Response to Damianos—Anthropocene angst: Authentic geology and stratigraphic sincerity

TL;DR

The paper responds to criticisms of the Anthropocene proposal, defending its scientific basis and rejecting claims of political motives.

Contribution

The paper clarifies the scientific rationale behind the Anthropocene proposal and refutes misrepresentations by an observer.

Findings

The Anthropocene proposal is based on detailed analysis of the geological record.

The proposal reflects significant Earth System changes from the mid-20th century 'Great Acceleration'.

Abstract

Damianos provides his views on the significance of the March 2024 decision by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) to reject the proposal of the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), the body we represent, to formalize the Anthropocene as a series/epoch of the Geological Time Scale. He draws upon ‘four years of ethnographic observation’ of the AWG, over which time this body provided him with access to its meetings and discussions. Given this access, the numerous misrepresentations within his article warrant redress. Ultimately, his conclusions mimic claims of influential figures within the governing bodies of the stratigraphic process: that the AWG were attempting to formalize the Anthropocene for political reasons and subvert the process through use of the media, and that the proposed definition was based upon claims about the future and not the past geological record. We refute those accusations, and emphasize that the proposed Anthropocene epoch, based on scrupulous and detailed analysis of the stratigraphic record, demonstrates striking and transformative Earth System change driven by the mid-20th century ‘Great Acceleration’ of human activities.

Figures