2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.ancene.2017.09.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Working Group on the Anthropocene: Summary of evidence and interim recommendations

Abstract: Since 2009, the Working Group on the ‘Anthropocene’ (or, commonly, AWG for Anthropocene Working Group), has been critically analysing the case for formalization of this proposed but still informal geological time unit. The study to date has mainly involved establishing the overall nature of the Anthropocene as a potential chronostratigraphic/geochronologic unit, and exploring the stratigraphic proxies, including several that are novel in geology, that might be applied to its characterization and definition. A … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
173
0
30

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 376 publications
(206 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
3
173
0
30
Order By: Relevance
“…This still remains the case today because, while discussions continue on when the Anthropocene began (Ellis, ; Lewis and Maslin, ; Zalasiewicz et al ., ); on the approach that should be used to define its onset (Edgeworth et al ., ; Ruddiman, ); on what status it should have as a geological unit (Waters et al ., ); on what type of GSSP would be appropriate (Waters et al ., ); and, indeed, on whether the Anthropocene should be formalized at all (Finney and Edwards, ; Rull, ; Walker et al ., ; Zalasiewicz et al ., ), a consensus is now emerging within the SQS Anthropocene Working Group that the Anthropocene should indeed be formally defined by means of a GSSP, should hold the rank of series/epoch and should have a starting point in the mid‐20th century (Zalasiewicz et al ., ). The mid‐20th century is preferred because it coincides with the so‐called “Great Acceleration” (Steffen et al ., ) and is marked by a stratigraphic signal of radiogenic fallout from thermonuclear weapons testing that began in the early 1950 s (Waters et al ., , Zalasiewicz et al ., ; Waters et al ., ).…”
Section: The Anthropocenementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This still remains the case today because, while discussions continue on when the Anthropocene began (Ellis, ; Lewis and Maslin, ; Zalasiewicz et al ., ); on the approach that should be used to define its onset (Edgeworth et al ., ; Ruddiman, ); on what status it should have as a geological unit (Waters et al ., ); on what type of GSSP would be appropriate (Waters et al ., ); and, indeed, on whether the Anthropocene should be formalized at all (Finney and Edwards, ; Rull, ; Walker et al ., ; Zalasiewicz et al ., ), a consensus is now emerging within the SQS Anthropocene Working Group that the Anthropocene should indeed be formally defined by means of a GSSP, should hold the rank of series/epoch and should have a starting point in the mid‐20th century (Zalasiewicz et al ., ). The mid‐20th century is preferred because it coincides with the so‐called “Great Acceleration” (Steffen et al ., ) and is marked by a stratigraphic signal of radiogenic fallout from thermonuclear weapons testing that began in the early 1950 s (Waters et al ., , Zalasiewicz et al ., ; Waters et al ., ).…”
Section: The Anthropocenementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since then, a group of 26 scientists reported on reaching their conclusions and submitted their recommendations to the Working Group at the 35th International Geological Congress in Cape Town, South Africa, in August 2016. 2 The majority of the committee favors the mid 20th century to be the dividing line between the Holocene and the Anthropocene with the radioactive nuclei that result from the first nuclear testing to serve as a long lasting markers for the boundary. More recently, the IPCC in its latest report 3 (http:// IPCC.ch/reports/SR15) decided to adopt the designation as the epoch of the anthropogenic climate change.…”
Section: Background-global Changes In a Fast Changing Worldmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then terraces, as integral elements of the landscape, are both Cultural Heritage features but, at the same time, are possible area of shallow instability whose effects have been progressively worsening after the modification of the social and economic conditions starting from the second half of the XIX century the Industrial Revolution caused the initial abandonment of rural areas that Then terraces, as integral elements of the landscape, are both Cultural Heritage features but, at the same time, are possible area of shallow instability whose effects have been progressively worsening after the modification of the social and economic conditions starting from the second half of the XIX Water 2020, 12,435 3 of 20 century the Industrial Revolution caused the initial abandonment of rural areas that accelerated after the WW II in large areas of Europe. In that period, it was the beginning of the Anthropocene [41].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%