Are We Entering Another Epoch? - Science Edition

[Amaris]

According to the Christian Science Monitor, and a number of other sources, scientists are considering the possibility that we are moving into a new epoch; from the Holocene, to the Anthropocene.

Geologists wonder if they should add a new epoch to the geological time scale. They call it the Anthropocene – the epoch when, for the first time in Earth's history, humans have become a predominant geophysical force. Naming such a new epoch would also recognize that humans now share responsibility with natural forces for the state of our planet's ecological environment.

Geologists have been using the term informally for at least half a decade. Now members of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London have laid out the case for giving the term official scientific status.

Presenting that case in the February issue of GSA Today magazine, the team notes that "since the start of the industrial revolution, Earth has endured changes sufficient to leave a global stratigraphic signature." It is different from anything found in the entire geological record up to that point. That means the team expects future geologists examining this record will recognize a distinct break with the Holocene ("recent whole") epoch that covers the past 10,000 years.

Atmospheric chemist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz says this presents humanity with an awesome challenge. He has pointed out that what the London team calls the "novel biotic, sedimentary, and geochemical change" now being written into the geological record reflects the emergence of human intelligence and technology as a geophysical force.

On his website, he explains this means that "to develop a world-wide accepted strategy leading to sustainability of ecosystems against human stresses will be one of the great future tasks of mankind." He adds that it will take "intensive research and wise application of the knowledge" gained to develop sustainable environmental management.

Soil scientist Daniel Richter at Duke University in Durham, N.C., would agree. In an announcement of his work last month, he explained that human-induced changes to the world's soils are enough in themselves to justify saying we have entered the "Anthropocene (or man-made) age."

He notes, "With more than half of all soils on Earth now being cultivated for food crops, grazed, or logged for wood, how to sustain Earth's soils is becoming a major scientific and policy issue."

He adds, "If humanity is to succeed in the coming decades, we must interact much more positively with the great diversity of Earth's soils."

More at the link here: http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Tech/2008/0207/p17s01-stgn.html

So what do you think? Have humans effected so much environmental change that we're entering a new epoch?

 

[RoJoHen]

I just saw this on the old Bookface (say what you will about the constant changes that Facebook makes to its layout, but the trending articles on the side of the page have kept me more up-to-date with current events than anything else ever has).

I'm certainly no expert on these kinds of things, but it seems that this was bound to happen at some point or another. We have altered the planet with our technology more than any other species ever has. I think the real question is how much of a lasting effect we will have on planet Earth, or will she keep plugging away despite our presence?

 

[Amaris]

That's an excellent question. I'm hoping some scientist types will show up and expound on some answers.

 

[Mary Ann]

I think the real question is how much of a lasting effect we will have on planet Earth, or will she keep plugging away despite our presence?

I've no doubt she'll keep plugging away despite our presence because as a species we'd wipe ourselves out long before we wiped out the planet (complete nuclear-type destruction notwithstanding). Once humans are out of the way Earth will heal, either back to her old self or to a slightly modified version of what she used to be, and evolution will continue has it always has, with species coming, going, and modifying.

 

[Melakon]

I think we're a little too close to it to make a determination just yet. Maybe in another 5000 years, future generations of scientists can decide.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Our chances of physically destroying the planet are virtually nil.

We have a pretty good shot at wiping out 99% of all currently extant species, though. We all need something to aspire to.

At a minimum, we deserve an extinction event named for us (which we already have.) If our other impacts our big enough then we've totally got an epoch on our hands, too.

 

[Spider]

Life itself will alter a planet's ecosphere, whatever it's intelligent level. Humans have become particularly effective at that, not always in a good way. It would be a shame if we killed ourselves off, but given the circumstances, it wouldn't mean much to the rest of the universe.

 

[Amaris]

While it's not on a planetary scale, look what we're doing with fracking. We're injecting chemical solutions deep into the ground to force natural gas pockets to expand upward, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The fracking itself is causing minor earthquakes in the regions where it is used. The chemical solution can seep into the water table and contaminate it, and this is the current favored solution to dependence upon oil. I don't know which is worse.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

I associate the Anthropocene Era with changing the environment to match our needs, and we have been doing this since the first farmer.

The planet will recover from what humans have done to it. I think we will go extinct, new animals will arise, and the planet will continue to orbit the sun until the day that the star destroys the planet in a nova. (Some have predicted that humans have another 9,000 years of existence.)

 

[mos6507]

I associate the Anthropocene Era with changing the environment to match our needs, and we have been doing this since the first farmer.

The planet will recover from what humans have done to it. I think we will go extinct, new animals will arise, and the planet will continue to orbit the sun until the day that the star destroys the planet in a nova. (Some have predicted that humans have another 9,000 years of existence.)

Surprising to hear such fatalistic and morbid talk about human extinction on a Trek board. I hate to say that I concur, and Trek for me is an atheist opiate to get me through life in the meantime.

Optimistic "we can fix this" sci-fi (of which Nolan's Interstellar is one of the rare modern examples soon to come out) seems less and less plausible as the ecological news streams in.

 

[publiusr]

Well, the success of the dinos kept mammals in the dark--so can a species have an effect? Certainly--we are all breathing the pollution of oxygen anaerobic lifeforms gave us, after all.

We have to be careful with certain pronouncements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

One way to look at things is that more mass is gaining intelligence--the idea of the Noosphere needs to catch on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere

Much of the focus seems to be if us humans hadn't been a virus on the body of the Volk-- Leni Riefenstahl, etc.

Are humans a stressor like erosion? certainly--but is erosion evil? Was the success of the dinos wrong?

Something else to think about. In every nature documentary we see an animal being showcased, and humans reduced to a picture of a mine or dump.

And yet--were I show the featured wildlife only eating and defecating--I could make it look wasteful too.

 

[Amaris]

I associate the Anthropocene Era with changing the environment to match our needs, and we have been doing this since the first farmer.

The planet will recover from what humans have done to it. I think we will go extinct, new animals will arise, and the planet will continue to orbit the sun until the day that the star destroys the planet in a nova. (Some have predicted that humans have another 9,000 years of existence.)

I think we have a lot more than 9,000 years of existence left, if we take the time to regulate what we're doing. We have the capacity to make our technology far more efficient, but right now greed is driving innovation, and not the good kind of greed, but the "screw you I've got mine" kind of greed.

I associate the Anthropocene Era with changing the environment to match our needs, and we have been doing this since the first farmer.

The planet will recover from what humans have done to it. I think we will go extinct, new animals will arise, and the planet will continue to orbit the sun until the day that the star destroys the planet in a nova. (Some have predicted that humans have another 9,000 years of existence.)

Surprising to hear such fatalistic and morbid talk about human extinction on a Trek board. I hate to say that I concur, and Trek for me is an atheist opiate to get me through life in the meantime.

Optimistic "we can fix this" sci-fi (of which Nolan's Interstellar is one of the rare modern examples soon to come out) seems less and less plausible as the ecological news streams in.

Still, we can fix this, but I figure humans will let things get far, far worse before someone tries a saving throw.

Well, the success of the dinos kept mammals in the dark--so can a species have an effect? Certainly--we are all breathing the pollution of oxygen anaerobic lifeforms gave us, after all.

We have to be careful with certain pronouncements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

One way to look at things is that more mass is gaining intelligence--the idea of the Noosphere needs to catch on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere

Much of the focus seems to be if us humans hadn't been a virus on the body of the Volk-- Leni Riefenstahl, etc.

Are humans a stressor like erosion? certainly--but is erosion evil? Was the success of the dinos wrong?

Something else to think about. In every nature documentary we see an animal being showcased, and humans reduced to a picture of a mine or dump.

And yet--were I show the featured wildlife only eating and defecating--I could make it look wasteful too.

Humans are wasteful, and until the Cheetah finds a way to build an atomic bomb, or dig thousands of meters into the earth's crust looking for oil, and instead causing a massive spill into the ocean that kills hundreds of species, we're going to be the most dangerous to the planet for quite a while. We have monstrous capabilities, and while the Earth is a sturdy old gal, she's not invincible.

 

[SPCTRE]

If we make it to a Type II civilization on the Kardashev scale, naming an epoch after us would be appropriate on a geological scale.

Before would be hyperbolic.

 

[Amaris]

If we make it to a Type II civilization on the Kardashev scale, naming an epoch after us would be appropriate on a geological scale.

Before would be hyperbolic.

Maybe, and while I'm still on the fence about it, I do lean in favor of just going ahead and bestowing it upon us. I can see why some geologists feel we merit an epoch of our own, even now, because even now we can fundamentally alter the state of the Earth as it is. We can destroy 99% of all life on the planet in one swoop. No other creature on the planet could do that. Even a supervolcanic eruption couldn't do that, not on the scale of which we're capable. We could do it right now.

 

[Tim Walker]

We having been living in an interglacial-the Holocene-a gap between ice ages. Interglacials average about ten thousand years in length, ice ages average one hundred thousand years. We are about due for another ice age, but global warming may overwhelm the cycle of cooling.

Indeed, we may see an extra long, two part interglacial. The effects of higher temperatures have been discussed in a number of different books. Geo-engineering projects have been proposed, but even if they mitigate the worst effects, I suspect that the side effects would be weird.

One book that comes to mind has the title Six Degrees.

 

[publiusr]

Humans are wasteful, and until the Cheetah fins a way to build an atomic bomb, or dig thousands of meters into the earth's crust looking for oil, and instead causing a massive spill into the ocean that kills hundreds of species, we're going to be the most dangerous to the planet for quite a while. We have monstrous capabilities, and while the Earth is a sturdy old gal, she's not invincible.

I get folks getting fed up with consumerism--I think cosmetics wind up costing more than some military budgets. But consider La Brea. Hold nature to EPA standards--and she fails too. Discover magazine had it that 90% of all the oil the planet ever made has already leaked to the surface before we came along. Indeed, there are other threats than a smokestack:
http://www.livescience.com/30176-volcanic-lakes-carbon-dioxide.html

But alternative energy means getting out of the Middle East--and that's a plus.

What happens with fossil fuel burning is that all that biomass is being returned--one way or the other--to the surface--which in some ways it is supposed to belong. That's why it was called the carboniferous after all. In the pre-industrial era, we cut trees down right and left--because then, the Thames would ice over. Deserts were likely at their height then (for awhile) and it might not be best to go back to that.

I'm still wondering what the OCO craft will tell us... in the years to come: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory_2

The plow is worse than the drill bit. Still, unlike some--I do think gov't money should be spent on new forms of energy...but my beat up old Buick needs something in the mean time.

Something new on climate
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/ocean-current-changes-responsible-for.html