Anthropocene Working Group

Anthropocene Working Group
Name	Anthropocene Working Group
Established	2009
Purpose	Stratigraphic assessment of the proposed Anthropocene epoch
Location	Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy, International Commission on Stratigraphy
Parent organization	International Union of Geological Sciences

Anthropocene Working Group The Anthropocene Working Group was convened to evaluate whether human activities have produced a new formal geological epoch, with implications for International Union of Geological Sciences, International Commission on Stratigraphy, Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy, Stratigraphy, and Quaternary research communities. Its work intersects with Holocene, Pleistocene, Geology, Geochronology, Sedimentology, and debates involving Paul Crutzen, Will Steffen, Jan Zalasiewicz, Mark Williams, and other scholars. The group's assessments have been cited in discussions across United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Convention on Biological Diversity, and policy fora in cities such as Stockholm, Paris, London, Beijing, and New York City.

History and formation

The group was established in 2009 under the auspices of the International Commission on Stratigraphy and the International Union of Geological Sciences following proposals by Paul Crutzen and Ehrenfeld, building from earlier work by Anthony Barnosky, J.R. McNeill, William Ruddiman, John McNeill, and Will Steffen. Early meetings brought together researchers from University of Leicester, University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, Royal Society, Smithsonian Institution, and United States Geological Survey alongside representatives from Geological Society of America and European Geosciences Union. Initial deliberations referenced debates surrounding the formalization of epochs such as the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene and drew on stratigraphic practice developed by figures like Ager and institutions like United States National Academy of Sciences. The group's formation coincided with policy events including the Rio+20 conference and rising attention from UNESCO and national academies.

Membership and organization

Membership has included stratigraphers, geologists, geochemists, palaeontologists, and archaeologists from institutions such as University of Leicester, Imperial College London, University of Edinburgh, University of Copenhagen, University of California, Berkeley, Australian National University, Max Planck Institute, Peking University, University of São Paulo, and University of Cape Town. Notable members have been Jan Zalasiewicz, Mark Williams, Colin Waters, Michael R. Rampino, Ute Richter, and Matthias J. T. J.. The group reports to the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy and liaises with the International Commission on Stratigraphy executive, coordinating with working groups on Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point, GSSP, GSSA, and relevant committees in International Union of Geological Sciences. Organizationally, it convenes plenary meetings, topical subgroups, and maintains correspondence with national geological surveys including British Geological Survey, Geological Survey of Canada, Geological Survey of India, and others.

Objectives and mandate

The group's mandate was to assess whether human-driven changes warrant formal recognition of the Anthropocene as a geological epoch succeeding the Holocene, and to recommend a proposed start date and stratigraphic marker suitable for ratification by the International Commission on Stratigraphy and International Union of Geological Sciences. Objectives included synthesizing evidence from radioisotopes studies conducted at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, reviewing signatures such as plutonium fallout from Trinity (nuclear test) and Trinity, documenting persistent changes traced in ice cores from Greenland, Antarctica, and Dome C, and evaluating proxies in lacustrine and marine records including sediments from North Sea, Baltic Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and Bering Sea.

Methods and criteria for defining the Anthropocene

Methodologically the group applied stratigraphic principles including identification of a primary marker, or global stratotype, using tools from radiometric dating, biostratigraphy, chemostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, and event stratigraphy. Candidates considered included radionuclide signals from Trinity (nuclear test), Nevada Test Site, and Hiroshima fallout; biotic changes documented in IUCN red lists and fossil assemblages; novel materials such as plastics and fly ash; and geochemical shifts in carbon cycle proxies recorded in peat bogs, river deltas, and marine sediments. The group evaluated criteria used historically for GSSPs as applied to proposals like the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary and Permian–Triassic extinction event, balancing global synchronicity, stratigraphic continuity, and anthropogenic signal strength.

Key findings and reports

Reports and papers authored or endorsed by the group summarized evidence for mid-20th century stratigraphic markers tied to the "Great Acceleration" documented by Will Steffen and collaborators, correlated with increases in CO2 and CH4 recorded by Mauna Loa Observatory, Law Dome, and Vostok ice cores. Publications appeared in journals including Science, Nature, Quaternary Science Reviews, and The Anthropocene Review, documenting stratigraphic markers such as plutonium peaks, stable isotope excursions, and novel particulates from industrial revolution legacies. Interim recommendations proposed potential GSSPs in locations with clear, continuous records analogous to established markers used for boundaries like the Eocene–Oligocene boundary.

Reception and controversies

Reception spanned support from many geoscientists and criticism from historians, archaeologists, and some geologists who argued for alternative start dates (Neolithic revolution, Industrial Revolution, or mid-20th century), invoking debates seen in work by William Ruddiman and Lewis Dartnell. Controversies involved epistemic questions raised by Royal Society commentators, public engagement by BBC, legal implications discussed with European Commission advisors, and concerns voiced by indigenous organizations and participants at forums like COP21 and UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Critics questioned stratigraphic suitability of anthropogenic materials and the political implications of formalizing an epoch, while proponents highlighted global stratigraphic markers and policy relevance.

Influence on stratigraphy and policy

The group's work has influenced stratigraphic practice in International Commission on Stratigraphy deliberations, encouraged interdisciplinary collaboration across palaeoclimatology, archaeology, ecology, and environmental history, and affected policy discussions in bodies such as United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and national science academies. It has catalyzed research programs at institutions including Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, CSIRO, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and has informed exhibitions at Natural History Museum, London and Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. The group's recommendations continue to shape debates on stratigraphic standards, conservation practice, and the framing of anthropogenic change in international policy discourse.

Category:Geology organizations