Making the case for a formal Anthropocene Epoch
- Author(s)
- Jan Zalasiewicz, Colin N. Waters, Alexander P. Wolfe, Anthony D. Barnosky, Alejandro Cearreta, Matt Edgeworth, Erle C. Ellis, Ian J. Fairchild, Felix M. Gradstein, Jacques Grinevald, Peter K. Haff, Martin J. Head, Juliana A. Ivar Do Sul, Catherine Jeandel, Reinhold Leinfelder, John R. McNeill, Naomi Oreskes, Clement Poirier, Andrew Revkin, Daniel deB. Richter, Will Steffen, Colin Summerhayes, James P.M. Syvitski, Davor Vidas, Michael Wagreich, Scott L. Wing, Mark Williams
- Abstract
A range of published arguments against formalizing the Anthropocene as a geological time unit have variously suggested that it is a misleading term of non-stratigraphic origin and usage, is based on insignificant temporal and material stratigraphic content unlike that used to define older geological time units, is focused on observation of human history or speculation about the future rather than geologically significant events, and is driven more by politics than science. In response, we contend that the Anthropocene is a functional term that has firm geological grounding in a well-characterized stratigraphic record. This record, although often lithologically thin, is laterally extensive, rich in detail and already reflects substantial elapsed (and in part irreversible) change to the Earth System that is comparable to or greater in magnitude than that of previous epoch-scale transitions. The Anthropocene differs from previously defined epochs in reflecting contemporary geological change, which in turn also leads to the term's use over a wide range of social and political discourse. Nevertheless, that use remains entirely distinct from its demonstrable stratigraphic underpinning. Here we respond to the arguments opposing the geological validity and utility of the Anthropocene, and submit that a strong case may be made for the Anthropocene to be treated as a formal chronostratigraphic unit and added to the Geological Time Scale.
- Organisation(s)
- Department of Geology
- External organisation(s)
- University of Leicester, Natural Environment Research Council, University of Alberta, Stanford University, University of the Basque Country, University of Maryland, Baltimore, University of Birmingham, University of Bergen (UiB), Hochschulinstitut für internationale Studien und Entwicklung (IHEID), Duke University, Brock University, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Université Toulouse-I-Capitole, Institut de recherche pour le développement, Freie Universität Berlin (FU), Georgetown University, Harvard University, Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université Caen-Normandie, Pace University, Australian National University, University of Cambridge, University of Colorado, Boulder, Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
- Journal
- Newsletters on Stratigraphy
- Volume
- 50
- Pages
- 205-226
- No. of pages
- 22
- ISSN
- 0078-0421
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1127/nos/2017/0385
- Publication date
- 04-2017
- Peer reviewed
- Yes
- Austrian Fields of Science 2012
- 105205 Climate change, 105112 Historical geology, 105904 Environmental research, 105405 Geoecology
- Keywords
- ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Geology, Stratigraphy
- Sustainable Development Goals
- SDG 13 - Climate Action
- Portal url
- https://ucrisportal.univie.ac.at/en/publications/24d96723-3221-4028-ad7c-502896348fb5