Defining the Anthropocene Era

New research identifies epoch-defining 'golden spike'

Let’s call it an epochal step in the right direction.

We’re talking here about the Anthropocene, generally, and the Anthropocene Working Group, specifically, and the recent discovery of physical, chemical and biological markers that underscore the very notion of the phenomenon as a new unit of the geological time scale.

According to Jan Zalasiewicz, professor of inaugural lectures and paleobiology at the University of Leicester, a strong proponent of the Anthropocene and a member of the team, the recent work is promising.

“It is new information when organized as context for a potential Anthropocene ‘golden spike,’ though it is based upon data collected in many previous studies (almost all of them collected without the Anthropocene in mind at all). And perhaps not a breakthrough, but very useful in showing where and how our future efforts should be channeled,” he said.

Zalasiewicz and his group recently published a study in the journal Earth-Science Reviews detailing their research.

He wants to emphasize that this doesn’t settle the debate – for there are still detractors out there – but does “ … provide a very great deal of information regarding the technical issues of formalizing the Anthropocene.”

Specifically, based on current knowledge, approximately 70 years into this proposed new time interval, the new research indicates that the Holocene-Anthropocene transition is a good deal more sharply definable than most epochal boundaries, using a range of information, and in this respect rivals the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary.

“It does have novel signals such as those of the techno-fossil record and of artificial radionuclides, as well signals (e.g. the change in carbon isotope values) of the kind that have been used to help characterize or define other epochal boundaries (e.g. the Paleocene-Eocene boundary is defined by its carbon isotope signal),” Zalasiewicz explained.

Image Caption

‘Habitus’ (2013 - ongoing) is an art installation by Robyn Woolston (robynwoolston.com), commissioned by Edge Hill University, which announces the Anthropocene epoch, Vegas-style.

Please log in to read the full article

Let’s call it an epochal step in the right direction.

We’re talking here about the Anthropocene, generally, and the Anthropocene Working Group, specifically, and the recent discovery of physical, chemical and biological markers that underscore the very notion of the phenomenon as a new unit of the geological time scale.

According to Jan Zalasiewicz, professor of inaugural lectures and paleobiology at the University of Leicester, a strong proponent of the Anthropocene and a member of the team, the recent work is promising.

“It is new information when organized as context for a potential Anthropocene ‘golden spike,’ though it is based upon data collected in many previous studies (almost all of them collected without the Anthropocene in mind at all). And perhaps not a breakthrough, but very useful in showing where and how our future efforts should be channeled,” he said.

Zalasiewicz and his group recently published a study in the journal Earth-Science Reviews detailing their research.

He wants to emphasize that this doesn’t settle the debate – for there are still detractors out there – but does “ … provide a very great deal of information regarding the technical issues of formalizing the Anthropocene.”

Specifically, based on current knowledge, approximately 70 years into this proposed new time interval, the new research indicates that the Holocene-Anthropocene transition is a good deal more sharply definable than most epochal boundaries, using a range of information, and in this respect rivals the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary.

“It does have novel signals such as those of the techno-fossil record and of artificial radionuclides, as well signals (e.g. the change in carbon isotope values) of the kind that have been used to help characterize or define other epochal boundaries (e.g. the Paleocene-Eocene boundary is defined by its carbon isotope signal),” Zalasiewicz explained.

The practical effect will help future research locate and specify future “golden spike sections,” he added.

The Debate

The term “Anthropocene” was first coined, almost improvisationally, by Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric chemist, at a conference in 2000 in Mexico City. Literally meaning “the Age of Man,” its origins, according to proponents like Crutzen, began around the middle of the 20th century and rests on the assumption that humans are altering the planet, including long-term global geologic processes, at such an accelerated pace that a new epoch is upon us in the geological time scale.

(The late biologist Eugene Stoermer, who had been using the term informally for years, was quoted in The New York Times back in 2011 as saying he never formalized the term until Crutzen contacted him.)

Zalasiewicz said the term started off organically, then became semi-formal, through the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London (a formal body, but with no direct power over the time scale) – and then became formal with the Anthropocene Working Group of the International Commission on Stratigraphy.

It has been, Zalasiewicz said, “a kind of evolution of interest,” including disciplines beyond the scientific community, including environmental, anthropological, political, and social.

The immediate question for the AWG is whether “Anthropocene” should be added to the International Chronostratigraphic Chart.

Fundamentally, the debate centers on whether humans have changed the figurative and literal landscape to such an extent that recent and currently forming geological deposits include a signature that is distinct from those of the Holocene and earlier epochs.

Zalasiewicz thinks it has, even before the latest research, which, he believes, is reason enough for the term to be recognized.

“One of the advantages would be stabilizing the meaning within geology, and therefore helping precise communication,” he said.

“Whether the Anthropocene becomes formal or not, it’s a very real and distinct phenomenon stratigraphically,” he said, adding that the work and research will continue regardless of an official recognition.

The criticism of the Anthropocene comes from those who, for starters, think the term is arrogant in the thinking that human beings are a geologic force on par with nature, in fact superseding it. By proof, critics point to the named epochs covering the last 145 million years and how none are named for the cause of the changes to the planet – until now.

More substantive is this criticism, best described in a 2013 Smithsonian Magazine article by Joseph Stromberg, “What is the Anthropocene and Are We in It?”:

“Many stratigraphers (scientists who study rock layers) criticize the idea, saying clear-cut evidence for a new epoch simply isn’t there. ‘When you start naming geologic-time terms, you need to define what exactly the boundary is, where it appears in the rock strata,’ said Whitney Autin, a stratigrapher at the SUNY College of Brockport, who suggests Anthropocene is more about pop culture than hard science. The crucial question, he said, is specifying exactly when human beings began to leave their mark on the planet: The atomic era, for instance, has left traces of radiation in soils around the globe, while deeper down in the rock strata, agriculture’s signature in Europe can be detected as far back as A.D. 900. The Anthropocene, Autin said, ‘provides eye-catching jargon, but from the geologic side, I need the bare bones facts that fit the code.’”

For his part, Zalasiewicz welcomes the criticism and thinks the debate is healthy.

“It 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,” he said.

Navigating the Controvery

He believes the research indicates that the Anthropocene is not, in fact, just a difference in epochal interpretation or degree of the Holocene Epoch of the Quaternary Period, but a change in kind, pointing to distinctive changes to the Earth due to the introduction of artificial radionuclides, plastics, fly ash, metals such as aluminum, pesticides and concrete.

Those in the Anthropocene camp believe that humans have made epoch-scale changes to the Earth’s geology, changes substantial and dramatic enough to have ushered in this new era and should be recognized as such.

As to the charge of political tinkering, Zalasiewicz believes that an examination of the Anthropocene Working Group’s research should dispel any doubts as to the group’s motivations, and he does not believe the work is pitting scientists against politicians against environmentalists.

“On the whole, I don’t think so – though there have been many different opinions on the Anthropocene from many communities (and indeed a number of different interpretations of the Anthropocene, which is why we on the AWG are cleaving closely to the ‘stratigraphical Anthropocene’). The various proxy signals of the Anthropocene might be considered part of the evidence for global environmental change, though on the AWG we are considering them impartially, as geological signals to compare with those of the geological past,” he explained.

He is careful about editorializing too much on the subject.

“There are wide ranges of opinion from proponents of the ‘good Anthropocene’ to those who consider that the changes associated with this putative epoch are largely deleterious (to the biosphere, and ultimately to humans). Again, our task is to examine the stratigraphic evidence as best we can,” said Zalasiewicz.

The What Versus the When

These epochal moments are not like elections – they don’t have specific start and end dates. In fact, some epochal moments have lasted thousands of years. The actual start date of the Anthropocene, Zalasiewicz said, is less important than the fact of it.

“If we are using chronostratigraphic criteria, then it is probably best to consider it as the start of a very long unit of time, in which Earth history might evolve in a number of ways. In the same way, the Eocene epoch did not terminate after the carbon release/global warming event that triggered it had died down, after 0.1-0.2 million years of perturbed climate – this was sufficient to set the Earth on a new trajectory, with the next epoch (the Oligocene) not defined until another major change, 20 million years later. This is an imperfect comparison, but perhaps demonstrates the kind of temporal measure that one might make,” he said.

As for what happens now, in light of the new findings, Zalasiewicz said, “We hope to have a formal proposal based on a good deal of detailed and focused analytical work ready by 2020, but this may well be optimistic (it would be a good deal faster than most geological boundary work, and there is still a great deal of organizational work to do). We will do the best we can. As regards a decision, I have no reliable crystal ball here – we simply wish to do the science as well and honestly as we can.”

vrcfqtdfraafzax

Comments (5)

Anthropocene
We already have an "Anthropocene." It's called the "Holocene." The only significant difference between the Holocene and the most recent Pleistocene interglacial stages is dominance of human civilization over much of the planet's surface.
2/27/2018 7:34:42 AM
Form to gain access to an article.
As a member of the AAPG for over 40 yrs. I should not be required to fill out a form with personal information, that is really none of the AAPG's business, just to access an article.
2/12/2018 12:32:04 PM
Anthropocenic Detractor
First, I am a climate denier due to my utter disdain for "climate scientists" that have completely ignored the scientific method and drawn conclusions based on policy and consensus. Now, I am an anthropocenic detractor by non scientists (what in the world is a professor of inaugural lectures - and paleobiology?). I mean really, who cares what a crowd of "environmental, anthropological, political, and social" non scientists think about the "age of man" and our effect on the geologic time scale? It starts with "the debate is healthy", but will quickly progress to the consensus is clear and the debate is closed. Send in the Spanish inquisition for all of the detractors.
Show more
2/9/2018 7:22:16 AM
The Anthropocene
Again a legitimate publication like the EXPLORER offers up an article on a piece of non-science and, in turn, makes it look like real science. As was stated in the article, some considered the idea of a time-rock period or epoch called the Anthropocene as nothing more than pop culture. In other words, it's an idea that some advocates have decided sounds like a good and have decided to push this agenda. You can do all kinds of scientific research and the compilation of information from various pieces of literature, but that doesn't make the idea of establishing a new time-rock period any more legitimate! To someone who doesn't understand how the various geologic time boundaries were established, it all seems fine. They believe you can use biological, chemical, physical and any other data to prove that establishing something called the Anthropocene is possible and real. However, the very act of trying to do research that "proves" an idea is an act of strong bias and not scientific. It was also stated in the article that the data for establishing the Anthropocene existed in previous written articles all along. This is nonsense and demonstrates the bias and advocacy of Dr. Zalasiewicz. We should "not be going down this road again." We tried this with the idea that CO2 is the cause of global warming without considering the physics of the issue, constructing incomplete and faulty climate predictive models and by forgetting the other factors that affect the atmosphere. It was a mistake and cost science very dearly by spreading pseudo-science and junk science over the internet and worldwide. Now we have to contend with advocates from every political and non-science realm who are pushing for mitigation of a gas, to the "tune" of trillions of dollars, that should really be thought of as relatively benign and low in atmospheric concentration when compared to its past atmospheric concentration over the course of the last 2 or 3 billion years! Raphael Ketani Sunnyside, NY
Show morevrcfqtdfraafzax
2/7/2018 8:17:16 PM
"Anthropocene"
The proposal for naming a stratigraphic time division for human-kind is hubris taken to an absurd level. Let those who follow us (in about 10^6 annua) decide if there should be a separate and distinct sedimentological division in the record. It is NOT for us to decide. Mark Hladik Consulting Geophysicist Casper, Wyoming
2/7/2018 1:05:11 PM

You may also be interested in ...