Blow to warmists, the proposed ‘Anthropocene’ epoch has been denied by ICS

The global body tasked with naming geological eras, the International Commission on Stratigraphy, has rejected the proposed Anthropocene epoch,  the controversial ‘geological’ epoch in which mankind allegedly dominates natural processes. The international commission has now rejected the proposal and has instead split the Holocene Epoch into three different geological ages, all of which were primarily shaped by natural, not human factors.

Excerpts from The Australian:

Behind the scenes is a smaller story of thwarted ambition over whether or not human impact on the planet should define a new geological age.

The [Hothouse Earth] paper by Steffen and his 15 co-authors, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, a leading science journal, was titled “Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene”. Anthropocene is the name proposed for a new geological epoch defined by human impact on Earth.

All going well, the naming of this new era might have coincided with the release of the paper by Steffen, a member of Australia’s Climate Council. However, the global body tasked with naming geological eras, the International Commission on Stratigraphy, had other ideas. Last month, rather than announce a new Anthropocene Epoch, it declared it would split the Holocene Epoch, in which we have been living for the past 12,000 years, into three ages.

The decision has unleashed rancour, with claims of ethical lapses, scientific misrepresentation and unseemly publicity-seeking among those determined to declare the age of human planetary impact is upon us.

The ICS says we are living in the Meghalayan Epoch, the third of the three new ages that started about 4250 years ago. The epoch is defined by a mega-drought that caused the collapse of a number of civilisations in Egypt, the Middle East, India and China, about 2250 years BCE. The name comes from the northeastern Indian state of Meghalaya where a stalagmite recovered from a cave provided chemical evidence of the drought.

Defining a geological epoch around human impact has become highly politicised and the decision is considered a blow to those pushing hardest for tough action on climate change.

ICS’s decision is clearly a blow to those pushing hardest for tough action on climate change. The decision is something Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science at University College London, says “has profound philosophical, social, economic and political implications”.

Full story here.

h/t to The GWPF which also has the article

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ed Zuiderwijk
August 13, 2018 1:34 am

Slowly but steadily real science pushes back the pseudos.

Bryan A
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 13, 2018 6:10 am

Still has a pseudoistic ring to it though. Most droughts are localized rather than global. For this Epoch to be adequately named by a stalagmite in a single cave (tree of Yamal) as their only chemical evidence of what would seem to require global effects to name an epoch. Hopefully they have other stalagmites from other caves in other regions that contain the same chemical signature at the same date range.

Reply to  Bryan A
August 13, 2018 6:20 am

The “Golden Spike” is generally the “type section” and namesake of the geologic time period… It’s not the sum total of the evidence for drawing a particular time line.

The Meghalayan roughly starts at the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

Reply to  David Middleton
August 13, 2018 10:42 am

David, The Holocene Climatic Optimum has a different ending depending on latitude and region due to changes in insolation due to orbital changes, but is generally agreed to have ended in most places by about 5000 BP.

They have made the Meghalayan start coincide with the 4.2 Kyr event.

August 13, 2018 1:47 am

“the decision is considered a blow to those pushing hardest for tough action on climate change”

I don’t see the connection. I thought he ‘Anthropocene’ was more about new isotopes appearing in the 50s.
Who is suffering a “blow”?

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  RyanS
August 13, 2018 2:12 am

You clearly aren’t up to speed on the issue Ryan.

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
August 13, 2018 4:13 am

So fill me in, who is suffering a “blow”? Any names, or is just agitprop?

Reply to  RyanS
August 13, 2018 2:33 am

The University of Leeds’s Haywood said that, by underscoring how much we’re changing the environment, the formalization would be “a very powerful statement.” link

It’s entirely political.

The reason the radioactivity from the bomb tests was proposed is because of the definition of geological ages. Any geological time period can be defined only by evidence found in rock strata. the rules The activists need something that fulfills that criterion. They have to find some human caused evidence that will become part of the rock strata and remain visible in millions of years from now.

The activists are trying to find anything that can plausibly be used to define a human caused geological age. They are grasping at straws. Their motivation isn’t an understanding of the Earth’s history, it is purely to promote environmental activism. The fact that the body that sets the rules disagrees is a blow to their, admitted by them, ulterior motives.

Reply to  commieBob
August 13, 2018 2:50 am

“The fact that the body that sets the rules disagrees”
I don’t think they disagree. This decision was about earlier subdivisions.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 13, 2018 4:28 am

Agreed, all this proves is that the International Commission on Stratigraphy does not hurry it’s decisions.

They have just decided that a division occurred about 4250 years ago. This does not prevent them deciding that another division has occurred since. Around 6250 AD they may decided that there was a division around now.

I don’t agree that such a division has occurred, but this ruling does not preclude it.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  BillP
August 13, 2018 6:21 am

“all this proves is that the International Commission on Stratigraphy does not hurry it’s decisions.”

You might say they move at a glacial pace.

*Insert rimshot here*

Reply to  BillP
August 13, 2018 6:23 am

If Neoglaciation truly ended in the mid-1800’s, future stratigraphers may call it the end of the Meghalayan and beginning of a 4th Holocene stage/age.

Of course, the Holocene itself shouldn’t be an epoch, It should just be the latest stage/age of the Pleistocene.

Reply to  David Middleton
August 13, 2018 7:07 am


Reply to  David Middleton
August 13, 2018 1:59 pm


Yes, and hence what shouldn’t be an epoch now necessarily has preposterously short “ages”.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 13, 2018 4:36 am

The anthropocene was proposed and, apparently, ignored. That, IMHO, constitutes a decision.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 13, 2018 6:13 am

The Stokesian Obfuscocene.

Reply to  Cephus0
August 13, 2018 8:59 am

The Stokesian Obfuscocene

Good one.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 13, 2018 6:26 am

The Anthropocene Working Group was supposed to have a formal recommendation in 2016. They seem to have gone inactive in early 2015…

Reply to  David Middleton
August 13, 2018 9:53 am

Interesting tgat the Meghalayan Epoch starts right on top of a Bond event.

Tom Halla
Reply to  commieBob
August 13, 2018 6:04 am

I agree. Even the Holocene is a bit dubious, by the general rules.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 13, 2018 6:29 am

That’s the problem with resolution. The more recent a geologic time period is, the more highly resolved it is. This tends to lead to more finely divided time periods in the Cenozoic than in the Mesozoic, which is more finely divided than the Paleozoic.

Reply to  David Middleton
August 13, 2018 6:40 am

My dog farted. Need to start a new geologic time period.

Reply to  MarkW
August 13, 2018 9:54 am

Quit feeding him pork trimmings.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
August 13, 2018 9:20 am

And the converse of the temporal resolution is that the farther back in time one goes, the less certain one is about when something happened and how long it took to happen. That is why the claims of “historically unprecedented” sound impressive, but are unsupportable.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 13, 2018 9:21 am


Mr Mick
Reply to  commieBob
August 13, 2018 1:49 pm

“Any geological time period can be defined only by evidence found in rock strata”
I reckon there’s strong chance that sometime down the track geologists will find cigarette butts in the sediment cores of the Seine River, Paris.
(Gauloises of course)

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  RyanS
August 13, 2018 9:14 am

Any isotopes that manage to persist ten’s of thousands of years into the future will probably be indistinguishable from those found in Oklo, Gabon.

August 13, 2018 1:50 am

To witness the twist and curls of “interchangeable parts” in climate models is getting more and more embarrassing to the real scientific world . Henry Ford did that better, to make sure his cars would run in both rain and snow.

Uncle Max
August 13, 2018 1:52 am

That ” Adjustocene ” comic cause me a large smile. Heh. Too funny.

R Taylor
Reply to  Uncle Max
August 13, 2018 3:54 am

We need a series of comics for the Hystericene, which happens every summer in Europe and North America.

Reply to  R Taylor
August 13, 2018 4:11 am

Oh, very good, R Taylor. How about one for the Catastrophocene, too?

Reply to  H.R.
August 13, 2018 6:12 am

You demonstrate a catastrophe, and we’ll certainly consider it.

Reply to  RockyRoad
August 13, 2018 9:48 am

The Hystericence happens in the summer followed by the Catastrophocene in the fall by hurricanes, and later on by giant snowstorms caused by the Hystericence .
Just wait, the AGW people will be jumping up and down for joy when a hurricane develops and msm will be all over it as ‘ climate change ‘…. that’s the proof of the Hystericene.

Reply to  RockyRoad
August 13, 2018 9:57 am

The destruction of western science for political reasons constitutes a catastrophe.

Reply to  BillP
August 13, 2018 1:23 pm

I can’t argue with that; hence the dire need for WattsUpWithThat.

Reply to  R Taylor
August 13, 2018 7:48 am

It used to be called the “Silly Season” in journalism. Now it seems it is just more tabloid fodder and confabulation.

Ian Magness
August 13, 2018 2:03 am

Oh dear!
At least two of the speakers, who were specifically lecturing about the Anthropocene at the self-styled “the world’s greatest science festival” ( – London, late-September) are going to have to find something new to talk about.
Please don’t misconstrue my cynicism, this is a great show full of real science but, sadly, AGW fanatics have found too easy a home there in recent years.

David Guy-Johnson
August 13, 2018 2:11 am

“The decision is something Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science at University College London, says “has profound philosophical, social, economic and political implications”
Well I don’t know about that but perhaps he meant it would have profound financial implications for ambulance chasing climate scientists like him.

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
August 13, 2018 7:56 am

Let the lawyers have their own epithet…
This lot are “grubbing for grants”… grant grubbers

Joel O’Bryan
August 13, 2018 2:16 am

Well when Climate Change itself is mostly an ideological, political whimsy…
what should they expect?

These (ICS) are serious men and women. Not to be confused with the confused and child-like climateers that are trying to control the narrative on climate.

Mann, Dessler, Hayhoe… et al, there is a special place in Hell for liars like you.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 13, 2018 5:52 am

Not too special, I hope , Joel.

Manniacal and the other climate ambulance mongrels deserve absolute commonness in their pits of eternal torment.
Manny boy, Ward, Hayhee and the rest of the climate alarmist buffoons can battle each other over whose despair is greater, as befits their ego.

Surely, their greatest torment will be the infamy labels they deserve for politicizing science, wasting immense amounts of research funding and turning advocacy opinion into religion.

August 13, 2018 2:26 am

“the proposed “Anthropocene” epoch has been denied by ICS”
I can’t see any evidence that it has been denied. The July 20 Atlantic article which seems to be the source for the Australian article, says
“This week’s announcement is not actually about the Anthropocene: The ICS subdivided the Holocene this week, and it said nothing about the Anthropocene. Except that to some geologists, the subdivision was entirely about the Anthropocene.”

There is reference to disappointment that the Anthropocene was not announced to coincide with Steffen’s article, but that does not mean denied. The article says:
“Zalasiewicz should know. He is the chair of the Anthropocene working group, which the ICS established in 2009 to investigate whether the new epoch deserved a place in stratigraphic time.

In 2015, the group announced that the Anthropocene was a plausible new layer and that it should likely follow the Holocene. But the team has yet to propose a “golden spike” for the epoch: a boundary in the sedimentary rock record where the Anthropocene clearly begins.”

Sounds like it is ongoing, if not dashing to a finish. ICS moves with geological time. Here are the minutes of an ICS meeting, Aug 2016, which seems to have approved this subdivision for submission to the IUGS. It says:
“Discussions then turned to the question of the possible definition of an ‘Anthropocene’ time unit. MH noted that a proposal for formal definition could be ready in c. 2-3 years time, the preceding period being an establishment of the narrative concerning this possible division. “

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 13, 2018 2:45 am

Here is a paper published by Zalasiewicz and others in the ICS working group in March 2018, titled
“Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) for the Anthropocene Series: Where and how to look for potential candidates”

The Atlantic article goes on to say
“This is politically difficult. And right now, the Anthropocene working group seems intent on not carving too deep into the Holocene. In a paper published earlier this year in Earth-Science Reviews, the Anthropocene working group’s members strongly imply that they will propose starting the new epoch in the mid-20th century.”

There is extensive discussion of the issues around a starting date.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 13, 2018 4:13 am

It won’t be simple finding a GSSP for c. 1950 that will be reasonably stable over time and not be eroded within a short time. It might be possible (but not easy) to find a speleothem somewhere that works. Oceanic deposition is too slow for such short intervals and coretops are usually missing at least the last several decades because the sediments are unconsolidated. Possibly some periglacial annual rhytmite might work?

Reply to  tty
August 13, 2018 6:40 am


Clyde Spencer
Reply to  tty
August 13, 2018 9:57 am

But, the anthropogenic marker will have to be something that is unambiguously man-made, and will persist for at least thousands of years. Perhaps something like unoxidized aluminum, (highly radioactive beer-can conglomerate), or landfill plastics that have undergone pyrolysis and turned into organic molecules unknown in natural hydrocarbon accumulations. Other possibilities might be analogues of the iridium K-Pg marker, such as additives to steel along the lines of chromium and especially molybdenum, which have relatively low crustal abundance and aren’t usually found associated with iron, or tungsten carbide. What will happen to the armor plating of a battleship when it is buried in oceanic sediments? I suspect that most of the things that we decry as fouling our environment won’t actually have much persistence on a geologic time scale. It may take something on the scale of an inundated city or a naval-battle graveyard to provide enough mass and area to survive geologic forces.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 13, 2018 10:09 am

Actually, now that I think about it, the start of metallurgy spread lead (and to a lesser extent, arsenic) around the world and then that was reinforced by the use of tetra-ethyl lead in high-compression gasoline engines. So, the chemical signature for lead would probably be at least a transient signature for technology.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 13, 2018 5:36 am

“There is extensive discussion of the issues around a starting date.”

They ought to postpone this discussion indefinitely, until such time as we can leave far-left politics out of it.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 13, 2018 6:38 am

The AWG page hasn’t had any activity since early 2015. They were supposed to have a formal recommendation in 2016…

The ‘Anthropocene’ is not a formally defined geological unit within the Geological Time Scale. A proposal to formalise the ‘Anthropocene’ is being developed by the ‘Anthropocene’ Working Group for consideration by the International Commission on Stratigraphy, with a current target date of 2016. Care should be taken to distinguish the concept of an ‘Anthropocene‘ from the previously used term Anthropogene (cf. below**).

Zalasiewicz, Waters, Oreskes, etc. appear to be lobbying the mainstream media rather than the ICS… which, based on personal communication with one member, does not appear to be receptive to an ‘Anthropocene’ epoch.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 13, 2018 3:42 am

a proposal for formal definition could be ready in c. 2-3 years time, the preceding period being an establishment of the narrative concerning this possible division. “

yeah but its a select FEW trying to run the narrative!

they can talk/narrate all they like till they go purple…theyve got nothing substantive TO base that narrative ON as i see it.
and would seem the ICS meeting didnt see anything either

Reply to  ozspeaksup
August 13, 2018 3:48 am

“and would seem the ICS meeting didnt see anything either”
No, the ICS has established a working group. At that meeting, it was just noting the time scale to a proposal.

Matthew Thompson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 13, 2018 4:05 am

“Sounds like it is ongoing, if not dashing to a finish. ICS moves with geological time.”

This mote of hyperbole reminds me of RCP 8.5.

If indeed the ICS clock ticked with “geological time,” these climate wars in which we digitally engage would be as microseconds.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 13, 2018 4:50 am

And yet again Nick Stokes gets voted down for stating the basic facts of the issue.

“ICS’s decision is clearly a blow to those pushing hardest for tough action on climate change.”

Because they’re splitting the Holocene Epoch and setting up a working group to look at the issue of the Anthropocene?

This is nuts.

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
August 13, 2018 6:17 am

“Because they’re splitting the Holocene Epoch and setting up a working group to look at the issue of the Anthropocene?

This is nuts.”

I would agree, wanting to create an Anthropocene era without any geological basis but instead for political reasons is nuts.

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
August 13, 2018 6:29 am

And yet again Stokes seeks to obfuscate a very simple issue. And once again you swallow it whole. Steffen et al are claiming a geological subdivision called the Anthropocene – now. They are doing that now and the ICS have just made their subdivisions – now – none of which are named after any form of human-attributable characteristics. No one cares what ‘working groups’ will be doing in the future. The article is about what is happening now. There may be other articles about the output from any putative working group’s future findings – in the future.

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
August 13, 2018 9:25 am

The ICS Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy set up the Anthropocene Working Group in 2009. They were supposed to put forward a recommendation by 2016. They don’t appear to have done anything but babble to the mainstream media since early 2015…

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  David Middleton
August 13, 2018 10:22 am

I’m going to guess that the purpose of establishing the working group was to boot-strap credibility for the political maneuvering. “Look, look! We have a working group! See, see? We’re legitimate, we are.” No doubt hoping to win the propaganda war in the media and basically bully the ICS to follow suit.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
August 13, 2018 11:41 am

The ICS doesn’t work that way.

They set up the AWG to allow “Anthropocene” epoch proponents an opportunity to present a coherent recommendation. The AWG is (or was) comprised of a combination of qualified geologists (Colin Waters, Jan Zalasiewicz. etc.) and political agitators (Naomi Oreskes, Paul Crutzen). After 9 years, they have yet to put forward a coherent recommendation.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  David Middleton
August 13, 2018 6:21 pm

I’m not suggesting the ICS was being disingenuous, but rather those lobbying for the working group’s establishment. Oreskes et al are gaming the process, waving it in the faces of the media and the public to claim credibility.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 13, 2018 9:33 am

Regular readers know that I have had more than my share of disagreements with Stokes. However, when he provides substantive, factual comments such as the above, I don’t think that he should be voted down. It appears that some of you are being petty and just expressing your dislike of him and/or his views. If he says something for which you can demonstrate he has misinterpreted or distorted, then he deserves a down-vote, but not unless you can show evidence.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 13, 2018 11:42 am


John F. Hultquist
Reply to  David Middleton
August 13, 2018 12:15 pm

Double Ditto.

August 13, 2018 2:42 am
John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Chaamjamal
August 13, 2018 12:27 pm

I give up. What?

August 13, 2018 3:37 am

what a week
monmongrels brought to answer for their crud
and now this
absolutely beaming;-)

August 13, 2018 4:05 am

Sanity. Nowadays, it’s shocking when you encounter it.

August 13, 2018 4:05 am

I guess this issue is being persued here because it aligns with an idealogical position: that nothing we do could possibly be harmful to the biosphere. An Anthropocene makes a mockery of that.

Willful blindness (or disingenuous) really because we are going to leave a marker akin to the K–Pg boundary.

[??? .mod]

Reply to  RyanS
August 13, 2018 4:32 am

Are you being serious or is this a bout of sarcasm?

Would the act of declaring an Anthropocene somehow cause this whole circus of an impending crisis of the imaginations of some people to somehow become reality?

Reply to  Tom
August 13, 2018 8:19 pm

You’ve personified my point quite well there Tom. Charachterising the abrupt ecological devastation caused by humans as “a circus of imagination”. I can see why an Anthropocene must be so unpalatable for you.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  RyanS
August 13, 2018 4:38 am

You mean like adding much-needed, life-giving CO2 to the atmosphere, and greening the planet? That kind of “harm”?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 13, 2018 8:20 pm

Splendid euphemisms there Bruce, nice.

Reply to  RyanS
August 13, 2018 6:32 am

” that nothing we do could possibly be harmful to the biosphere.”

Straw Man alert: Nobody was making that argument.

“An Anthropocene makes a mockery of that.”

An Anthropocene era makes a mockery of geological eras as its creation has to do with politics not geology .

“Willful blindness (or disingenuous) really because we are going to leave a marker akin to the K–Pg boundary.”

That maker is irrelevant because it does not relate to any geological change that took place at that boundary.

Reply to  RyanS
August 13, 2018 6:36 am

I se you like to do your own geological divisions Ryan. The K-Pg boundary is something which will stay with me for a very long time. Not much of a wonder then that you are perfectly ok with a fictitious “Anthropocene”.

Reply to  RyanS
August 13, 2018 6:44 am

So much paranoid supposition, so little facts.
Yup, another RyanS post.

Just because we can read the science and from that realize that CO2 is not the demon gas that’s going to end life on earth, you conclude that we believe that we can’t harm the biosphere.

Tell me, are straw men and appeals to authority the limits of your rhetorical skills?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  RyanS
August 13, 2018 12:25 pm

Once known as the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K-T) boundary – The Tertiary is no longer recognized as a formal unit by the ICSC , so now we have the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) boundary.

Reply to  RyanS
August 13, 2018 2:29 pm


At the K-Pg boundary, whole orders were wiped out in a geologic instant. Even some classes were almost killed off.

A 2016 study found that over 90 percent of mammal species were wiped out by the same asteroid that killed all dinosaurs except a few birds 66 million years ago, significantly more than previously thought.

Except for crocs and sea turtles, no tetrapod weighing over 25 kilos survived.

August 13, 2018 4:18 am

What percent of the full-spectrum of solar energy that reaches the surface of the Earth is being absorbed by the oceans?

dodgy geezer
August 13, 2018 4:18 am

Surely the answer to this rebuff is ‘Punch a Stratigraphic Geologist’?

Dr. Strangelove
August 13, 2018 4:59 am

Trash the Anthropocene. We are in the Lunarcene since 1969. The geological evidence is the moon rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts

comment image

August 13, 2018 5:10 am

All I’ve ever found to be important is how long a cold period lasts, compared to how long a warm period lasts, over the last 750,000 years. Without exception, the warm periods are shorter than the cold periods It’s a wave form, if you like. The mean temperatures therefore become less important than the length of time. The “warm” wave form lags the “cool” wave form to a considerable extent.

What it means in reality is that during the colder periods, large water bodies (oceans, seas, etc.) retreat and during warmer periods, they advance. Big deal. A little reading and some common sense could tell anyone that’s what happens. There are many other things that happen, but that is one example.

This is nothing but another childish squabble by the Warmian crowd to put their “stamp” on something, and pat themselves on the back for their attempts at thought control. They conveniently ignore the REAL impactors on the planet, which the late George Carlin more than adequately described in one of his monologues. Some of these impactors are becoming more active now than they have ever been, and I don’t mean the cotton pickin’ weather, either. There are many, many geophysical aspects to planetary activities.

If we’re going into a period of colder weather – which many factors are indicating is a very real possibility – there is not one cotton pickin’ thing any of the hyperbolic, noisy Warmians can do to stop it.

If the Warmians choose to ignore the Sun’s effect on the upper atmosphere, then they didn’t see how it affected the balloon that lifted Felix Baungartner’s capsule to the stratosphere. It rose when the balloon was heated, sank when it cooled. The effect was as obvious and plain as the nose on your face.

What more clear demonstration of solar influence on gases in the atmosphere can you ask for? The atmosphere is a GAS. It appears that the Warmians have forgotten that simple fact. Heat a gas and it expands, and rises. Cool it and it contracts, and sinks. That’s a high school chemistry class experiment, for Pete’s sake. I can do the same thing with a glass of iced tea and some ice cubes.

Ignoring this kind of empirical hard evidence is one of several reasons the Warmians are losing their political battles, and are now grasping at straws and squawking like frightened chickens. It doesn’t fit their “meme”.

The expansion/contraction of gases due to solar influence is only one thing the Warmians choose to ignore. Many, many others have been discussed here on WUWT.

The Warmians want to be “famous” for naming an “epoch”, or at least a part of one. They need to learn to be careful what they wish for. It can return to haunt them.

You all have a nice day.

Tim Groves
Reply to  Sara
August 13, 2018 7:49 am

For the sake of consistency, I propose that people selling the idea of warming be known as Warmmongers. The Warmians sound more like an extraterrestrial species that appear in Star Trek.

Reply to  Tim Groves
August 13, 2018 11:29 am

They just may BE a species of space aliens!

They sort of look like us, but they say strange things. They don’t like places that don’t have pavement/cement under their “feet”. They invent words and can’t do arithmetic, and they can’t repeat our real history to us, so they make it up to suit themselves. And they want us to believe that they are just like us, so they flaunt inclusivity at us as if it’s going to help them blend in.

Definitely all the signs of space aliens there. We were warned by Robert Heinlein in ‘Have Spacesuit – Will Travel’, but thought it was a kids’ book.

Warm-mongers works, but Warmians also works for me.

August 13, 2018 5:55 am

They should have tried for “Autopocene”, it being more in line with their silly argument that cars burning fossil fuels was what caused this particular warming period.

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  RockyRoad
August 13, 2018 6:38 am

I kinda like “Myopiocene”, since they can’t (or won’t) look at anything before the day they were born. Over four billion years of Earth history to guide them, and all they can look at is the last 68 years.

Always remember: “Myopia is BETTER than your opia.”

K. Kilty
August 13, 2018 8:21 am

My wife, the glacial geologist, says “Yeah, a small but significant win!”

Jean Parisot
August 13, 2018 8:27 am

Nice to see someone ignore the hype. Being tabled to a working group is the kiss of death.

Reply to  Jean Parisot
August 13, 2018 10:42 am

Yes. My favorite suggestion to the boards dealing with the gadfly contingency, who just has to have something done RIGHT NOW, is to appoint them all to the Committee to Anticipate Everything. That committee is charged with preparing an annual report, entitled “That Which Must Be Done Now”, which will promptly be accepted and tabled for future study.

August 13, 2018 8:35 am

I would think science could choose division names that were very non-descriptive, maybe just numbers and letters and dashes, like a code — Era 5.432-a … b … c — or something like that.

Trying to use descriptive names opens up all sorts of cans of worms causing accusations of bias.

We should be more “inclusive”, if we INSIST on going this route, allowing the consideration of such names as “genderneutralscene”, “generationZ-ene”, “Trumpian”, and “WTFocene”.

Johne Morton
August 13, 2018 8:42 am

The phrase “peer-reviewocene” or “peer-reviewan epoch” doesn’t have quite the ring to it. How do you say “peer review” in Latin?

Reply to  Johne Morton
August 13, 2018 8:56 am

Biggus Dickus?

J Mac
August 13, 2018 9:03 am

A hearty ‘Well Done!’ to the International Commission on Stratigraphy!
They educated the anthropomorphic charlatans with rational, data supported Science!

August 13, 2018 9:55 am

The period 1980 to when the madness stops should be called the ” Computercene” . A period when computer models controlled earths systems, drought, storms, wildfires etc with accurate predictability of at least 100 years.

Mother earth became programmable like a vast complex interactive machine. To control everything just change one element CO2. The simplistic beauty, the power.

August 13, 2018 10:38 am

“Blow to warmists, the proposed ‘Anthropocene’ epoch has been denied by ICS”

But WUWT was way ahead of the curve and already reported this a month ago before The Australian or the GWPF got wind of it.

New Holocene geological subdivisions. The Anthropocene nowhere to be found.

Too bad we don’t remember our own recent articles.

August 13, 2018 11:04 am

Earlier ages lasted like 500,000… 600,000 years.

Now they are only 4,000 years long?

They don’t make ages like they used to.

Reply to  Seattle
August 13, 2018 11:31 am

OH, no!! The “ages” are much, much shorter than 4,000 years. They are now 31 years long. Haven’t you seen that announcement yet?

Reply to  Seattle
August 13, 2018 11:42 am

Ages or stages used to last millions of years. Check out the ages/stages of the Early and Late Cretaceous Epochs, for instance.

The Cretaceous is not only a long period, but has only two epochs, so naturally its stages or ages are also long.

Reply to  Theo
August 14, 2018 2:12 am

Such is the nature of resolution… The more detail you can observe, the more detailed the observation.

Gary Pearse
August 13, 2018 1:38 pm

So maybe as a consolation prize to the consensus, we could add the “Adjustocene”. It is widely known to have been the biggest factor in the global warming issue. They even use it in their models and algorithms for global temps.

Gary Pearse
August 13, 2018 1:47 pm

In geological time, the global warming scare will be less than an augen blick.

August 13, 2018 2:14 pm


I always say that only idiots use “BCE” – because once you’re written “BC” there is absolutely no point putting the E. Also, we recognise a host of other people’s contribution through names like “Watt”, “Kelvin”, etc., then why refuse to recognise those Christians who did the work to create our modern calendar.

And if anyone mutters about “religion”, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, January, etc. are all named after gods. Likewise my own name “Micha-el” the el name means “Like God”.

And on a very practical note, I read papers with dates in the first century BC and AD, and when I start confusing 13BCE with 138CE I know only an idiot would have created that daft system.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Mike Haseler
August 13, 2018 3:07 pm

I’m with you, brother.
No real need for “BCE” instead of “AD”.
But it does make a few feel better now though it will confuse kids now and in the future that might actually read an old book.

Carbon Bigfoot
August 13, 2018 2:19 pm

Mods getting that ” This page cannot be displayed” message again. In addition the link for The GWPF provides a 504 error message. The link in my browser will not get me to GWPF no matter what I try. The elves at Word Press are working overtime.

Gunga Din
August 13, 2018 2:21 pm

Maybe instead of the “Anthropocene epoch”, they should have pushed for the “Megaegoacene epicac”?
That would have been more, if not scientifically, more “politically-scientifically” correct.

August 13, 2018 2:51 pm

geological ages are not defined by little droughts.

Reply to  thingadonta
August 13, 2018 3:04 pm

Classifying the Holocene, a so far ordinary interglacial, into ages is absurd. It shouldn’t even be an age itself, let alone an epoch, IMO.

For comparisons, here is the rest of the Cenozoic Era (the past 66 million years):

Paleogene Period, 66-23.03 Ma

Paleocene Epoch, 66-56 Ma (three ages)

Eocene Epoch, 56-33.9 Ma (four ages)

Oligocene Epoch, 33.9-23.03 Ma (two ages)

Neogene Period, 23.03 Ma to Present

Miocene Epoch, 23.03-5.333 Ma (six ages)

Pliocene Epoch, 5.333-2.588 Ma (two ages)

Pleistocene Epoch, 2.588 Ma to 11.7 Ka (two real ages and two bogus ages)

Holocene (bogus) Epoch, 11.7 Ka to Present (three bogus ages)

The last two subdivisions of the Pleistocene are unofficial, as should be all three of those in the Holocene.

Ages should be millions of years long, not thousands.

Big Bubba
August 13, 2018 5:14 pm

Nick Stokes is right. The Anthropocene may yet be introduced (or alternatively may slowly fade into oblivion)
Geological time divisions are generally as interesting to the average person as a conversation with a lump of basalt, but because the name of the proposed new epoch relates to human activity, every member of the human species suddenly feels entitled as a stakeholder to declare an interest and expertise in stratigraphy. A better confirmation of mass Dunning Kruger effect is unlikely to be found.
At the end of the day geological time divisions are just slices of time with strange names attached to them.

Reply to  Big Bubba
August 13, 2018 5:36 pm

The names aren’t strange when translated out of Greek into English.

And at least in the Phanerozoic Eon, ie the past 541 million years, their start and end dates all mark major geologic and paleontologic events. That goes for last two Precambrian periods as well.

That doesn’t mean that the present system is perfect. Far from it. The Silurian Period (third of the Paleozoic Era) lasted just 25 million years. The Cretaceous (third and last of the Mesozoic Era) endured 79 million. Yet the Silurian has been accorded three epochs, but the Cretaceous just two.

It’s even worse in the Precambrian. The Ediacaran Period of the Neoproterozoic Era lasted 94 million years, the Cryogenian 85 and the Tonian 280 million. The ICS however doesn’t base the Tonian on stratigraphy, but radiometric chronometry.

Historical reasons, rather than sound geology, generally account for these seemingly glaring discrepancies. No reasons why all periods should last the same amount of time, but a factor of over 13 for the same geologic unit seems a bit out there.

Big Bubba
Reply to  Theo
August 13, 2018 6:25 pm

Geology is indeed a wonderful subject. It should be compulsory from primary school and up in my view, if only to reinforce the almost incomprehensible enormity of time and the insignificance of Humankind’s temporal existence within it

Reply to  Big Bubba
August 13, 2018 6:36 pm

I agree.

And it’s comprehensible to kids in broad outline.

It’s almost as hard for a mature mind to comprehend geologic time as that of an elementary school kid.

NW Sage
August 13, 2018 5:39 pm

Oh the irony! The warmunists are complaining about lack of ethical standards by the International Commission on Stratigraphy!

August 14, 2018 2:23 am

There is the point that if the “Anthropocene” was accepted, then it would be the last epoch/age. While ever technological civilisation lasts humans will continue to effect things. Should civilisation fall, nobody is going to care about geological divisions.

August 14, 2018 9:26 am

“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.”

― Philip K. Dick

%d bloggers like this: