The Anthropocene is a prospective epoch/series, not a geological event

The Anthropocene defined as an epoch/series within the Geological Time Scale, and with an isochronous inception in the mid-20th century, would both utilize the rich array of stratigraphic signals associated with the Great Acceleration and align with Earth System science analysis from where the term Anthropocene originated. It would be stratigraphically robust and reflect the reality that our planet has far exceeded the range of natural variability for the Holocene Epoch/Series which it would terminate. An alternative, recently advanced, time-transgressive ‘geological event’ definition would decouple the Anthropocene from its stratigraphic characterisation and association with a major planetary perturbation. We find this proposed anthropogenic ‘event’ to be primarily an interdisciplinary concept in which historical, cultural and social processes and their global environmental impacts are all flexibly interpreted within a multi-scalar framework. It is very different from a stratigraphic-methods-based Anthropocene epoch/series designation, but as an anthropogenic phenomenon, if separately defined and differently named, might be usefully complementary to it

Response to Merritts et al. (2023): The Anthropocene is complex. Defining it is not

Merritts et al. (2023) misrepresent Paul Crutzen’s Anthropocene concept as encompassing all significant anthropogenic impacts, extending back many millennia. Crutzen's definition reflects massively enhanced, much more recent human impacts that transformed the Earth System away from the stability of Holocene conditions. His concept of an epoch (hence the ‘cene’ suffix) is more consistent with the strikingly distinct sedimentary record accumulated since the mid-20th century. Waters et al. (2022) highlighted a Great Acceleration Event Array (GAEA) of stratigraphic event markers that are indeed diverse and complex but also tightly clustered around 1950 CE, allowing ultra-high resolution characterization and correlation of a clearly recognisable Anthropocene chronostratigraphic base. The ‘Anthropocene event’ offered by Merritts et al., following Gibbard et al. (2021, 2022), is a highly nuanced concept that obfuscates the transformative human impact of the chronostratigraphic Anthropocene. Waters et al. (2022) restricted the meaning of the term ‘event’ in geology to conform with usual Quaternary practice and improve its utility. They simultaneously recognized an evidence-based Anthropogenic Modification Episode that is more explicitly defined than the highly interpretive interdisciplinary ‘Anthropocene event’ of Gibbard et al. (2021, 2022). The advance of science is best served through clearly developed concepts supported by tightly circumscribed terminology; indeed, improvements to stratigraphy over recent decades have been achieved through increasingly precise definitions, especially for chronostratigraphic units, and not by retaining vague terminology

The Anthropocene is a prospective epoch/series, not a geological event

The Anthropocene defined as an epoch/series within the Geological Time Scale, and with an isochronous inception in the mid-20th century, would both utilize the rich array of stratigraphic signals associated with the Great Acceleration and align with Earth System science analysis from where the term Anthropocene originated. It would be stratigraphically robust and reflect the reality that our planet has far exceeded the range of natural variability for the Holocene Epoch/Series which it would terminate. An alternative, recently advanced, time-transgressive ‘geological event’ definition would decouple the Anthropocene from its stratigraphic characterisation and association with a major planetary perturbation. We find this proposed anthropogenic ‘event’ to be primarily an interdisciplinary concept in which historical, cultural and social processes and their global environmental impacts are all flexibly interpreted within a multi-scalar framework. It is very different from a stratigraphic-methods-based Anthropocene epoch/series designation, but as an anthropogenic phenomenon, if separately defined and differently named, might be usefully complementary to it

Simulation of Eolian Saltation

Saltation is important in the transport of sand-sized granular material by wind and in the ejection of dust from the bed both on Earth and on Mars. The evolution of the saltating population and all its characteristic profiles is calculated from inception by pure aerodynamic entrainment through to steady state. Results of numerical simulations of single-grain impacts into granular beds are condensed into analytic expressions for the number and speeds of grains rebounding or rejected (splashed) from the bed. A model is combined with (i) this numerical representation, (ii) an expression for the aerodynamic entrainment rate, and (iii) the modification of the wind velocity profile by saltating grains. Calculated steady state mass fluxes are within the range of mass fluxes measured in wind tunnel experiments; mass flux is nonlinearly dependent on the shear velocity. Aerodynamically entrained grains in the system are primarily seeding agents; at steady state, aerodynamic entrainment is rare. The time for the entire system to reach steady state is roughly 1 second, or several long-trajectory hop times

A two-stage mechanism for escape of Na and K from Io

It is generally accepted that Io is the source of S, O, Na and K which, after ionization, form the constituents of the Io plasma torus. The escape of S and O from Io can be understood in terms of the photochemistry of a predominantly SO_2 atmosphere created by the high vapour pressure of SO_2 (refs 1, 15). However, the vapour pressures of Na_2S, K_2S and other common compounds containing Na and K are negligible at the surface temperatures of Io. This has given rise to the suggestion that over part of Io's surface (the nightside) the atmosphere is thin enough so that surface sputtering by co-rotating ions can eject Na and K directly into the Io torus. The main objection to this idea is that it implies a ‘Sun-locked’ source for Na and K, while observations of the Na and K clouds around Io indicate a ‘Jupiter-locked‘ ejection mechanism. We propose here that Na and K escape from Io in two stages. Atoms of Na and K are first sputtered into the atmosphere from the surface by high-energy magnetospheric ions. Atmospheric sputtering by low-energy co-rotating ions then removes these constituents (along with others present) out of Io's gravitational field. We suggest that the observed Na and K ejection asymmetry is due to preferential sputtering of atmospheric particles on the hemisphere of Io facing Jupiter. The estimated injection rates are sufficiently large to maintain the observed K, Na, and O clouds observed around Io

The Anthropocene: A conspicuous stratigraphical signal of anthropogenic changes in production and consumption across the biosphere

Biospheric relationships between production and consumption of biomass have been resilient to changes in the Earth system over billions of years. This relationship has increased in its complexity, from localized ecosystems predicated on anaerobic microbial production and consumption to a global biosphere founded on primary production from oxygenic photoautotrophs, through the evolution of Eukarya, metazoans, and the complexly networked ecosystems of microbes, animals, fungi, and plants that characterize the Phanerozoic Eon (the last ∼541 million years of Earth history). At present, one species, Homo sapiens, is refashioning this relationship between consumption and production in the biosphere with unknown consequences. This has left a distinctive stratigraphy of the production and consumption of biomass, of natural resources, and of produced goods. This can be traced through stone tool technologies and geochemical signals, later unfolding into a diachronous signal of technofossils and human bioturbation across the planet, leading to stratigraphically almost isochronous signals developing by the mid-20th century. These latter signals may provide an invaluable resource for informing and constraining a formal Anthropocene chronostratigraphy, but are perhaps yet more important as tracers of a biosphere state that is characterized by a geologically unprecedented pattern of global energy flow that is now pervasively influenced and mediated by humans, and which is necessary for maintaining the complexity of modern human societies

Response to Merritts et al. (2023): The Anthropocene is complex. Defining it is not

Merritts et al. (2023) misrepresent Paul Crutzen's Anthropocene concept as encompassing all significant anthropogenic impacts, extending back many millennia. Crutzen's definition reflects massively enhanced, much more recent human impacts that transformed the Earth System away from the stability of Holocene conditions. His concept of an epoch (hence the ‘cene’ suffix) is more consistent with the strikingly distinct sedimentary record accumulated since the mid-20th century. Waters et al. (2022) highlighted a Great Acceleration Event Array (GAEA) of stratigraphic event markers that are indeed diverse and complex but also tightly clustered around 1950 CE, allowing ultra-high resolution characterization and correlation of a clearly recognisable Anthropocene chronostratigraphic base. The ‘Anthropocene event’ offered by Merritts et al., following Gibbard et al. (2021, 2022), is a highly nuanced concept that obfuscates the transformative human impact of the chronostratigraphic Anthropocene. Waters et al. (2022) restricted the meaning of the term ‘event’ in geology to conform with usual Quaternary practice and improve its utility. They simultaneously recognized an evidence-based Anthropogenic Modification Episode that is more explicitly defined than the highly interpretive interdisciplinary ‘Anthropocene event’ of Gibbard et al. (2021, 2022). The advance of science is best served through clearly developed concepts supported by tightly circumscribed terminology; indeed, improvements to stratigraphy over recent decades have been achieved through increasingly precise definitions, especially for chronostratigraphic units, and not by retaining vague terminology.ISSN:0012-8252ISSN:1872-682