Welcome to the Anthropocene

Published: February 21st, 2011, Last Updated: February 21st, 2011

There’s nothing like looking at a timeline of Earth’s history to remind oneself that, relatively speaking, humans haven’t been around for very long. But while humans have only roamed the planet for a miniscule fraction of the planet’s 4.5 billion year history, geologists and paleontologists have learned an awful lot about different times in the ancient past. They’ve segmented time on Earth according to major events or changes that took place, such as mass extinctions or beginnings of ice ages. These events created periods of time so distinct that the effects can still be seen in layers of rock today. For example, the past 12,000 years of Earth's history are described as the Holocene epoch.

Scientists say that modern human influence is sending the planet into a new geological epoch — the "Anthropocene." Credit: YiFan Photography/iStock

Now, many scientists insist that recent human activity, beginning about 250 years ago, is having such a significant environmental impact on the Earth’s climate, geography, and biological composition that we have actually entered into a new period of geologic time. That means this change to the “age of man” — or the “Anthropocene” epoch — could be distinctly recognizable when future geologists sift through tiered cakes of rock thousands of years from now.

Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen brought the idea of the Anthropocene into the scientific spotlight in 2002 (Crutzen is famous for having studied atmospheric chemistry relating to the hole in the ozone layer), but it is not yet an accepted term in geology vernacular. However, in the March 2011 issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, a group of researchers are attempting to make the case that the profound human-driven impacts on the planet in recent years fit the criteria for a new geological distinction.

In this month’s issue of National Geographic magazine, journalist Elizabeth Kolbert writes about the Anthropocene, and she points out that it is surprising which kinds of human behavior are expected to have the longest-lasting impacts (from a geologic perspective, at least). The skyscrapers, the highways, and the suburban sprawl?

None of these are likely to leave as indelible a mark as the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is causing global climate change, sea level rise, and ocean acidification. And though deforestation is rapidly transforming vast swaths of the planet’s landscape today, Kolbert points out that the most serious and noticeable consequence of this in the future could be a mass extinction event caused by the clear-cut. It may be thousands of years before our particular era can be truly verified as a new epoch, but scientists say the measurable transformations that are happening now are so rapid and distinct they make this time a good candidate for a name change. And if nothing else, some say that adopting the Anthropocene name will raise awareness of the fact that humans are having enduring affect on the planet.

If you can’t fathom parsing through the 13 peer-reviewed journal articles in Philosophical Transcations A, Kolbert’s take on the Anthropocene is certainly a worthwhile read.

Posted in Basics, Causes, Impacts, Climate, Flora & Fauna, Landscapes, Society, Global, Extreme Planet

« Extreme Planet

Comments

By Mike SanClements (Boulder, CO 80304)
on February 22nd, 2011

I think the new epoch makes sense. I am sure the increases in many chemicals since the industrial revolution will be detectable in sediment and ice cores for a long long time to come.

By Gregory Wright (Sherman Oaks, California, USA)
on February 23rd, 2011

I propose and suspect that the turn of the year 2000 will, in the not-very-distant future, be regarded as the closest delineation of the advent of the Anthropocene Epoch. Here in 2011, we have just concluded the first one percent of the third millennium and who knows what minuscule portion of this new and noisy and unsettling Anthropocene Epoch!

By Norrie Robbins (La Mesa/CA)
on February 23rd, 2011

City Folks Can’t Possibly Understand Climate Change

After travelling the world and talking to students and senior citizens about climate change, I have come to a perfectly shocking conclusion—city folks will never understand climate change.
I think there are two reasons. First, just about no one living in a city has been in one place his or her whole life to watch how change unfolds over time. Second, you check in your closet and see you’ve worn your summer clothes, winter clothes, spring and fall clothes. What climate change? Furthermore, you watch TV and see tornados in Kansas, floods along the Mississippi, snow storms in Buffalo, and hurricanes up the Gulf or East coasts. So what’s the big deal? That happens every year.
Actually, I have only met two city folks who recognize climate change. The first is my sister Penni who spends vast hours watching the Discovery Channel. She has seen changes that are happening all over the world. The second person told me that her family has had a cabin in the San Bernardino Mountains since 1932. Her family has gone there every summer during for her entire life. Even though she lives in Los Angeles, she has seen big changes in the mountains.
I also heard that people who love to garden have watched things changing. I’m not a gardener, but ever since I heard that plants are flowering earlier and longer, I started to write down the first day of flowering of my favorite bush. So I am actually collecting my own data—big surprise, I’m a scientist.
However, scientists such as myself who has never lived anywhere longer than 15 years, do look at vast amounts of data or collect our own, like me and my Jerusalem sage bush. But we scientists form 1-2% of the city population.
So, if you want to hear about local effects of climate change, you have to talk to rural folks who have lived their entire lives in one place. Or you could ask farmers who keep notes, some quite meticulous. They see the changes in rainfall amount, rainfall timing, runoff effects, fire frequency, water reduction, insect invasions, and changes in animal behaviors.
You city folks, don’t worry about it. You’re not nuts, you’re not misinformed, you’re just too mobile. If your brain isn’t wired to think about things that are changing all over the Earth, you’ll miss it. But, you might say thanks to the rest of us who have your back.

By Henry Shenkman (La Mesa,/CA/91942)
on February 23rd, 2011

Unlike my friend Norrie I have lived my 74 years in one place, Southern California. Changes in the total environment have dramatic with geologic impact of humans matching some of the major natural events recorded in geologic history. I use my Goldilocks Ecology Method every day to evaluate my habitat. I have a mental history that begins with dirt roads/ native habitats and orange groves to the changes of tract housing development / water importation/ freeways an mega sized cities.

I believe the acknowledgment of human impact as a major ecologic-geologic factor is most appropriate. I do not agree with the start beginning just 350 years ago. I believe 4 to 6 thousand years ago would be more appropriate sine as far as we know no other species has modified the Earth the way we have. Think un terms of Cairo, Machu Pichu, Ankor Wat and the Great Wall.

By richard carnemola (brooklyn, ny 11215)
on February 24th, 2011

Responding to Norrie Robins of La Mesa, CA…

Those who live(d) in the City of New Orleans might differ with your analysis.

Name (required):

Email (required):

City/State/Zip:

Enter the word you see in the image below:

[+] View our comment guidelines.

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until reviewed by Climate Central staff. Thank you for your patience.

Andrew Freedman

Andrew Freedman is a senior science writer for Climate Central, focusing on coverage of extreme weather and climate change. Prior to working with Climate Central, Freedman was a reporter for C...