The Anthropocene is widely understood to mean the current <em>"period of Earth's history during which humans have a decisive influence on the state, dynamics and future"</em> of this planet. For several years, scientists in the <a href="http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/workinggroups/anthropocene/" title="Website of the Working Group on the 'Anthropocene' (AWG)">Working Group on the 'Anthropocene' (AWG)</a> have <a href="https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2016/august/media-note-anthropocene-working-group-awg" title="Media note on AWG recommendations">worked (and voted!)</a> on defining the beginning of the Anthropocene in geochemical terms. The mid-20<sup>th</sup> century provides an obvious geochemical 'timestamp': fallout from <a href="https://media.ccc.de/v/31c3_-_6121_-_en_-_saal_2_-_201412291715_-_what_ever_happened_to_nuclear_weapons_-_michael_buker" title="Michael Büker's 'What Ever Happened to Nuclear Weapons?' talk at 31c3">nuclear weapons detonations</a>. Which other chemicals and timestamps are being considered for marking the Anthropocene's start? How is 'define-by-committee' even working out for <a href="http://www.stratigraphy.org/index.php/ics-chart-timescale" title="International Chronostratigraphic Chart AKA Geological Timescale">geological epochs</a>? This talk boils the scientific background of the Anthropocene debate down for non-stratigraphers. |
