could get a bit closer .
I used my Commodore 64 to narrow it down to 16 janurary 1953 at around 12 noon .
GMT time I presume. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Urederra
You mean there’s another time?
Any time is a good time for a beer.
MarkW- I told my doctor that and he came half unglued and scheduled me a stress test.
The population boom accelerated exponentially at the same time as the discovery of penicillin in the 1920’s
Is there a correlation?
Les Francis
EUREKA!
It’s not CO2 after all, it’s penicillin!
🙂
Penicillin was utilised much later than this (1940s), but the first anti-bacterial drugs (the sulphanilamides) were developed around this time and the impact “modern” medicine had in preventing death from communicable diseases pretty much started during/after WW1. Lots of other things happened around then as well and we all know correlation isn’t causation, but you have a point.
It is generally acknowledged that not only antibiotics, but prescription drugs in general (and recreational drugs) are showing up in our waterways. Unless they are biologically degraded, they have to end up somewhere!
Think about how many people in a city take every known medication and recreational drug that is partially excreted into the city water supply and are not removed by filtration or destroyed by chemicals or sunlight treatment and returned in tap water to the residents. Your daily washing and food preparation that is not boiling the water or high heat cooking to destroy those is ingested and topically absorbing a mixture of those drugs.
Seems to me the alarmist would set this Anthropocene to the first discovery of humans using fire. Because according to them that’s when the demon CO2 started AGW.
My first car was a 1928 Ford Model A, Plus Minus 6 miles to the gallon (of soup ) and maybe 100 miles to a quart of engine oil, and don’t even think about brakes and tires !”
nottoobrite
My 2014 Mercedes E Class did 10,000 miles to 4 brake disks. The pads were less than 70% used. One would think someone would invent brake disks made from brake pad material and use steel for the pads. But no.
There’s progress for you.
Get patern parts! They are considered consumables like petrol.
Patrick MJD
Sadly, it was leased so I had no choice, it’s now gone back. It’s a common theme with manufacturers nowadays to bolster profits. A mate managed 17,000 miles from the disks on his brand new Hyundai.
They also demand a service within the first 10,000 mile, or one year, whichever is the soonest so the warranty is honoured. My daughters brand new Vauxhall did 1,400 miles in it’s first year (she’s only been driving for a year) which cost £200 for an unnecessary service.
HotScot,
Sintered-iron brake pads were developed for racing because of their resistance to fading from heat. They also resisted the problem of not working after fording a stream. They were commercially available for drum brakes during the 1960s and ’70s. However, they similarly shortened the life of brake drums. They are probably difficult to find these days. (Of course, asbestos has been outlawed.) My recollection is that the drums could be used through at least two or three brake jobs. What are your disc-brake pads made of?
Clyde Spencer
“What are your disc-brake pads made of?”
Judging by the wear rate, sandpaper 🙂
Modern brake pads are largely developments of sintered pads with the associated excessive wear.
However, I think the real problem is predatory car manufacturers who know no one compromises on their brakes so design them to be replaced after minimal mileage. At nearly £1,000 to replace 4 disks, it’s a nice little earner every 10,000 miles.
When I retire to the country in 4 years, my car will be a refurbished, old Land Rover Defender. A nice galvanised chassis will see me out.
My 1994 BMW (325is) has about 230,000 km on it and has gone through only one set of rotors (and I suspect that the person doing the annual inspection had orders from management to replace the discs whether they needed it or not).
My driving is largely in the country and I am easy on brakes, so that is one factor…..
HotScot,
Sand paper reminds me of a story. Back inn the ’70s I had gone mineral collecting in Darwin District near Death Valley with some friends. There was a tropical storm while we were out. On the way back, we came to a long section of road that had washed out. I started out across the mud and boulders. I felt the engine start to bog down. By the time I could reach over and put the transfer case into 4WD, I was up to my frame in what was essentially quicksand! To make a long story short, I finally managed to get out, largely because after about an hour the sand had de-watered some. I had fine sand everywhere, including packed on the inside of my rims, which I had to dig out with a dead branch so that I could drive over 55 MPH. As a result of the sand, the throttle cable broke: that’s another story! On the way home, I was driving through Yosemite Park, and near Tuolumne Meadows, some tourist stepped in front of me to cross the road. When I hit the brakes, the car pulled sharply to one side but didn’t slow down appreciably. Fortunately, I missed the tourist. On the down side of the Sierras, I decided to take a steep shortcut called Priests Grade. I rode the brakes most of the way down, trying to drive off what I thought was residual water in the brake linings. When I got to the bottom, there was a stop sign. I practically stood on the brake pedal, and rolled right through the stop sign. Fortunately, there was no traffic on the main road. I drove home the rest of the way very gingerly. It was a Sunday evening when I got home. I parked the car, intending to take the Scout to a brake shop the next day. Monday, when I tried to back out, it wouldn’t move initially. Finally it broke loose. After getting to the brake shop I discovered that the sand had COMPLETELY worn the linings away, and overnight the metal of the linings had rusted to the brake drums. I needed new drums and linings!
Only the irrational could believe such absurdity.
Grandstanding attempts to ignore all of mankind’s population spread over Earth in order to name future era’s based on quantitative analysis ability to measure “synthetic contaminants”; these crackpots should name that era the ‘Plasticene’ or ‘Synthocene’.
We will always know the real name is ‘Adjustocene’, so wonderfully depicted by Josh. (Thanks for the reminder Nigel S!)
Soot levels in Greenland ice topped in c. 1915 and has declined since then. But coal soot is of course “natural” not “synthetic”.
“synthetic contaminants”.
It seems to me that just what is a “synthetic” needs to be defined.
Once that is done, it would need to be determined just when these “synthetics” were invented and came into wide spread use.
PS Do they consider kerosene to be a “synthetic”? Man made it.
It replaced sperm whale oil for lamps. (Much cheaper)
As a result, sperm whales weren’t hunted to extinction.
Is the present existence of sperm whales a result of the “Anthropocene”?
Is that bad?
Agree – it is not rational to assume that merely because something appears in sediment somewhere it had any effect on anything. We can all agree that man – and other species of things has existed on earth for a long time – and left evidence. It is extremely egotistical to assume that just because evidence is left there must be some effect.
Just egos wanting to be recognized. There is nothing that has happened in the last 50 odd years that would signal a new epoch. Imagine an Archeologist or whoever looking for objective evidence a few centuries from now???
George Carlin “The Planet is Fine”
“The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.”
off piste but great for a laugh-
“Climate change might be worse than thought after scientists find major mistake in water temperature readings
The sea was much colder than previously thought, the study suggests, indicating that climate change is advancing at an unprecedented rate”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-worse-water-temperature-reading-scientists-global-warming-ice-melt-weather-a8020696.html
Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say …
Jul 16, 2015 · Seas will continue to warm for … Globally 90% of the excess heat caused by the rise in … The warming of the oceans due to climate change is now …
More good evidence of the Adjustocene emerging.
“The methodology widely used to understand sea temperatures in the scientific community may be based on a mistake, the new study suggests, and so our understanding of climate change might be fundamentally flawed.”
Wrong. Everybody knows the science is settled.
Oh, this was a comment to richard above.
have to say i didn’t read it correctly but the key words were as you say-
The methodology widely used to understand sea temperatures in the scientific community may be based on a mistake, the new study suggests, and so our understanding of climate change might be fundamentally flawed.
Clearly, the Anthropocene[*] started on 1 January 1950 AD at 00:00. According to our current crop of PC manipulators [that’s PC as in Politically Correct, not Personal Computer, Prostate Cancer or Pretty Cool], that is when The Present started. It marks a dramatic global change:- before that, carbon dating worked but no-one knew how to do it; after that, carbon dating didn’t work but we did it anyway. It is also a symbol of the takeover of the asylum [the rational world] by the inmates [the PC ideologues – PC as in Political Control]. What kind of crazy person would replace a working system (AD & BC dates) with a non-sensical system (the meaning of “before present” depends on when you use it) that can only be defined by reference to the system it replaced (ie, the base date 1950 AD).
[*] – I would prefer a more accurate name, maybe Sillicene or Wackicene, or if a more formal-sounding name is needed, Absurdocene.
The politicene
Based on Hernandez et al’s line of reasoning, the Anthropocene ended in 1990…

chuckle 🙂
Anthropocene.
All gone….
Done and Dusted. 🙂
One good glacial maximum in a few thousand years and any stratigraphic markers of man’s presence in 1950 will be gone. I have a problem with the Holocene even, after all it is only one of many interglacials, why don’t the others have special names? But, at least the beginning of the Holocene has a type section of sorts (the NGRIP2 ice core) – where is the type section for the Anthropocene?
Any local landfill… LOL!!! When I was in college, I wondered if future paleontologists would try to reconstruct fossils from beer can pull-tabs… The only way the Holocene differs from the previous 6 or 7 Pleistocene interglacial stages is the extinction of many megafauna.
David, they won’t have a difficult time. Present day landfills are almost hermetically sealed, Well not really, but the water intrusion is drastically minimized so decomposition is almost non-existent. Dating will easily be accomplished from al the junk mail deposited there.
I think giving major chronostratigraphic units a type section is inherently silly. Lithostratigraphic, sure, they are regionally descriptive and a type locality is the best representative of that unit, but to pretend a single section represents that time for the entire world, like I said, is silly.
The Carboniferous is a good example of this, in the U.S. this Stage is so thick that it’s split in two Stages, and there are probably lengthy biostratigraphic divisions in the U.S. that aren’t represented anywhere else on Earth. I’ve always considered chronostratigraphic type localities just something for science bureaucrats to be concerned about.
The type section of the Holocene is the NGRIP2 Greenland ice core *major eye roll*.
I was considering isotopes from nuclear tests a good index trace fossil, but then I just remembered that there won’t be much left of these isotopes in a few million years. Radioactive isotopes that will eventually decay probably won’t make a good marker, but plastics? Hard to say what will happen to them in geologic time.
That’s the whole thing about this: Where is the geological validity/utility?How does measuring certain chemicals in non-lithified (and probably ultimately transient) strata as a basis for a geological age change even work? What’s the global distribution? Is this only useful in a lacustrine environment? But this is what popped into my head this time:
“I’ve defined a new geological age!”
“Are you a geologist?”
“No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.”
According to Philip Larkin, sexual intercourse began in 1963; so one can safely assume that the Anthropocene got underway 9 months later.
What about the Dinosaurs with their affect on Earth with their own CO2, CH4 etc in/outputs was that the Dinopocene then? 😀
CO2, AGW, pollution, “renewable” energy, Anthropocene? I think we can all see where this is going!
Every form of life affects the environment, always have, always will. This is mere green flagellation. Utterly ludicrous.
I wanna go back in time!
Will Venezuela do?
Ouch! ouch! ouch!
Depends on location. Check some of the lake sediments in France and you might want to move the date back to 1914.
“The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.” (GSA Today- Finney/Edwards)
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/26/3/article/i1052-5173-26-3-4.htm
Nooooooo, REALLY!!?
Frosty air from Canada will reach even Texas. It will be warmer in Alaska.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
For the humanity-haters, shame and blame is the name of the game.