A formal Anthropocene is compatible with but distinct from its diachronous anthropogenic counterparts: a response to W.F. Ruddiman’s ‘three flaws in defining a formal Anthropocene’

dc.contributor.author

Zalasiewicz, J

dc.contributor.author

Waters, CN

dc.contributor.author

Head, MJ

dc.contributor.author

Poirier, C

dc.contributor.author

Summerhayes, CP

dc.contributor.author

Leinfelder, R

dc.contributor.author

Grinevald, J

dc.contributor.author

Steffen, W

dc.contributor.author

Syvitski, J

dc.contributor.author

Haff, P

dc.contributor.author

McNeill, JR

dc.contributor.author

Wagreich, M

dc.contributor.author

Fairchild, IJ

dc.contributor.author

Richter, DD

dc.contributor.author

Vidas, D

dc.contributor.author

Williams, M

dc.contributor.author

Barnosky, AD

dc.contributor.author

Cearreta, A

dc.date.accessioned

2020-08-01T15:44:27Z

dc.date.available

2020-08-01T15:44:27Z

dc.date.issued

2019-06-01

dc.date.updated

2020-08-01T15:44:26Z

dc.description.abstract

© The Author(s) 2019. We analyse the ‘three flaws’ to potentially defining a formal Anthropocene geological time unit as advanced by Ruddiman (2018). (1) We recognize a long record of pre-industrial human impacts, but note that these increased in relative magnitude slowly and were strongly time-transgressive by comparison with the extraordinarily rapid, novel and near-globally synchronous changes of post-industrial time. (2) The rules of stratigraphic nomenclature do not ‘reject’ pre-industrial anthropogenic signals – these have long been a key characteristic and distinguishing feature of the Holocene. (3) In contrast to the contention that classical chronostratigraphy is now widely ignored by scientists, it remains vital and widely used in unambiguously defining geological time units and is an indispensable part of the Earth sciences. A mounting body of evidence indicates that the Anthropocene, considered as a precisely defined geological time unit that begins in the mid-20th century, is sharply distinct from the Holocene.

dc.identifier.issn

0309-1333

dc.identifier.issn

1477-0296

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/21229

dc.language

en

dc.publisher

SAGE Publications

dc.relation.ispartof

Progress in Physical Geography

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1177/0309133319832607

dc.subject

Science & Technology

dc.subject

Physical Sciences

dc.subject

Geography, Physical

dc.subject

Geosciences, Multidisciplinary

dc.subject

Physical Geography

dc.subject

Geology

dc.subject

Anthropocene

dc.subject

Holocene

dc.subject

chronostratigraphy

dc.subject

geological time scale

dc.subject

Earth sciences

dc.subject

QUATERNARY SYSTEM/PERIOD

dc.subject

ATMOSPHERIC CO2

dc.subject

PLEISTOCENE SERIES/EPOCH

dc.subject

SOUTHERN-OCEAN

dc.subject

ICE-AGE

dc.subject

HOLOCENE

dc.subject

CLIMATE

dc.subject

CARBON

dc.subject

SUBDIVISION

dc.subject

BEGINNINGS

dc.title

A formal Anthropocene is compatible with but distinct from its diachronous anthropogenic counterparts: a response to W.F. Ruddiman’s ‘three flaws in defining a formal Anthropocene’

dc.type

Journal article

pubs.begin-page

319

pubs.end-page

333

pubs.issue

3

pubs.organisational-group

Nicholas School of the Environment

pubs.organisational-group

Environmental Sciences and Policy

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

43

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Zalasiewicz_J2019 A_formal_Anthropocene_is_compatible_with (1).pdf
Size:
437.08 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format