I personally feel the decision was made in 2014 before we'd even put forward proposal. So it was already decided um by those with with power within ICS and IUGS where the where the where it was going because the actual data behind the submission wasn't the reason for rejection.
for - definition - anthropocene - rejection of the term - it was rejected on dogmatic grounds, not on the evidence provided
we used a number of different proxies at 12 different sites, and they all recorded very clearly the effects of the great acceleration. And with that midpoint of about 1952.9 years, it all makes perfect sense. So it's not just the site at Crawford Lake, but all of the sites that we looked at showed a very very similar signal.
for - definition - anthropocene - synchronized signals of great acceleration at all 12 sites, not just Crawford Lake - Francine McCarthy, Brock University
Crawford Lake in Canada
for - definition - anthropocene - key reference site - Crawford Lake, Canada
one remaining project of course is still the formalization because while that is, you know, as as as Johan said, in many respects it doesn't matter, but in some it does partly because the anthroposine's meaning has been stretched so widely in so many areas that it makes sense to try and at least define it clearly and precisely in one sense so it can be used even quantitatively as well as qualitatively.
for - definition - anthropocene - post rejection definition - future work - even though it's been rejected as a geological epoch, due to so many uses of it, it still needs a proper definition
finite time singularity
finite time singularity
comment