posted on 2018-01-17, 11:00authored byJan Zalasiewicz, Colin N. Waters, AP Wolfe, AD Barnosky, A Cearreta, Matt Edgeworth, EC Ellis, IJ Fairchild, FM Gradstein, J Grinevald, P Haff, MJ Head, JAI do Sul, C Jeandel, R Leinfelder, JR McNeill, N Oreskes, C Poirier, A Revkin, DDB Richter, W Steffen, C Summerhayes, JPM Syvitski, D Vidas, M Wagreich, S Wing, Mark Williams
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.
History
Citation
Newsletters on Stratigraphy, 2017, 50 (2), pp. 205-226
Author affiliation
/Organisation/COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING/Department of Geology