The Anthropocene and the Sixth Great Extinction

[Crick]

The text below is from poster Mushroom. It was the first thing I noticed from him on his more recent visits and I wanted to respond to it but couldn't relocate it. It turns out it was from the "Your Extinction" thread, which appears to have been removed for some reason. I found my phone had this message still open and I transferred it to my PC, but it will lack the normal reply/quote formatting.

Do you believe the the Anthropocene is leading to the Sixth Great Extinction?

Mushroom:

I can answer that rather clearly.​

​

To start with, there is no such thing as the "Anthropocene Epoch". And even the attempt of forcing people to try to use it is proof of their ignorance and pushing an agenda.​

​

No one is forcing anyone to say it. "The word Anthropocene comes from the Greek terms for human ('anthropo') and new ('cene'), but its definition is controversial. It was coined in the 1980s, then popularised in 2000 by atmospheric chemist Paul J Crutzen and diatom researcher Eugene F Stoermer. The duo suggested that we are living in a new geological epoch.

What is the Anthropocene and why does it matter? | Natural History Museum

Are we in the Anthropocene? Why does the Anthropocene matter? Discover more about our impact on planet Earth.

www.nhm.ac.uk

​

And the case for this is amazingly simple. Do you know who it is that decides if an epoch is needed and provides the justification for its inclusion among the other geological epochs? Well, it should be obvious as the very name "Geological Epoch" makes it perfectly clear this is something created by, used by, and decided by geologists.​

​

"The definition of standardised international units of geologic time is the responsibility of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), a constituent body of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), whose primary objective[1] is to precisely define global chronostratigraphic units of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart (ICC)[2] that are used to define divisions of geologic time. The chronostratigraphic divisions are in turn used to define geochronologic units.[2]

2] Cohen, K.M.; Finney, S.C.; Gibbard, P.L.; Fan, J.-X. (1 September 2013). "The ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart". Episodes (updated ed.). 36 (3): 199–204. doi:10.18814/epiiugs/2013/v36i3/002. ISSN 0705-3797. S2CID 51819600.
from Geologic time scale - Wikipedia

​

And want to know what international geological bodies recognize the "Anthropocene Epoch"?​

​

None.​

​

The International Commission on Stratigraphy is currently debating whether or not to add the Anthropocene to the Geological Time Scale. The idea is controversial because it is uncertain whether or not human influences on the biology and chemistry of the planet: carbon dioxide emissions, global warming, ocean acidification, habitat destruction, ubanization, massive species extinctions and widescale natural resource extraction, will be visible in the geological record of the distant future.

​

It is not geological at all, it was created by and pushed by "Climatologists".​

​

Ask any geologist, and not a single aspect of humanity is even noteworthy in the geological record. If every single one of us was to drop dead tomorrow of a mystery disease, other than some of our bones and structures we would have made absolutely no impact in the geological record. None, nada, zero, zilch.​

​

I suspect that if nothing else, a layer containing significant amounts of asphalt and concrete will be discernible a million years from now. And five other mass extinctions are noted in the GTS. Why should this one, likely to be exceptional in several ways, get a by?

​

This is actually something that has pissed off a lot of geologists, as they see it as one groups of scientists trying to force their beliefs and views onto the entire world, even in areas that are literally none of their concern.​

​

Since a number of the scientists "pushing" the idea of an Anthropocene Epoch are themselves geologists and you are not, I simply don't accept that. You imagine yourself to be a geologist and you believe you should be pissed off for them.

​

It would be like computer science majors insisting that because of modeling the way zoologists name and determine where animals fall amongst each other is wrong and they must do it a completely new way, a way they themselves have determined and decided among.​

​

Since the arguments are before the Statigraphy Commission and no one is forcing anyone to do anything, your claims are nonsense.

​

And we are not in any special "great extinction". There are always massive extinctions when the climate passes from one phase to another. Always, it happened at the start of every interglacial, and happened again at the end when we returned to an ice age. This one is nothing special.​

​

"The contemporary rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than the background extinction rate, the historically typical rate of extinction (in terms of the natural evolution of the planet);[1][2][3][4] also, the current rate of extinction is 10 to 100 times higher than in any of the previous mass extinctions in the history of Earth. One scientist estimates the current extinction rate may be 10,000 times the background extinction rate, although most scientists predict a much lower extinction rate than this outlying estimate.[5] Theoretical ecologist Stuart Pimm stated that the extinction rate for plants is 100 times higher than normal.[6]"

1. Pimm, Stuart L.; Russell, Gareth J.; Gittleman, John L.; Brooks, Thomas M. (1995). "The Future of Biodiversity". Science. 269 (5222): 347–350. Bibcode:1995Sci...269..347P. doi:10.1126/science.269.5222.347. PMID 17841251. S2CID 35154695.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Teyssèdre, Anne (2004). Toward a sixth mass extinction crisis? Chapter 2 in Biodiversity & global change : social issues and scientific challenges. R. Barbault, Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis, Anne Teyssèdre, Association pour la diffusion de la pensée française. Paris: Adpf. pp. 24–49. ISBN 2-914935-28-5. OCLC 57892208.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b De Vos, Jurriaan M.; Joppa, Lucas N.; Gittleman, John L.; Stephens, Patrick R.; Pimm, Stuart L. (2014-08-26). "Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction" (PDF). Conservation Biology (in Spanish). 29 (2): 452–462. doi:10.1111/cobi.12380. ISSN 0888-8892. PMID 25159086. S2CID 19121609.
4. Lawton, J. H.; May, R. M. (1995). "Extinction Rates". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 9: 124–126. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1996.t01-1-9010124.x.
5. Lawton, J. H.; May, R. M. (1995). "Extinction Rates". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 9 (1): 124–126. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1996.t01-1-9010124.x.
6. Li, S. (2012). "Has Plant Life Reached Its Limits?". New York Times. Retrieved 10 February 2018.

From Holocene extinction - Wikipedia

​

Oh, and we are actually still in an "ice age". It will likely be several thousand years until we are at a full interglacial.​

​

Yes, we are still in the Quaternary Glaciation (the Ice Age) We have been fully in the Holocene Interglacial, however, for about 8,000 years. Those temperatures sloping off tell us we were on our way OUT of the Interglacial when AGW began.

​

And hold on to your buttons, because things are going to get so much worse and better than most seem to want to believe.​

​

Worse and better? Is that some sort of CYA?

​

The East coast of the US and the Gulf Coast? Say goodbye to all of that. Most of Florida will be gone, the palm tree line will move up to around the US-Canada border (right now it resides in central California - Carolinas). Most of Canada will finally pass out of the tundra-permafrost condition it is in now, and it will be like the Great Plains all the way to the Arctic Ocean. Plants will flourish in the warmer and wetter climate, and evolution will start another explosion into diversity as species evolve to replace ones that went extinct.​

​

And do you believe that this will be caused by AGW or the glacial/interglacial cycle? Contemporary warming, displayed in the graph above at the right end of the Marcott reconstruction in black, is clearly not part of the glacial/interglacial process. What sort of time frame do you see for such changes?

​

That is nothing new, it has been known for over 150 years now.​

​

What has been known for 150 years?

​

A species goes extinct, as many were adapted for specific conditions and can not survive in the new ones. Then another evolves to takes its place in the food chain.​

​

Evolution is the result of variations in reproductive success under extant conditions resulting from semi-random mutations in biological systems. Extinctions occur when changes outpace the system's maximum rate of adaptive change or when changes simply eliminate species' niches. The rate of change during the Anthropocene, for a number of critical parameters, has dramatically outpaced the maximum rate of adaptive change. And the faster than normal rate of extinctions dramatically reduces the pool from which new species might develop adapted to contemporary conditions. And the rate of anthropogenic change has not slowed so there is no reason to believe that novel species should fare any better than their vanishing brethren.

​

And it is interesting, as zoologists have long speculated at that when they realized that the Americas were unique in that they did not really have an apex predator.​

​

Jaguar, coyote, grizzly bear, brown bear, polar bear, cougar, wolf, golden eagle, harpy eagle. In the past we could add smilodon (sabre-toothed tiger), the American lion and the South American short-faced bear. Off our shores we have orcas and several variety of sharks.

​

And there were speculations as to what would have eventually evolved to fill that gap if humans were not around.​

​

But there is no "great extinction", that is a fantasy created by people that do not believe in evolution​

​

And, again, you don't seem to have the faintest clue what you're talking about.

 

[luiza]

​

But there is no "great extinction", that is a fantasy created by people that do not believe in evolution​

​

And there is the crux of the problem . So many tip top scientists now reject classical evolution theory.
Analysis of the brain shows too many huge DNA jumps that cannot be explained by Darwinism , however much some wriggle to do so .

And naturally if you are an Anunnaki fan you have a ready alternative explanation and there is a surprising amount of evidence to give it good credence .

 

[Crick]

And there is the crux of the problem . So many tip top scientists now reject classical evolution theory.

Bullshit.

Analysis of the brain shows too many huge DNA jumps that cannot be explained by Darwinism

Let's see some links

, however much some wriggle to do so .

And naturally if you are an Anunnaki fan you have a ready alternative explanation and there is a surprising amount of evidence to give it good credence .

Sumerican deities? What evidence would that be?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The text below is from poster Mushroom. It was the first thing I noticed from him on his more recent visits and I wanted to respond to it but couldn't relocate it. It turns out it was from the "Your Extinction" thread, which appears to have been removed for some reason. I found my phone had this message still open and I transferred it to my PC, but it will lack the normal reply/quote formatting.



Mushroom:

I can answer that rather clearly.​

​

To start with, there is no such thing as the "Anthropocene Epoch". And even the attempt of forcing people to try to use it is proof of their ignorance and pushing an agenda.​

​

No one is forcing anyone to say it. "The word Anthropocene comes from the Greek terms for human ('anthropo') and new ('cene'), but its definition is controversial. It was coined in the 1980s, then popularised in 2000 by atmospheric chemist Paul J Crutzen and diatom researcher Eugene F Stoermer. The duo suggested that we are living in a new geological epoch.

What is the Anthropocene and why does it matter? | Natural History Museum

Are we in the Anthropocene? Why does the Anthropocene matter? Discover more about our impact on planet Earth.

www.nhm.ac.uk

​

And the case for this is amazingly simple. Do you know who it is that decides if an epoch is needed and provides the justification for its inclusion among the other geological epochs? Well, it should be obvious as the very name "Geological Epoch" makes it perfectly clear this is something created by, used by, and decided by geologists.​

​

"The definition of standardised international units of geologic time is the responsibility of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), a constituent body of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), whose primary objective[1] is to precisely define global chronostratigraphic units of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart (ICC)[2] that are used to define divisions of geologic time. The chronostratigraphic divisions are in turn used to define geochronologic units.[2]

2] Cohen, K.M.; Finney, S.C.; Gibbard, P.L.; Fan, J.-X. (1 September 2013). "The ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart". Episodes (updated ed.). 36 (3): 199–204. doi:10.18814/epiiugs/2013/v36i3/002. ISSN 0705-3797. S2CID 51819600.
from Geologic time scale - Wikipedia

​

And want to know what international geological bodies recognize the "Anthropocene Epoch"?​

​

None.​

​

The International Commission on Stratigraphy is currently debating whether or not to add the Anthropocene to the Geological Time Scale. The idea is controversial because it is uncertain whether or not human influences on the biology and chemistry of the planet: carbon dioxide emissions, global warming, ocean acidification, habitat destruction, ubanization, massive species extinctions and widescale natural resource extraction, will be visible in the geological record of the distant future.

​

It is not geological at all, it was created by and pushed by "Climatologists".​

​

Ask any geologist, and not a single aspect of humanity is even noteworthy in the geological record. If every single one of us was to drop dead tomorrow of a mystery disease, other than some of our bones and structures we would have made absolutely no impact in the geological record. None, nada, zero, zilch.​

​

I suspect that if nothing else, a layer containing significant amounts of asphalt and concrete will be discernible a million years from now. And five other mass extinctions are noted in the GTS. Why should this one, likely to be exceptional in several ways, get a by?

​

This is actually something that has pissed off a lot of geologists, as they see it as one groups of scientists trying to force their beliefs and views onto the entire world, even in areas that are literally none of their concern.​

​

Since a number of the scientists "pushing" the idea of an Anthropocene Epoch are themselves geologists and you are not, I simply don't accept that. You imagine yourself to be a geologist and you believe you should be pissed off for them.

​

It would be like computer science majors insisting that because of modeling the way zoologists name and determine where animals fall amongst each other is wrong and they must do it a completely new way, a way they themselves have determined and decided among.​

​

Since the arguments are before the Statigraphy Commission and no one is forcing anyone to do anything, your claims are nonsense.

​

And we are not in any special "great extinction". There are always massive extinctions when the climate passes from one phase to another. Always, it happened at the start of every interglacial, and happened again at the end when we returned to an ice age. This one is nothing special.​

​

"The contemporary rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than the background extinction rate, the historically typical rate of extinction (in terms of the natural evolution of the planet);[1][2][3][4] also, the current rate of extinction is 10 to 100 times higher than in any of the previous mass extinctions in the history of Earth. One scientist estimates the current extinction rate may be 10,000 times the background extinction rate, although most scientists predict a much lower extinction rate than this outlying estimate.[5] Theoretical ecologist Stuart Pimm stated that the extinction rate for plants is 100 times higher than normal.[6]"

1. Pimm, Stuart L.; Russell, Gareth J.; Gittleman, John L.; Brooks, Thomas M. (1995). "The Future of Biodiversity". Science. 269 (5222): 347–350. Bibcode:1995Sci...269..347P. doi:10.1126/science.269.5222.347. PMID 17841251. S2CID 35154695.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Teyssèdre, Anne (2004). Toward a sixth mass extinction crisis? Chapter 2 in Biodiversity & global change : social issues and scientific challenges. R. Barbault, Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis, Anne Teyssèdre, Association pour la diffusion de la pensée française. Paris: Adpf. pp. 24–49. ISBN 2-914935-28-5. OCLC 57892208.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b De Vos, Jurriaan M.; Joppa, Lucas N.; Gittleman, John L.; Stephens, Patrick R.; Pimm, Stuart L. (2014-08-26). "Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction" (PDF). Conservation Biology (in Spanish). 29 (2): 452–462. doi:10.1111/cobi.12380. ISSN 0888-8892. PMID 25159086. S2CID 19121609.
4. Lawton, J. H.; May, R. M. (1995). "Extinction Rates". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 9: 124–126. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1996.t01-1-9010124.x.
5. Lawton, J. H.; May, R. M. (1995). "Extinction Rates". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 9 (1): 124–126. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1996.t01-1-9010124.x.
6. Li, S. (2012). "Has Plant Life Reached Its Limits?". New York Times. Retrieved 10 February 2018.

From Holocene extinction - Wikipedia

​

Oh, and we are actually still in an "ice age". It will likely be several thousand years until we are at a full interglacial.​

​

Yes, we are still in the Quaternary Glaciation (the Ice Age) We have been fully in the Holocene Interglacial, however, for about 8,000 years. Those temperatures sloping off tell us we were on our way OUT of the Interglacial when AGW began.

View attachment 851686

​

And hold on to your buttons, because things are going to get so much worse and better than most seem to want to believe.​

​

Worse and better? Is that some sort of CYA?

​

The East coast of the US and the Gulf Coast? Say goodbye to all of that. Most of Florida will be gone, the palm tree line will move up to around the US-Canada border (right now it resides in central California - Carolinas). Most of Canada will finally pass out of the tundra-permafrost condition it is in now, and it will be like the Great Plains all the way to the Arctic Ocean. Plants will flourish in the warmer and wetter climate, and evolution will start another explosion into diversity as species evolve to replace ones that went extinct.​

​

And do you believe that this will be caused by AGW or the glacial/interglacial cycle? Contemporary warming, displayed in the graph above at the right end of the Marcott reconstruction in black, is clearly not part of the glacial/interglacial process. What sort of time frame do you see for such changes?

​

That is nothing new, it has been known for over 150 years now.​

​

What has been known for 150 years?

​

A species goes extinct, as many were adapted for specific conditions and can not survive in the new ones. Then another evolves to takes its place in the food chain.​

​

Evolution is the result of variations in reproductive success under extant conditions resulting from semi-random mutations in biological systems. Extinctions occur when changes outpace the system's maximum rate of adaptive change or when changes simply eliminate species' niches. The rate of change during the Anthropocene, for a number of critical parameters, has dramatically outpaced the maximum rate of adaptive change. And the faster than normal rate of extinctions dramatically reduces the pool from which new species might develop adapted to contemporary conditions. And the rate of anthropogenic change has not slowed so there is no reason to believe that novel species should fare any better than their vanishing brethren.

​

And it is interesting, as zoologists have long speculated at that when they realized that the Americas were unique in that they did not really have an apex predator.​

​

Jaguar, coyote, grizzly bear, brown bear, polar bear, cougar, wolf, golden eagle, harpy eagle. In the past we could add smilodon (sabre-toothed tiger), the American lion and the South American short-faced bear. Off our shores we have orcas and several variety of sharks.

​

And there were speculations as to what would have eventually evolved to fill that gap if humans were not around.​

​

But there is no "great extinction", that is a fantasy created by people that do not believe in evolution​

​

And, again, you don't seem to have the faintest clue what you're talking about.

All we know for absolute certain is that American per capita CO2 is responsible

AGW is fake science wrapped up is shilling for the CCP

 

[Crick]

Arguments for the Anthropocene​

Scientists contend that the pervasive and irreversible signatures of human activity on Earth's geology warrant recognition of new epoch of Geological Time.

Characterized by the mantra "better living through chemistry," the time immediately following the Second World War was steeped in a euphoric state of consumption of mass-manufactured materials. Following vigorous debate, scientists propose that this time should now be formally recognized as the beginning of a new epoch of geological time, the Anthropocene, based on the argument that humans have changed the Earth system significantly enough to produce distinctive stratigraphic signals that should be recognized in the Geologic Time Scale.

After reviewing the stratigraphic record of anthropogenic markers-those produced by modern human activity-an international team of scientists found that the presence of manufactured materials in sediments-including aluminum, plastics and concrete-coincides with global spikes in fallout radionuclides, particulates from fossil-fuel combustion, global atmospheric pollution and accelerated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. This has led to a state in which the planet operates under fundamentally different boundary conditions than during the Holocene, the epoch spanning the prior 11,700 years, which served as the cradle for advanced human societies under relatively stable environmental conditions.
"This is the first proposed geological boundary that will have been witnessed directly by advanced human societies. Moreover, it is one that marks the very consequences of these societies' activities on the planet." -Alexander Wolfe
Alexander Wolfe, adjunct professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta, is the sole Canadian co-author of the new study published in the journal Science. "This new paper is a major step before we provide evidence and recommendations to the gatekeepers of geological time, the International Commission on Stratigraphy, on whether the Anthropocene should be formally entered to the time scale as a new unit of Earth history beginning in the mid-20th century," Wolfe explains, noting the move has implications well beyond the geological community.

The increasing usage of the term "Anthropocene" has been notoriously vague and typically varies from discipline to discipline, motivating the group-including not only geologists and paleobiologists, but also anthropologists, archeologists, historians and social scientists-to settle on an agreed-upon formal definition.

"We hope that such a common definition will have ramifications well beyond the arcane rules of stratigraphy," states Wolfe, including, for example, ecology, economics, policy and the law of the sea. "In a practical sense, in the Anthropocene it can no longer be assumed that environmental conditions will be stable on generational time scales, given the wholesale changes in many key Earth parameters over recent decades."

"This is the first proposed geological boundary that will have been witnessed directly by advanced human societies," Wolfe continues. "Moreover, it is one that marks the very consequences of these societies' activities on the planet."
Though these features make the Anthopocene fundamentally different from other geological boundaries in Earth's 4.6-billion-year history, the team is nonetheless adhering strictly to the codified methodology of formal stratigraphic nomenclature.

Wolfe's participation in this monumental study is another landmark in the U of A's long-standing contributions to the science of global changes. He is hopeful of the changes the findings may inspire, particularly in the acknowledgment of humanity's appropriation of key processes at the planetary scale, for better or for worse.

"We are optimistic that this will raise awareness of the global character of human impacts on the Earth system and the way humans have and are changing the planet. Formal recognition of these changes is clearly relevant, not just to stratigraphy and geology, but also to the entire conceptualization of our collective effects on the Earth system."

Wolfe says the evidence is clear. "Formalization of the Anthropocene may well affect policy decisions concerning environmental futures. How far can we or should we go in terms of modifying the planet, our only viable home?"

The findings, "The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene," were published in the Jan. 8 issue of the journal Science.

Arguments for the Anthropocene

Scientists contend that the pervasive and irreversible signatures of human activity on Earth's geology warrant recognition of new epoch of Geological Time.

www.ualberta.ca

 

[1srelluc]

This thread is way beyond fake news.....This thread is dildos.

 

[ding]

The text below is from poster Mushroom. It was the first thing I noticed from him on his more recent visits and I wanted to respond to it but couldn't relocate it. It turns out it was from the "Your Extinction" thread, which appears to have been removed for some reason. I found my phone had this message still open and I transferred it to my PC, but it will lack the normal reply/quote formatting.



Mushroom:

I can answer that rather clearly.​

​

To start with, there is no such thing as the "Anthropocene Epoch". And even the attempt of forcing people to try to use it is proof of their ignorance and pushing an agenda.​

​

No one is forcing anyone to say it. "The word Anthropocene comes from the Greek terms for human ('anthropo') and new ('cene'), but its definition is controversial. It was coined in the 1980s, then popularised in 2000 by atmospheric chemist Paul J Crutzen and diatom researcher Eugene F Stoermer. The duo suggested that we are living in a new geological epoch.

What is the Anthropocene and why does it matter? | Natural History Museum

Are we in the Anthropocene? Why does the Anthropocene matter? Discover more about our impact on planet Earth.

www.nhm.ac.uk

​

And the case for this is amazingly simple. Do you know who it is that decides if an epoch is needed and provides the justification for its inclusion among the other geological epochs? Well, it should be obvious as the very name "Geological Epoch" makes it perfectly clear this is something created by, used by, and decided by geologists.​

​

"The definition of standardised international units of geologic time is the responsibility of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), a constituent body of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), whose primary objective[1] is to precisely define global chronostratigraphic units of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart (ICC)[2] that are used to define divisions of geologic time. The chronostratigraphic divisions are in turn used to define geochronologic units.[2]

2] Cohen, K.M.; Finney, S.C.; Gibbard, P.L.; Fan, J.-X. (1 September 2013). "The ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart". Episodes (updated ed.). 36 (3): 199–204. doi:10.18814/epiiugs/2013/v36i3/002. ISSN 0705-3797. S2CID 51819600.
from Geologic time scale - Wikipedia

​

And want to know what international geological bodies recognize the "Anthropocene Epoch"?​

​

None.​

​

The International Commission on Stratigraphy is currently debating whether or not to add the Anthropocene to the Geological Time Scale. The idea is controversial because it is uncertain whether or not human influences on the biology and chemistry of the planet: carbon dioxide emissions, global warming, ocean acidification, habitat destruction, ubanization, massive species extinctions and widescale natural resource extraction, will be visible in the geological record of the distant future.

​

It is not geological at all, it was created by and pushed by "Climatologists".​

​

Ask any geologist, and not a single aspect of humanity is even noteworthy in the geological record. If every single one of us was to drop dead tomorrow of a mystery disease, other than some of our bones and structures we would have made absolutely no impact in the geological record. None, nada, zero, zilch.​

​

I suspect that if nothing else, a layer containing significant amounts of asphalt and concrete will be discernible a million years from now. And five other mass extinctions are noted in the GTS. Why should this one, likely to be exceptional in several ways, get a by?

​

This is actually something that has pissed off a lot of geologists, as they see it as one groups of scientists trying to force their beliefs and views onto the entire world, even in areas that are literally none of their concern.​

​

Since a number of the scientists "pushing" the idea of an Anthropocene Epoch are themselves geologists and you are not, I simply don't accept that. You imagine yourself to be a geologist and you believe you should be pissed off for them.

​

It would be like computer science majors insisting that because of modeling the way zoologists name and determine where animals fall amongst each other is wrong and they must do it a completely new way, a way they themselves have determined and decided among.​

​

Since the arguments are before the Statigraphy Commission and no one is forcing anyone to do anything, your claims are nonsense.

​

And we are not in any special "great extinction". There are always massive extinctions when the climate passes from one phase to another. Always, it happened at the start of every interglacial, and happened again at the end when we returned to an ice age. This one is nothing special.​

​

"The contemporary rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than the background extinction rate, the historically typical rate of extinction (in terms of the natural evolution of the planet);[1][2][3][4] also, the current rate of extinction is 10 to 100 times higher than in any of the previous mass extinctions in the history of Earth. One scientist estimates the current extinction rate may be 10,000 times the background extinction rate, although most scientists predict a much lower extinction rate than this outlying estimate.[5] Theoretical ecologist Stuart Pimm stated that the extinction rate for plants is 100 times higher than normal.[6]"

1. Pimm, Stuart L.; Russell, Gareth J.; Gittleman, John L.; Brooks, Thomas M. (1995). "The Future of Biodiversity". Science. 269 (5222): 347–350. Bibcode:1995Sci...269..347P. doi:10.1126/science.269.5222.347. PMID 17841251. S2CID 35154695.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Teyssèdre, Anne (2004). Toward a sixth mass extinction crisis? Chapter 2 in Biodiversity & global change : social issues and scientific challenges. R. Barbault, Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis, Anne Teyssèdre, Association pour la diffusion de la pensée française. Paris: Adpf. pp. 24–49. ISBN 2-914935-28-5. OCLC 57892208.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b De Vos, Jurriaan M.; Joppa, Lucas N.; Gittleman, John L.; Stephens, Patrick R.; Pimm, Stuart L. (2014-08-26). "Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction" (PDF). Conservation Biology (in Spanish). 29 (2): 452–462. doi:10.1111/cobi.12380. ISSN 0888-8892. PMID 25159086. S2CID 19121609.
4. Lawton, J. H.; May, R. M. (1995). "Extinction Rates". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 9: 124–126. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1996.t01-1-9010124.x.
5. Lawton, J. H.; May, R. M. (1995). "Extinction Rates". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 9 (1): 124–126. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1996.t01-1-9010124.x.
6. Li, S. (2012). "Has Plant Life Reached Its Limits?". New York Times. Retrieved 10 February 2018.

From Holocene extinction - Wikipedia

​

Oh, and we are actually still in an "ice age". It will likely be several thousand years until we are at a full interglacial.​

​

Yes, we are still in the Quaternary Glaciation (the Ice Age) We have been fully in the Holocene Interglacial, however, for about 8,000 years. Those temperatures sloping off tell us we were on our way OUT of the Interglacial when AGW began.

View attachment 851686

​

And hold on to your buttons, because things are going to get so much worse and better than most seem to want to believe.​

​

Worse and better? Is that some sort of CYA?

​

The East coast of the US and the Gulf Coast? Say goodbye to all of that. Most of Florida will be gone, the palm tree line will move up to around the US-Canada border (right now it resides in central California - Carolinas). Most of Canada will finally pass out of the tundra-permafrost condition it is in now, and it will be like the Great Plains all the way to the Arctic Ocean. Plants will flourish in the warmer and wetter climate, and evolution will start another explosion into diversity as species evolve to replace ones that went extinct.​

​

And do you believe that this will be caused by AGW or the glacial/interglacial cycle? Contemporary warming, displayed in the graph above at the right end of the Marcott reconstruction in black, is clearly not part of the glacial/interglacial process. What sort of time frame do you see for such changes?

​

That is nothing new, it has been known for over 150 years now.​

​

What has been known for 150 years?

​

A species goes extinct, as many were adapted for specific conditions and can not survive in the new ones. Then another evolves to takes its place in the food chain.​

​

Evolution is the result of variations in reproductive success under extant conditions resulting from semi-random mutations in biological systems. Extinctions occur when changes outpace the system's maximum rate of adaptive change or when changes simply eliminate species' niches. The rate of change during the Anthropocene, for a number of critical parameters, has dramatically outpaced the maximum rate of adaptive change. And the faster than normal rate of extinctions dramatically reduces the pool from which new species might develop adapted to contemporary conditions. And the rate of anthropogenic change has not slowed so there is no reason to believe that novel species should fare any better than their vanishing brethren.

​

And it is interesting, as zoologists have long speculated at that when they realized that the Americas were unique in that they did not really have an apex predator.​

​

Jaguar, coyote, grizzly bear, brown bear, polar bear, cougar, wolf, golden eagle, harpy eagle. In the past we could add smilodon (sabre-toothed tiger), the American lion and the South American short-faced bear. Off our shores we have orcas and several variety of sharks.

​

And there were speculations as to what would have eventually evolved to fill that gap if humans were not around.​

​

But there is no "great extinction", that is a fantasy created by people that do not believe in evolution​

​

And, again, you don't seem to have the faintest clue what you're talking about.

Show them your graph which projects a 5C temperature increase by the end of this century. That'll convince them to add the Anthropocene to the Geological Time Scale.

 

[Lemmi]

What's all this about the Anthropocene Age when everybody knows the earth's ability to support life as we know it is totally dependent on the Sun not sending a killer flare our way?

​

 

[Crick]

What's all this about the Anthropocene Age when everybody knows the earth's ability to support life as we know it is totally dependent on the Sun not sending a killer flare our way?

​

Not a clue how that applies.

 

[ReinyDays]

New Speak for the Holocene? ... part of the Climate Change deception ... nothing better to monger fear than claim we've cause a new GEOLOGICAL AGE ... some morons will believe anything on Discovery Channel ...

Both the Permian and K-T extinction events are measured in the number of individual organisms killed ... when we say there was 90% less life in the oceans, we mean the oceans were all but devoid of life of any kind ... that's not what's happening today, we sift the oceans removing anything larger than a field mouse ... but the oceans are still completely full of life, just all of it is smaller than a field mouse ... the number of individual organisms is actually increasing because of this behavior by humans ...

Yes, I believe that is a bad thing ... but lying about it and calling it a "mass extinction event" won't stop the true cause ... over-fishing ...

For every wolf that was killed in the American West ... two coyotes survived into adulthood ... roughly 90% of livestock kills are from coyotes and feral dogs ... but you in your Ivory Tower think it's nothing but wolves destroying the Intermountain West cattle businesses ... just blind stupid ... (we can't graze cattle on these lands, so now the lands are ruined and won't support anything, thus businesses go bankrupt) ...

 

[Crick]

New Speak for the Holocene? ...

I There are two positions from what I've read: that the Anthropocene started with the Industrial Revolution and that it started with the development of agriculture. Neither would take us back to the beginning of the Holocene.

part of the Climate Change deception ...

There is no climate change deception. There is an enormous effort at deception from the fossil fuel industry.

nothing better to monger fear than claim we've cause a new GEOLOGICAL AGE ...

Why would anyone find that particularly fearful? The only thing added is the idea that what we're doing may be visible in the geological record. We've already heard how we're raising temperatures, polluting the air and water, eliminating wildlife habitat and driving mass extinctions.

some morons will believe anything on Discovery Channel ...

Some morons watch Fox News, NewsMax and OAN.

Both the Permian and K-T extinction events are measured in the number of individual organisms killed ... when we say there was 90% less life in the oceans, we mean the oceans were all but devoid of life of any kind ... that's not what's happening today, we sift the oceans removing anything larger than a field mouse ... but the oceans are still completely full of life, just all of it is smaller than a field mouse ... the number of individual organisms is actually increasing because of this behavior by humans ...

Yes, I believe that is a bad thing ... but lying about it and calling it a "mass extinction event" won't stop the true cause ... over-fishing ...

The opening of Wikipedia's article on mass extinction events.

"An extinction event (also known as a mass extinction or biotic crisis) is a widespread and rapid decrease in the biodiversity on Earth. Such an event is identified by a sharp fall in the diversity and abundance of multicellular organisms. It occurs when the rate of extinction increases with respect to the background extinction rate[1] and the rate of speciation. Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty. These differences stem from disagreement as to what constitutes a "major" extinction event, and the data chosen to measure past diversity."

Biodiversity is not the same thing as individual organisms. It is a decrease in the number of unique species.

Here is a definition from the Natural History Museum: "A mass extinction event is when species vanish much faster than they are replaced. This is usually defined as about 75% of the world's species being lost in a short period of geological time - less than 2.8 million years." So again, species, not individuals.

The current extinction rate, on land and sea, is not only orders of magnitude greater than the background rate, but is orders of magnitude greater than the extinction rates experienced in prior mass extinctions.

For every wolf that was killed in the American West ... two coyotes survived into adulthood ... roughly 90% of livestock kills are from coyotes and feral dogs ... but you in your Ivory Tower think it's nothing but wolves destroying the Intermountain West cattle businesses ... just blind stupid ... (we can't graze cattle on these lands, so now the lands are ruined and won't support anything, thus businesses go bankrupt) ...

Your proclivity for lying about what views I've expressed really stands out.

 

[Crick]

And there is the crux of the problem . So many tip top scientists now reject classical evolution theory.
Analysis of the brain shows too many huge DNA jumps that cannot be explained by Darwinism , however much some wriggle to do so .

And naturally if you are an Anunnaki fan you have a ready alternative explanation and there is a surprising amount of evidence to give it good credence .

The quote for which you gave me credit was from poster Mushroom and the diametrical opposite of my position.

If you believe many "tip top scientists" reject Darwinism evolution, you're going to have to name a few because I simply don't believe you.

 

[Rigby5]

And there is the crux of the problem . So many tip top scientists now reject classical evolution theory.
Analysis of the brain shows too many huge DNA jumps that cannot be explained by Darwinism , however much some wriggle to do so .

And naturally if you are an Anunnaki fan you have a ready alternative explanation and there is a surprising amount of evidence to give it good credence .

The reason you do not notice the intermediary steps and it appears like "huge DNA jumps" is because the intermediary steps are not very successful so very small in number.

 

[Rigby5]

All we know for absolute certain is that American per capita CO2 is responsible

AGW is fake science wrapped up is shilling for the CCP

Wrong.
The US is the single largest carbon producers, but we also set economic and technological standards that force others to also produce lots of carbon, even when they know its bad.

It is easy to prove global warming is caused by humans.
All you have to do is nearly double the carbon in the atmosphere of a greenhouse and see how it increases temperature.

What is scary is that it is estimated an 11 degree increase would cause human extinction, and we may have already added enough carbon to cause that to happen.
We just do not know how much heat will be retained until it stops.

 

[ReinyDays]

All you have to do is nearly double the carbon in the atmosphere of a greenhouse and see how it increases temperature.

Yeah ... and how much is that? ... we've been looking, but other than a pure CO2 atmosphere, there doesn't seem to be any temperature change ...

What experiment can we perform to show this temperature increase with a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration? ...

 

[Crick]

Yeah ... and how much is that? ... we've been looking, but other than a pure CO2 atmosphere, there doesn't seem to be any temperature change ...

What experiment can we perform to show this temperature increase with a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration? ...

You can simply observe the planet. The experiment is being conducted here as we speak.

Do you reject uniformatarianism?

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Anthropocene name gambit has been smashed by the Geologist group last month:

Update: Yes, We Have No Anthropocene!​

LINK


Long time Geologist David Middleton's well written comment worth reading here about this decision that was crushed 12-4.

LINK

=============

It is over!!!!!

One less stupid irrational warmist/alarmist drive to put up with.

 

[ReinyDays]

The Anthropocene name gambit has been smashed by the Geologist group last month:

Update: Yes, We Have No Anthropocene!​

LINK


Long time Geologist David Middleton's well written comment worth reading here about this decision that was crushed 12-4.

LINK

=============

It is over!!!!!

One less stupid irrational warmist/alarmist drive to put up with.

Next we need to go after this whole "Holocene" nonsense ... 10,000 years is a geologic heartbeat, not an era ...

If it looks like Pleistocene, sounds like Pleistocene, tastes like Pleistocene, smells like Pleistocene and feels like Pleistocene ... maybe it's Pleistocene ... why tie a red ribbon to it? ...

ETA: "Epoch" ... sorry ... damn nitpickers ...

 

[Crick]

Next we need to go after this whole "Holocene" nonsense ... 10,000 years is a geologic heartbeat, not an era ...

If it looks like Pleistocene, sounds like Pleistocene, tastes like Pleistocene, smells like Pleistocene and feels like Pleistocene ... maybe it's Pleistocene ... why tie a red ribbon to it? ...

ETA: "Epoch" ... sorry ... damn nitpickers ..

Next we need to go after this whole "Holocene" nonsense ... 10,000 years is a geologic heartbeat, not an era ...

If it looks like Pleistocene, sounds like Pleistocene, tastes like Pleistocene, smells like Pleistocene and feels like Pleistocene ... maybe it's Pleistocene ... why tie a red ribbon to it? ...

ETA: "Epoch" ... sorry ... damn nitpickers ...

I am often astounded at how poorly deniers do at finding source material.

"The outcome was a decisive rejection of the Anthropocene proposal: 4 votes in favour; 12 votes against; and 3 abstentions. All SQS members who participated in the voting process are geological scientists of the highest calibre, from a range of countries, and with wide expertise in Quaternary stratigraphy and chronology. It is clear from the comments that were made during the course of the discussion period, that many were unconvinced by the arguments in the AWG proposal, and their misgivings are clearly reflected in the decisive nature of the voting outcome.The vote of the SQS has been recognized as valid by the ICS Executive, and that recognition has been near unanimously supported (15 yes, 1 abstention, 1 conflict of interest) by the chairs of the seventeen ICS subcommissions, who are the ICS voting members. Although their proposal has been decisively rejected, the AWG has performed an important service to the scientific community by assembling a wide body of data on human impacts on global systems,and this database will be an essential source of reference well into the future. Moreover, the Anthropocene as a concept will continue to be widely used not only by Earth and environmental scientists, but also by social scientists, politicians and economists, as well as by the public at large. As such, it will remain an invaluable descriptor in human-environment interactions. But it will not be recognised as a formal geological term but will more usefully be employed informally in future discussions of the anthropogenic impacts on Earth’s climatic and environmental systems."

https://www.iugs.org/_files/ugd/f1fc07_ebe2e2b94c35491c8efe570cd2c5a1bf.pdf?index=true

So, the rest of the planet will continue to do so but make certain that you, as a proud, proud geologist, never do.

Based on solid precedence here, are we allowed to assume that the scientists who made this decision were:

a) Paid off in some manner
b) Forced to make these choices in order to retain access to the IUGS Lounge
OR
c) Liberals who felt they needed to do this to assure the collapse of modern civilization.

These are scientists after all. You KNOW you can't trust anyone with a college education. Right?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I am often astounded at how poorly deniers do at finding source material.

"The outcome was a decisive rejection of the Anthropocene proposal: 4 votes in favour; 12 votes against; and 3 abstentions. All SQS members who participated in the voting process are geological scientists of the highest calibre, from a range of countries, and with wide expertise in Quaternary stratigraphy and chronology. It is clear from the comments that were made during the course of the discussion period, that many were unconvinced by the arguments in the AWG proposal, and their misgivings are clearly reflected in the decisive nature of the voting outcome.The vote of the SQS has been recognized as valid by the ICS Executive, and that recognition has been near unanimously supported (15 yes, 1 abstention, 1 conflict of interest) by the chairs of the seventeen ICS subcommissions, who are the ICS voting members. Although their proposal has been decisively rejected, the AWG has performed an important service to the scientific community by assembling a wide body of data on human impacts on global systems,and this database will be an essential source of reference well into the future. Moreover, the Anthropocene as a concept will continue to be widely used not only by Earth and environmental scientists, but also by social scientists, politicians and economists, as well as by the public at large. As such, it will remain an invaluable descriptor in human-environment interactions. But it will not be recognised as a formal geological term but will more usefully be employed informally in future discussions of the anthropogenic impacts on Earth’s climatic and environmental systems."

https://www.iugs.org/_files/ugd/f1fc07_ebe2e2b94c35491c8efe570cd2c5a1bf.pdf?index=true

So, the rest of the planet will continue to do so but make certain that you, as a proud, proud geologist, never do.

Based on solid precedence here, are we allowed to assume that the scientists who made this decision were:

a) Paid off in some manner
b) Forced to make these choices in order to retain access to the IUGS Lounge
OR
c) Liberals who felt they needed to do this to assure the collapse of modern civilization.

These are scientists after all. You KNOW you can't trust anyone with a college education. Right?

You can't even accept the legal process that determines the decision on proposals in the organization,

The Anthropocene was overwhelmingly voted down by the Subcomission on Quaternary Stratigraphy…

Twelve members of the international Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) voted against the proposal to create an Anthropocene epoch, and only four voted for it. That would normally constitute an unqualified defeat, but a dramatic challenge has arisen from the chair of the SQS, palaeontologist Jan Zalasiewicz at the University of Leicester, UK, and one of the group’s vice-chairs, stratigrapher Martin Head at Brock University in St Catharines, Canada.

Despite losing by a 12-4 margin in the SQS, the AWG challenged the vote and the IUGS told them to pound sand.

A high-profile battle over whether to designate the ‘Anthropocene’ as a new geological epoch has come to an end. On 20 March, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) — the final arbiter in the matter — announced it is upholding a decision made earlier this month by a group of geoscientists. That group voted on 4 March to reject a proposal that would have established the current era, in which humans are altering the planet, as a formal epoch in Earth’s geological timetable.

More in the link with links to the official website and Nature source

LINK

It was overwhelmingly voted NO as 12-4 shows.

You mislead and lie a lot!