Comment on "When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary is stratigraphically optimal" by Jan Zalasiewicz et al. (2015), Quaternary International, 383, 196-203

Mike Walker*, Phil L. Gibbard, John J. Lowe

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialpeer-review

27 Citations (SciVal)

Abstract

We offer a comment on the paper: "When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary is stratigraphically optimal" by Jan Zalasiewicz et al. (2015), Quaternary International, 383, 196-203. We consider this proposal in the context of the procedures and terminology employed by the International Union of Geological Sciences which underpin the formal designation of chronostratigraphic units. Our conclusion is that there is no practical value in establishing the lower boundary of a new interval of geological time in the mid-twentieth century; equally, there is no sound stratigraphical basis for designating an additional chronostratigraphic unit above the Holocene in the international Geological Time Scale. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)204-207
Number of pages4
JournalQuaternary International
Volume383
Early online date21 Jun 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 05 Oct 2015

Keywords

  • 'Anthropocene'
  • Holocene
  • GSSPs
  • GSSAs
  • Geological time scale
  • GLOBAL STRATOTYPE SECTION
  • NGRIP ICE CORE
  • CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC CHART
  • HOLOCENE SERIES/EPOCH
  • RECORDS
  • POINT
  • GSSP
  • BASE

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comment on "When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary is stratigraphically optimal" by Jan Zalasiewicz et al. (2015), Quaternary International, 383, 196-203'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this