Anthropocene Epoch Explained

Anthropocene Epoch Explained

The Anthropocene Epoch is the most recent entry on the “Geologic Time Scale,” an excellent chart that lets us know where we are on the Earth's timeline. It is as valuable for geologists and anthropologists as the “Periodic Table of the Elements” is for chemists.

The Geologic Time Scale comprises — Eons, Eras, Periods, and Epochs. We are living in the Phanerozoic Eon, which includes the Cenozoic Era, which encompasses the Quaternary Period, and the Quaternary Period, consists of the Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs. It doesn't sound straightforward, but it is amazingly logical. (Click on the link below for a graphic presentation of the Geologic Time Scale.)

https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org/learn/geological-time/geological-time-scale/

We Are leaving the Holocene Epoch and entering the Anthropocene Epoch. The Holocene Epoch began with the retreat of the last glaciation about 12,000 years ago and is often called the Age of Man. Once the Earth started to warm, Man was able to colonize the planet. In so doing, humans have had an immense negative impact on the Earth — from deforestation to fouling the oceans to releasing incalculable amounts of planet-altering gasses — we have left our mark on the Earth — and due to the persistence of gasses like CO2, we can be assured that our impact will endure for at least a few thousand years.

In recognition of our accomplishments, the newest geologic epoch has been named the Anthropocene Epoch.

Significant climate changes will occur, although scientists are uncertain about the magnitude and timing of the changes. For example, we have vastly reduced the discharge of aerosols — that sounds good; however, aerosols, although bad for our health, did help to reflect sunlight into space. We have a similar situation with coal-fueled power plants. They emit SO2 gasses, which reflect sunlight back into space. Obviously, we must stop burning coal, but it does have a downside. Coal-fired plants may have been masking some of the heat impacts of CO2. Does that mean that atmospheric heating from CO2 may have an even more significant impact than we thought? Maybe.

What are we to do?

As we discussed in the last post, CO2 will be with us for a very long time. Whether we take action to reduce CO2 or not, the Earth will be affected by the existing levels of that gas for hundreds of years. If we do nothing, the changes to the climate will only worsen. Of course, that doesn’t impact our older citizens, but it will make things more difficult for our children and grandchildren. It would seem prudent to continue on the path of reducing concentrations of CO2 and begin to focus on adaptation to climate change, such as preparing for the expected rise in the level of the oceans. At some point, when temperatures become oppressive and weather events become more extreme, there will be proposals to geoengineer our planet in an effort to reduce the amount of the sun’s energy that reaches Earth. This can be accomplished by adding aerosols, such as SO2, into the stratosphere to reflect some of the sun’s energy back into space. There are other possible measures, such as seeding the oceans with iron flakes to increase algae production, thereby enabling the oceans to absorb more CO2. At some point, we will relocate cities away from coastlines and relocate entire populations of some low-lying islands. None of the possible solutions will be popular or implementable until climate change becomes intolerable.

Living in the Anthropocene Epoch

There will be a myriad of issues for Anthropoids to address because there is no silver bullet to stop the relentless march of climate change. For example, CO2 reductions may be difficult to obtain if we are constantly dealing with an increasing demand from the billions of people looking for a better life. And a better life means more stuff — they all want what we want — a house, a car, furniture, TVs, good schools, vacations, etc. Stuff! So, there is a solid argument to be made that an increasing population will adversely affect efforts to moderate climate change.

On the other hand, pro-natalists (like Elon Musk) argue that society will collapse if we don’t do something to stop the decline in birth rates worldwide. Yes, the population is still increasing, but not at a rate that will enable countries to deal with aging populations. Should we be slowly reducing our standard of living? — Nothing too drastic, but people might be limited to two houses instead of three or more, and limitations might be imposed on the number of airplane flights an individual can take annually.

At every attempt to take action, there will be a viable argument for not taking action. The Anthropocene Epoch will be a challenging time to be living. Let’s get to it.

A question

Do we need to try to control the population of Earth? (There are now about 8 billion Earthlings, and we are on our way to 10 billion by 2050. The sustainable population for Earth is most frequently estimated to be 3 billion.)

That’s it for this post. Your comments, positive or negative, are encouraged. And please give some thought to today’s question. There will be future posts regarding the impact of population in the Anthropocene Epoch.

Please consider hitting the subscribe button. The subscription is free and always will be. You won’t be bombarded with emails because there will be only three to four posts per month, and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.

Thanks for your interest,

Robert A. Cruess