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

doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.007

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

Department of Geography and Earth Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

32 Citations (Scopus)

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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	204-207
Number of pages	4
Journal	Quaternary International
Volume	383
Early online date	21 Jun 2015
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.007
Publication status	Published - 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

Access to Document

10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.007

Permanent link

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{f601b8acf7464670bad7a975331e3c9b,

title = "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",

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.",

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

author = "Mike Walker and Gibbard, {Phil L.} and Lowe, {John J.}",

year = "2015",

month = oct,

day = "5",

doi = "10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.007",

language = "English",

volume = "383",

pages = "204--207",

journal = "Quaternary International",

issn = "1040-6182",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - 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

AU - Walker, Mike

AU - Gibbard, Phil L.

AU - Lowe, John J.

PY - 2015/10/5

Y1 - 2015/10/5

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - 'Anthropocene'

KW - Holocene

KW - GSSPs

KW - GSSAs

KW - Geological time scale

KW - GLOBAL STRATOTYPE SECTION

KW - NGRIP ICE CORE

KW - CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC CHART

KW - HOLOCENE SERIES/EPOCH

KW - RECORDS

KW - POINT

KW - GSSP

KW - BASE

U2 - 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.007

DO - 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.007

M3 - Editorial

SN - 1040-6182

VL - 383

SP - 204

EP - 207

JO - Quaternary International

JF - Quaternary International

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Permanent link

Fingerprint

Cite this