Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Biologists lobby to rename this the Anthropocene era

arroba Email

From the current usage Holocene era (11,700 years to present). Interestingly, the Berkeley evolution site, a reliable source of Darwinian orthodoxy, tells us that such a proposed new term is somewhat misleading (accessed October 15, 2014), because humans had arisen and dispersed before then.

Note: See Eocene (55.8 to 33.9 million years ago) or Pleistocene (2.6 million to 11,700 years ago) for the general idea.

From Yahoo!:

People are changing Earth so much, warming and polluting it, that many scientists are turning to a new way to describe the time we live in. They’re calling it the Anthropocene — the age of humans.

Though most non-experts don’t realize it, science calls the past 12,000 years the Holocene, Greek for “entirely recent.” But the way humans and their industries are altering the planet, especially its climate, has caused an increasing number of scientists to use the word Anthropocene to better describe when and where we are.

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG But wouldn’t it be wiser to put the renaming decision off a few millennia?

Politics is driving this, it seems:

And on Friday the Anthropocene Working Group ramps up its efforts to change the era’s name with a meeting at a Berlin museum. The movement was jump-started and the name coined by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen in 2000, according to Australian National University scientist Will Steffen.

Steffen, one of the main leaders of the Anthropocene movement, said in an email that the age of humans is more than just climate change. It includes ozone loss, disruption of nitrogen and phosphorous cycles that are causing dead zones, changes in water, acidification of the ocean, endocrine disruptors and deforestation.

Steffen said there’s no scientific consensus for the term Anthropocene yet, but he sees support growing. To become official it has to be approved by the International Union of Geological Sciences’ Commission on Stratigraphy.

That process is detailed and slow, said Harvard’s Kroll, who spearheaded the last successful effort to add a new time period — the little known Ediacaran period, about 600 million years ago. It took him 15 years.

Good thing, too. Two decades from now, the politics may all be different.

Currently, in a world of Save-the’s, humanity has the privilege of being the only species worthy of extermination. 

Note: How come, when people talk about what humans have done to animals, no one mentions veterinary medicine or conservation lands?

Follow UD News at Twitter!


#4 addendum http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/10/1418075111 Dionisio
Is this OT in this thread? Plants Suck Up More CO2 Than Thought Finding makes climate fight 'slightly easier,' experts say Some rare good news in the fight against climate change: Plants are an even greater ally than we knew, absorbing around 16% more carbon than previously thought, according to new research. The findings suggest "it will be slightly easier to fulfill the target of keeping global warming below 2 degrees..." http://www.newser.com/story/197223/plants-suck-up-more-co2-than-thought.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=foxnews&utm_campaign=rss_science_syn Dionisio
Not sure if this relates to the OP Impact of mesophyll diffusion on estimated global land CO2 fertilización doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418075111 Significance Understanding and accurately predicting how global terrestrial primary production responds to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a prerequisite for reliably assessing the long-term climate impact of anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions. Here we demonstrate that current carbon cycle models underestimate the long-term responsiveness of global terrestrial productivity to CO2 fertilization. This underestimation of CO2 fertilization is caused by an inherent model structural deficiency related to lack of explicit representation of CO2 diffusion inside leaves, which results in an overestimation of CO2 available at the carboxylation site. The magnitude of CO2 fertilization underestimation matches the long-term positive growth bias in the historical atmospheric CO2 predicted by Earth system models. Our study will lead to improved understanding and modeling of carbon–climate feedbacks. Abstract In C3 plants, CO2 concentrations drop considerably along mesophyll diffusion pathways from substomatal cavities to chloroplasts where CO2 assimilation occurs. Global carbon cycle models have not explicitly represented this internal drawdown and therefore overestimate CO2 available for carboxylation and underestimate photosynthetic responsiveness to atmospheric CO2. An explicit consideration of mesophyll diffusion increases the modeled cumulative CO2 fertilization effect (CFE) for global gross primary production (GPP) from 915 to 1,057 PgC for the period of 1901–2010. This increase represents a 16% correction, which is large enough to explain the persistent overestimation of growth rates of historical atmospheric CO2 by Earth system models. Without this correction, the CFE for global GPP is underestimated by 0.05 PgC/y/ppm. This finding implies that the contemporary terrestrial biosphere is more CO2 limited than previously thought. Dionisio
Better than "Primatocene" but not as good as "Adam&Evocene". Baby steps. ppolish
If people REALLY need something to worry about, since global warming is not panning out to be as dire as predicted, they can contemplate a world with a nuclear Iran,,, Iran's supreme leader calls for the destruction of Israel Jul. 30, 2014 - video http://video.foxnews.com/v/3704646723001/irans-supreme-leader-calls-for-the-destruction-of-israel/#sp=show-clips Music: Foo Fighters with Zac Brown - War Pigs Cover Late Show with Letterman - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8oL-XCH43I bornagain77
"The accuracy of global-warming hysteria aside, they talk as if our success as a species is a bad thing. Of course, without industrialization, we would still be mired in widespread destitution, have short, brutal lives, and would lack the prosperity necessary to pursue science." - Wesley J. Smith http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/our_success_as090371.html North Korea at night - satellite photo http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/dprk-dmsp-dark-old.jpg
as to Global warming, as Mark Twain might put it, 'the reports of our impending doom are greatly exaggerated',,,
Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI In no ordinary presentation, Dr. Easterbrook (Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University) bombards the committee with an overwhelming arsenal of data and observations contrary to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. As the Internet jargon goes, this is a "must listen." Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc video - At about the 11:30 mark, Coleman (a weatherman with 60 years experience) begins a detailed explanation about just how the global warming hoax was started and heated up, including how Al Gore got involved in the movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k The Future of Models - March 11, 2014 Excerpt: (as to the accuracy of models) We are not guaranteed to arrive at any specific future, thus there is nothing for the climate models to solve. They are being asked to deliver an impossible result and like Hal in 2001 they have gone crazy. They are killing people by cutting life support via energy poverty. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/11/the-future-of-models/ The myth of the 97% climate change consensus- May 2014 Excerpt: the papers used to create and perpetuate the 97% claim are seriously and fundamentally flawed. The alleged consensus simply does not exist; much less does it represent anything remotely approaching 97%. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/the-myth-of-the-97-climate-change-consensus/

Leave a Reply