Essay On The Anthropocene

The rapidly increasing amount of carbon dioxide may be one of the factors that cause climate change. As Hillman states, “Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are increasing, and have done so since the Industrial Revolution.” An atmospheric CO2 concentration, research shows that there is a dramatic increase from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to 373 ppm in 2002, a rise of the third. Furthermore, the linear chart demonstrated the trend of annual global CO2

When trees are burned, CO2 is relinquished. The burning of astronomically immense areas of trees is known as deforestation. Human activities integrate more CO2 into the atmosphere through activities like the burning of fossil fuels. The guiding question of this investigation is, “Which carbon cycle process affects atmospheric carbon the most?” The researchers initially wanted to learn 2 things. First, the researchers wanted to learn how much carbon engenderment there would be if they incremented the amount of fossil fuels burnt by a certain amount. The researchers also wanted to learn how much carbon engenderment there would be if they incremented the amount of deforestation.

Humanity is confronted by multiple environmental challenges which threaten to undermine the advances in health achieved over recent decades. The Rockefeller Foundation/Lancet Commission on Planetary Health showed how climate change, loss of biodiversity, land use change, ocean acidification and overfishing, nitrogen and phosphorus loading and environmental pollution more generally all have the potential to adversely affect health through a range of pathways1. A recent joint publication by WHO and Convention on Biological Diversity articulated the myriad connections between biodiversity and health and the threats to both posed by environmental change2. The dramatic changes in the global environment have led many scientists to conclude that we are living in a new geological epoch – the Anthropocene – in which the activities of one species – homo sapiens -have become the dominant driving force transforming the Earth’s natural systems3. These natural systems provide food, clean water and air and modulate the global temperature within limits in which humanity has been able to flourish for around 11,500 years during the preceding Holocene epoch.

Anthropocene is a term used to describe earth’s history including when humans dominated a majority of natural processes globally. Anthropocence was a term used throughout the article to discuss the impact humankind had on the environment that caused many changes that had a negative impact over many years. Another term used was anthrones, the human footprint, which describes how much human kind has made lasting impassions on the earth. These terms have made me come to the realization anthropology operates at the crossroads of social and physical sciences, along with humanities to examine the diversity of humankind across many cultures and time.

Some contend that the Anthropocene started with the appearance of agriculture, in light of the fact that specific horticulture related activities, for example, rice paddy water system and deforestation may have prompted sharp ascents in convergences of CO2 and methane as ahead of schedule as 8,000 years prior. Many trust that it was not until the Industrial Revolution that our abuse of fossil fuels and monumental increases of energy utilize and populace began to push us sufficiently far to demonstrate a recognizable human impact.

Many people have even become extremely proficient in dealing with them. However, being able to deal in large numbers and understanding what they truly mean are two entirely different things. Human being experience an extreme cognitive dissonance between the two. The difference between 1,000,000,000 and 100,000,000 years may not look like much to the average person’s eye, but that difference is the difference between running a marathon, something a human being can reasonably accomplish in a day, to running from Stony Brook to Rochester, something which would take days to accomplish. The difference between a million seconds and a billion seconds is almost 32 years. Our place in the history of the planet, and the Anthropocene’s context in our own history can only really be understood in the context of extremely large numbers. Through a better understanding of large numbers and the geological timescale, the

Finney and Edwards raise concerns over this component of the Anthropocene. The emphasis on the beginning of the Anthropocene ignores the geological strata, which is a major component to its validity as an official epoch. According to Finney and Edwards, the Anthropocene overly emphasizes the beginning of this potential epoch, not its contents. The focus on the start leads to “the opinion that geological time scales are defined solely by their beginnings” (Finney and Edwards, 7). According to the AWG, the suggested start for the Anthropocene is 1945 (Finney and Edwards, 7). An indicator for this date is “the human human-caused atomic detonations” that resulted in the spread of atomic radiation across the planet (Zalasiewicz et al., 2230). In defining the Anthropocene based on its cause and date, and using the definition as grounds for justification as a geological time unit is where Finney and Edwards find fault. Also, the core of the concept centers at being a human caused event, which can be used to socially and politically sway

Has Earth entered into a new geologic epoch, characterized by human influences? A recent study, spear-headed by the British Geological Survey, has come to the conclusion that man’s global impact has become distinct enough to end the Holocene and effectively begin the Anthropocene. Published in Science, the study identifies how man’s impact on our oceans, resources, climate, and vegetation has altered the sedimentary makeup of the planet. Massive species invasions, increased rates of extinction, genetically modified plants, redistributed metals, sediment, hydrocarbons, fossils, increased levels of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus all combine to create signals that geologists interpret to denote a break in the Holocene

One of the only known things on Earth that consumes CO2 is plant life. The industrial nations cut down and consume more trees then they can reforest. Also, toxins and pollutants kill plant life in the oceans like algae. This is a major reason for the abundance of CO2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere went ?from about 280 PPM in the preindustrial age to about 364 PPM in 1997?? (2-454) The amount consumed is far less that the amount that is put into the atmosphere.

One of the parts of Ruddimans three part early anthropogenic hypothesis focusses on the anomalous rise in methane after 5,000 years. By looking at the past three interglaciations methane levels should have fallen from ~700 ppb to a level such as

• Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere. • Since pre-industrial times, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to over 380 ppm. Current concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are unprecedented in at least the last 650,000 years, based on records from gas bubbles trapped in polar ice. • Independent measurements demonstrate that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere comes

Since before the industrial evolutions humans have been pumping green house gasses—carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons— into the atmosphere however, it wasn’t until recently that the amounts being produced are shoving the Earth into a sixth extinction. While the causes of this upcoming extinction are constantly debated on it has earned itself the name Holocene extinction. This name is derived from the theory that humans are the main contributors to this extinction. To investigate the cause Elizabeth Kolbert, and American journalist and professor at Williams College, took the world on a wild and saddening journey on the human contribution to this looming extinction in her novel, The Sixth Extinction; An Unnatural History. Not only does Kolbert’s book explain how humans have contributed to global warming and its effects on life on land but also ocean acidification and how life under the sea has changed over the years.

The concept of global warming has become one of the most widely debated and controversial topics of our time. Scientists learned long ago that the earth’s climate has powerfully shaped the history of humanity. However, it is only in the past few decades that research has revealed that humans have a significant influence on the climate as well. A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that since 1950, the world’s climate has been warming, primarily as a result of emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of tropical forests. More importantly, an article titled "Global Warming" published in the New York Times shows that methane, a gas that is emitted from landfills, livestock and oil gas facilities,

Deforestation, the cutting and burning of a forest, also increases the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A NASA page says that “when a forest is cut and burned to establish cropland and pastures, the carbon that was stored in the tree trunks (wood is about 50% carbon) joins with oxygen and is released into the atmosphere as CO2. CO2, is, of

Meanings that the relationship between the two would not be significant or at least not as much as some claim them to be. Another supporting fact of this idea is the “Medieval Warm Period.” This period of time was hundreds of years ago, where the temperature was recorded to be one of the highest on record. Now during this time the average temperature measured more than three degrees higher than it is today. But going back to the Carbon Dioxide idea, how is this possible. Obviously hundreds of years ago, factories did not exist, fossil fuels were not being burned, and the population level was not even close to what it is now. So the carbon levels were almost nonexistent, so this poses the question of why was there a major rise in temperature. Another era which did not match the idea was during the early 1930’s it began. During this time, large Co2 emissions began because of massive industrialization and a large amount of factories. The Co2 levels were sky rocketing and set record heights. Although, temperatures were on the decline. The temperature was on the steady decline for almost four decades after that. Obviously the Carbon level affecting the temperature idea is a little off or not fully proven.