The alacrity with which researchers from many disciplines have embraced the term “Anthropocene” to connote a fundamental man-made disruption to the Earth System suggests it is an extremely useful conceptual shorthand amongst professionals, as well as capturing the attention and imagination of the wider public.
This was clearly the intention of Crutzen & Stoermer (2000) who coined it, yet as atmospheric chemist and biologist, it is unclear whether they did so in the expectation that it could, or should, be implemented as a formal stratigraphic term, or that they had a clear understanding at the time of the challenges of achieving a practical (stratigraphic) definition that would be useful to all disciplines.
A cursory survey of the research in the journals Anthropocene and Anthropocene Review reveals the very broad temporal range of anthropogenic phenomena investigated, a significant proportion of which predates the ICS Working Group’s current recommended onset in the early 1960’s.
Such concerns have prompted a degree of scepticism (e.g. Klein, 2015) about the considerable efforts being expended by the IUGS/ICS in this area.
Your thoughts and opinions please, particularly those from professional stratigraphers.
Crutzen, Paul J & Stoermer, Eugene F “The Anthropocene” Global Change Newsletter No.41 International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme (IGBP) (May 2000):17-18
Klein, George Devries. "The Anthropocene": What is its Geological Utility? Episodes 38.3 (2015): 218-218.
A 1960s onset is not useful when describing paleolimnological records of biological remains in the northern hemisphere. There is a significant amount of variation in the onset of change in these records, but in many cases human related change predates 1960. 1800 CE would be a more fitting time horizon when looking at these records.
The widespread increase in Discostella species comes to mind from a paleolimnological
Article The Anthropocene Is Functionally and Stratigraphically Disti...
There's a thoughtful opinion piece on this topic in the latest edition of Nature (see link). It seems evident that the idea of 'defining' a starting point for the Anthropocene to the satisfaction of all disciplines is a fool's errand. Perhaps it would be best to keep it an informal term - it has after all been working perfectly satisfactorily in this way to date and I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why it needs to be otherwise.
http://www.nature.com/news/involve-social-scientists-in-defining-the-anthropocene-1.21090
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience