8 ms·

One thing I’m not clear on - is the Anthropocene proposed as the successor of the Holocene? If so, it feels slightly premature, as the effects of anthropogenic

by jl6 4y ago

One thing I’m not clear on - is the Anthropocene proposed as the successor of the Holocene? If so, it feels slightly premature, as the effects of anthropogenic climate change do not - yet - appear to be anywhere near the scale of those that define the beginning of the Holocene (glacial retreat and sea level rise).

delecti 4y ago
From TFA "marked by pollution and other signs of human activity". Even if all CO2 initiated climate change halted and we magically pulled all the excess carbon out of the atmosphere, there would still be a stark and unambiguous geological marker of our presence in the form of plastics and radioactive material. The article points that out.
photochemsyn 4y ago
Holocene sea level rise: The rise, of ~60m, took place over most of the Earth as the volume of the oceans increased during deglaciation and is dated at 11,650–7000 cal. BP That's a sea level rise of 13 mm/year, on average. Current seal-level rise estimates are about 4 mm/year, and model projections point to as much as 19 mm/year by 2100. It's certainly comparable. These are however relatively slow processes on the scale of a human lifetime, and one could argue human civilization could adapt to these conditions... at some cost, which might be quite high.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think it is important to make the distinction between the state, and the rate of change. I think we we could be in a rapid transition phase, but the state is still very much close to the old state, opposed to the new state.
mncharity 4y ago
> it feels slightly premature I saw a note several years ago (written in opposition to an Anthropocene Epoch) which sketched a fun range of names, contingent on future outcomes. I'm regrettably failing to find it, but something very vaguely like (I'm making these up): from 0k glacial minimum, to late holocene thermal excursion, to holocene thermal maximum, to holocene extinction event, to anthropocene epoch, to post-anthropocene epoch, to end-Quaternary mass extinction. My fuzzy understanding is one pro-Epoch argument is that projections exceed past Holocene variance, there's existing global stratigraphic signals, and it's ok that those events are spread out in time, as that's been the case at other boundaries. And one anti-Epoch argument is that while the Great Acceleration makes a fine event signal, human impacts so precede it (eg late pleistocene megafauna extinction), that it makes a poor epoch divider. Sci-hub didn't have the TFA-linked paper. :/ Here's a recent "pro" paper[1], rich in detail. And a recent anti[2]. [1] https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/114765/Scott%20Wing%20-%20Wing2022-Epochsevents.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/114765/Scot... [2] https://anthroecology.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/gibbard_2022.pdf https://anthroecology.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/gibbard...

by jl6 4y ago

delecti 4y ago

From TFA "marked by pollution and other signs of human activity". Even if all CO2 initiated climate change halted and we magically pulled all the excess carbon out of the atmosphere, there would still be a stark and unambiguous geological marker of our presence in the form of plastics and radioactive material. The article points that out.

photochemsyn 4y ago

Holocene sea level rise: The rise, of ~60m, took place over most of the Earth as the volume of the oceans increased during deglaciation and is dated at 11,650–7000 cal. BP That's a sea level rise of 13 mm/year, on average. Current seal-level rise estimates are about 4 mm/year, and model projections point to as much as 19 mm/year by 2100. It's certainly comparable. These are however relatively slow processes on the scale of a human lifetime, and one could argue human civilization could adapt to these conditions... at some cost, which might be quite high.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think it is important to make the distinction between the state, and the rate of change. I think we we could be in a rapid transition phase, but the state is still very much close to the old state, opposed to the new state.

mncharity 4y ago

> it feels slightly premature I saw a note several years ago (written in opposition to an Anthropocene Epoch) which sketched a fun range of names, contingent on future outcomes. I'm regrettably failing to find it, but something very vaguely like (I'm making these up): from 0k glacial minimum, to late holocene thermal excursion, to holocene thermal maximum, to holocene extinction event, to anthropocene epoch, to post-anthropocene epoch, to end-Quaternary mass extinction. My fuzzy understanding is one pro-Epoch argument is that projections exceed past Holocene variance, there's existing global stratigraphic signals, and it's ok that those events are spread out in time, as that's been the case at other boundaries. And one anti-Epoch argument is that while the Great Acceleration makes a fine event signal, human impacts so precede it (eg late pleistocene megafauna extinction), that it makes a poor epoch divider. Sci-hub didn't have the TFA-linked paper. :/ Here's a recent "pro" paper[1], rich in detail. And a recent anti[2]. [1] https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/114765/Scott%20Wing%20-%20Wing2022-Epochsevents.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/114765/Scot... [2] https://anthroecology.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/gibbard_2022.pdf https://anthroecology.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/gibbard...