Guest “Zombie killing” by David Middleton
Geology says the Anthropocene is horst schist…
March 20, 2024
The Anthropocene
In 2001 the atmospheric chemist, Paul Crutzen, proposed that human activity was impacting natural environmental conditions to the extent that we had effectively left the natural stable conditions of the Holocene and moved into a new interval that he named the Anthropocene. In response to this suggestion, the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) was established in 2009 on the initiative of Phil Gibbard (PLG: the then chair of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy; SQS). The remit of the Working Group was to examine the evidence for human induced climate change as reflected in the recent geological record, and to determine whether this was sufficiently compelling for a new stratigraphic unit to be included in the Geological Time Scale (GTS) and, if so, at what rank. The Working Group, initially led by Jan Zalasiewicz (JAZ) and latterly by Colin Waters (CW), deliberated for 15 years before finally submitting a report to the SQS in late October 2023.
[…]
Following standard ICS procedure, it was expected that there would be 30 days allotted for the discussion of the AWG proposal, to be followed by 30 days for voting. Because of a possible conflict of interest, JAZ and MAH recused themselves from the administration of the voting process (although both participated in the discussion), and the discussion and ballot were conducted by the 1st vice-chair Professor Liping Zhou (Beijing University: LPZ) and Professor Adele Bertini (University of Firenze: AB), and who ensured that the process adhered strictly to the rules of ICS. However, when the discussion period ended and the Secretary moved to call a vote, both JAZ and MAH objected saying that the discussion period had been of insufficient length and that additional information on the Anthropocene proposal had been excluded. This did not find favour with a substantial number of SQS members who were anxious to move forward to the ballot. In order to meet the request for more time, however, LPZ and AB agreed to extend the discussion period, which was initially expected to end in late December, until the end of January. Voting finally began on 4th February, in spite of further objections from JAZ and MAH based on their view that adequate time was not allowed for discussion. It ended on 4th March at which point the results were declared.
The outcome was a decisive rejection of the Anthropocene proposal: 4 votes in favour; 12 votes against; and 3 abstentions. Three members did not vote, including JAZ and MAH, who then began a campaign questioning the legitimacy of the vote on procedural grounds and alleged contravention the ICS statutes. It is important to stress that there was no question of impropriety against either LPZ or AB, both of whom acted with complete integrity throughout a difficult process and who carried out their duties fully in accordance with the statutory requirements of ICS. Nor can the integrity of the SQS membership be called into question. All who participated in the process are geological scientists of the highest calibre, from a range of countries, and with wide expertise in
Quaternary stratigraphy and chronology. It is clear from the comments that were made during the course of the discussion period, that many were unconvinced by the arguments in the AWG proposal, and their misgivings are clearly reflected in the decisive nature of the voting outcome.The vote of the SQS has been recognized as valid by the ICS Executive, and that recognition has been near unanimously supported (15 yes, 1 abstention, 1 conflict of interest) by the chairs of the seventeen IUGS subcommissions, who are the ICS voting members. Although their proposal has been decisively rejected, the AWG has performed an important service to the scientific community by assembling a wide body of data on human impacts on global systems, and this database will be an essential source of reference well into the future. Moreover, the Anthropocene as a concept will continue to be widely used not only by Earth and environmental scientists, but also by social scientists, politicians and economists, as well as by the public at large. As such, it will remain an invaluable descriptor in human-environment interactions. But it will not be recognised as a formal geological term but will more usefully be employed informally in future discussions of the anthropogenic impacts on Earth’s climatic and environmental systems.
[…]
International Union of Geological Sciences
The PNAS paper cited In the I effing love science article features this graphic:
OK… Anthropocene: 1940-1980 RIP.
Next?
Reference
Kuwae M, Yokoyama Y, Tims S, Froehlich M, Fifield LK, Aze T, Tsugeki N, Doi H, Saito Y. Toward defining the Anthropocene onset using a rapid increase in anthropogenic fingerprints in global geological archives. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Oct 8;121(41):e2313098121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2313098121. Epub 2024 Sep 23. PMID: 39312679.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If CACA spewers must have an Anthropocene, let them rename the Holocene, which itself doesn’t merit its own epoch. It’s just a garden variety interglacial.
If the species that have actually affected Earth’s geology don’t rate their own epoch names, how can the puny transient effect humans have briefly had merit such distinction?
Among the species with effects lasting hundreds of millions to billions of years are the first cyanobacterium and first land plant.
Cyanobacteria caused the most catastrophic mass extinction event in Earth history, but gave us an oxygenated atmosphere.
Later, a eukaryotic cell and a cyanobacterium formed an endosymbiotic relationship, creating the first alga. Later still, its descendants went multicellular, then evolved to live on land. Now wood is the major form of biomass on our planet.
Phytoplankton did a pretty good job turning atmospheric CO2 into limestone, chalk and marble on a massive scale. I don’t know whether that’s epoch-worthy though.
Future geologists will be amazed to find massive blocks of concrete and steel scattered all over the world where there is no other sign of habitation.
Future geologists will be amazed to find any concrete.
https://www.ultratechcement.com/for-homebuilders/home-building-explained-single/descriptive-articles/what-is-concrete-types-composition-properties-and-uses#:~:text=Concrete%20is%20composed%20of%20three,process%20that%20hardens%20the%20concrete.
I remember that stuff from one of my Uni courses. 😉
Concrete dates back to the Romans. Roman concrete can harden under water. The Flavian Amphitheater, that is now called the Colosseum, was made mostly of Roman concrete. There was some metal reinforcements, but it wasn’t rebar. The name “Colosseum” is due to a large nearby statue of Nero, that is no longer with us.
The dome of the Parthenon is reinforced with broken pottery. Lightweight.
I didn’t know the Parthenon had a dome.
Geologic time is not measured on the same scale as human time.
Concrete, brick and pretty well everything made by man will weather back down to their original components within a few 10’s to 100’s of thousands or years.
Concrete is a mixture of water, sand, aggregate (small rocks) and cement.
Portland Cement
Lime (CaO) 60 to 67%
Silica (SiO2) 17 to 25%
Alumina (Al2O3) 3 to 8%
Iron oxide (Fe2O3) 0.5 to 6%
Magnesia (MgO) 0.1 to 4%
Sulphur trioxide (SO3) 1 to 3%
Soda and/or Potash (Na2O+K2O) 0.5 to 1.3%
Brick
Silica (sand) – 50% to 60% by weight
Alumina (clay) – 20% to 30% by weight
Lime – 2 to 5% by weight
Iron oxide – ≤ 7% by weight
Magnesia – less than 1% by weight
What do you think the Earth’s crust is made out of?
I fix cracks in concrete. I tell customers there are only 2 types of concrete. Concrete that is cracked and concrete that is going to crack.
Burned out LEDs will go for millions.
So for 2,000 years, the Colosseum has survived. Even with people stealing the iron reinforcing the structure.
Academics with too much time on their hands.
The academics can debate and vote all they wish, but just remember: Water ALWAYS wins.
“I think most people think of water as being sexy.” Something E. Jean Carroll might say.
Ohhh yeahh, baby !! 😉
But, then it always runs down hill after winning!
Best Styx song evah!
https://youtu.be/37kuFph04eU?si=Hea0HzbQOgDxRTYr
At least they got to vote on it.
Seems to me that those who collectively dismiss the findings of experts that there is no case for an Anthropocene are from collective mindsets that disregard strong medical advice to never try recreational drugs, that is, the hooked. Geoff S
“The latest study proposes three candidates …”
Damn, I had a flashback!
Many years ago while suffering from flu, I watched some afternoon TV. I think it was the Jerry Springer show. A girl has a baby and the show was paying to test the (DNA ?) of suggested fathers. The episode was reporting on the 7th or 8th candidate. (I don’t remember)
The test was false and so the host wanted another possibility and she provide a new candidate for the father.
Regarding the Anthropocene: There’s the rub. Not enough candidates. 🤠
Wow. Seems that girl was rather busy.
A busy body, always getting into other people’s business.
I propose the ThrowUpocene, since all this nonsense is making me sick.
Sorry, it has already been named. Adjustocene.
So, the Anthropocene concept is nothing but a complete nonsense but nevermind, let it thrive in the media and be promoted by activists, politicians and climate warriors as if it was an established scientific concept.
I even wonder why the vote took place since for the general population, the result is the same : a travesty.
The process of managing the geologic time scale is essential for scientific communication. Changing the time scale requires >60% majority votes of the relevant subcommission and the International Commission on Stratigraphy and then has to be approved by the International Union of Geological Sciences Executive Committee.
Thank you for this clear and usefull insight.
Indeed, at least, scientifically, this nonsense is refuted and that’s a good thing.
But doesn’t the general population deserve to be informed instead of being deceived ?
The general population is quite often blissfully ignorant when it comes to science… and reality.
So the author used “ICS” several times without explaining the abbreviation. Some of us neophytes do not know what “ICS” is.
International Commission on Stratigraphy
Wikipedia still says the Pleistocene ended 11,700 years ago, and has removed all reference to Ralph Ellis and Michael Palmer from its ‘100,000-year problem’ page (it also deleted its ‘Ralph Ellis’ page). It took well over a decade to formally shoot down the Anthropocene, but the pseudo-scientific forces of evil take only days to put up each new furphy. In the statement announcing the formal rejection of ‘Anthropocene’ they have the hide to say that the term will continue to be used. The Orwellian evil just keeps coming.
An oldie but a goodie…
Control the language, control the ideas.
— K. Marx
In marine ecology type papers there is too often the de facto word, Anthropocene, used, sometimes with IPCC as the only citation, if any. It’s a “you know” like using the phrase “delicate ecosystem,” which would probably be true in events that define the geological periods. Also there is too much “back patting” (justification) about their work in last concluding paragraph and even one claimed to be a “pioneer” but most often about their work’s value for management. Assessment (science) is different from management (operations sometimes called ecosystem engineering). Management is a lot more difficult as proven with all the poor restoration results one reads about and sees.
Don’t have the reference but recall a journal section on something like adjusting to the Anthropocene. Sustainability was always a de facto understood necessity, statement not required like one often reads. When you do calculations you call them “survivorship.” Some papers also preach too much else including information that one should already know. Numbers of authors/paper have also increased making one wonder if we are getting more “consensus” science or somehow segmenting the work. Some are probably justified and some do require such explanation and get official ethical approval from upstairs. Maybe almost all journals advertise bragging about their “impact factor.” And some are teaching politics.
“First, I’d like to draw your attention to the recent publication of the areas of consensus and debate results from last year’s Communicating Science for Policy conference. In August 2015, Sigma Xi and Institute on Science for Global Policy coordinated this event, which focused on linking scientifically credible information to the formulation and implementation of sound, effective policies.”
If geologists did less field work maybe they would understand.
“Numbers of authors/paper have also increased”
Team projects, individual grades.