Michael J. C. Walker, Andrew M. Bauer, Matthew Edgeworth, Erle C. Ellis, Stanley C. Finney, Philip L. Gibbard, Mark Maslin
{"title":"人类世最好被理解为一个持续的、加剧的、非同步的事件","authors":"Michael J. C. Walker, Andrew M. Bauer, Matthew Edgeworth, Erle C. Ellis, Stanley C. Finney, Philip L. Gibbard, Mark Maslin","doi":"10.1111/bor.12636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Current debate on the status and character of the Anthropocene is focussed on whether this interval of geological time should be designated as a formal unit of epoch/series rank in the International Chronostratigraphic Chart/Geological Time Scale, or whether it is more appropriate for it to be considered as an informal ‘event’ comparable in significance with other major transformative events in deeper geological time. The case for formalizing the Anthropocene as a chronostratigraphical unit with a base at approximately 1950 CE is being developed by the Anthropocene Working Group of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy. Here we outline the alternative position and explain why the time-transgressive nature of human impact on global environmental systems that is reflected in the recent stratigraphical record means that the Anthropocene is better seen not as a series/epoch with a fixed lower boundary, but rather as an unfolding, transforming and intensifying geological event.</p>","PeriodicalId":9184,"journal":{"name":"Boreas","volume":"53 1","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bor.12636","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Anthropocene is best understood as an ongoing, intensifying, diachronous event\",\"authors\":\"Michael J. C. Walker, Andrew M. Bauer, Matthew Edgeworth, Erle C. Ellis, Stanley C. Finney, Philip L. Gibbard, Mark Maslin\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bor.12636\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Current debate on the status and character of the Anthropocene is focussed on whether this interval of geological time should be designated as a formal unit of epoch/series rank in the International Chronostratigraphic Chart/Geological Time Scale, or whether it is more appropriate for it to be considered as an informal ‘event’ comparable in significance with other major transformative events in deeper geological time. The case for formalizing the Anthropocene as a chronostratigraphical unit with a base at approximately 1950 CE is being developed by the Anthropocene Working Group of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy. Here we outline the alternative position and explain why the time-transgressive nature of human impact on global environmental systems that is reflected in the recent stratigraphical record means that the Anthropocene is better seen not as a series/epoch with a fixed lower boundary, but rather as an unfolding, transforming and intensifying geological event.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Boreas\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"1-3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bor.12636\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Boreas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bor.12636\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Boreas","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bor.12636","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Anthropocene is best understood as an ongoing, intensifying, diachronous event
Current debate on the status and character of the Anthropocene is focussed on whether this interval of geological time should be designated as a formal unit of epoch/series rank in the International Chronostratigraphic Chart/Geological Time Scale, or whether it is more appropriate for it to be considered as an informal ‘event’ comparable in significance with other major transformative events in deeper geological time. The case for formalizing the Anthropocene as a chronostratigraphical unit with a base at approximately 1950 CE is being developed by the Anthropocene Working Group of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy. Here we outline the alternative position and explain why the time-transgressive nature of human impact on global environmental systems that is reflected in the recent stratigraphical record means that the Anthropocene is better seen not as a series/epoch with a fixed lower boundary, but rather as an unfolding, transforming and intensifying geological event.
期刊介绍:
Boreas has been published since 1972. Articles of wide international interest from all branches of Quaternary research are published. Biological as well as non-biological aspects of the Quaternary environment, in both glaciated and non-glaciated areas, are dealt with: Climate, shore displacement, glacial features, landforms, sediments, organisms and their habitat, and stratigraphical and chronological relationships.
Anticipated international interest, at least within a continent or a considerable part of it, is a main criterion for the acceptance of papers. Besides articles, short items like discussion contributions and book reviews are published.