My objection is that we already just switched from the Pleistocene to the Holocene in geologic time. Humans had already tremendously impacted the biosphere by the start of the Holocene.
So Holocene = Anthropocene in my view.
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
47 points (96.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
7250 readers
142 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, not to mention that many of these eras end with a mass extinction event, and we have one of those going on, right now. Why declare a new era, if it might be over after 200 years?
This seems like a disagreement on where to put the line rather than throwing out the idea of the anthropocene entirely
Nothing to see here. Just another mass extinction event, caused by a radical paradigm shift in how life on the planet has functioned for the Earth's entire existence, and all in the span of a few hundred years.
There's some debate as to whether the proposal uses the right boundary marker. A bunch of the climate scientists want the change in carbon isotope concentration instead of nuclear fallout