Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

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

  • Colin N. Waters
  • , Martin J. Head
  • , Jan Zalasiewicz
  • , Francine M.G. McCarthy
  • , Scott L. Wing
  • , Peter K. Haff
  • , Mark Williams
  • , Anthony D. Barnosky
  • , Barbara Fiałkiewicz-Kozieł
  • , Reinhold Leinfelder
  • , J. R. McNeill
  • , Neil L. Rose
  • , Will Steffen
  • , Colin P. Summerhayes
  • , Michael Wagreich
  • , Zhisheng An
  • , Alejandro Cearreta
  • , Andrew B. Cundy
  • , Ian J. Fairchild
  • , Agnieszka Gałuszka
  • Irka Hajdas, Yongming Han, Juliana A. Ivar do Sul, Catherine Jeandel, Jaia Syvitski, Simon D. Turner, Jens Zinke
  • University of Leicester
  • Brock University
  • Smithsonian Institution
  • Duke University
  • University of California at Berkeley
  • Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
  • Free University of Berlin
  • Georgetown University
  • University College London
  • Australian National University
  • University of Cambridge
  • University of Vienna
  • CAS - Institute of Earth Environment
  • University of the Basque Country
  • National Oceanography Centre Southampton
  • University of Birmingham
  • Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce
  • Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
  • Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research
  • UPS
  • University of Colorado Boulder

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

15 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number104335
JournalEarth-Science Reviews
Volume238
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2023
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Anthropocene
  • Anthropogenic Modification Episode
  • Chronostratigraphy
  • Event stratigraphy
  • Great Acceleration Event Array

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Response to Merritts et al. (2023): The Anthropocene is complex. Defining it is not'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this