Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
UM-Bot

Did the Anthropocene epoch begin in 1950 ?

Recommended Posts

 
paperdyer

Yes, several more years until the new era is recognized and many millions of grant dollars to prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zalmoxis

It will take a long time to know for sure. I say perhaps. I think a mass extinction is underway right now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
3 hours ago, Zalmoxis said:

It will take a long time to know for sure. I say perhaps. I think a mass extinction is underway right now.

 

In real terms, you could argue that this particular mass extinction has been going on for very long time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

a bit like this topic

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

All this really requires is somebody to select a type locality and find a distinct difference in two consecutive layers  at that locality, such that the higher one is indicative of human activity and the bottom one isn't.  Then he has to convince the rest of the geologic community.  Not much in the way of grant money required.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior

Not quite that simple on either the type section side (a great deal more must be done to distinguish an epoch than to find a type section) or the convincing the rest of the geologic community side. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
17 hours ago, Socks Junior said:

Not quite that simple on either the type section side (a great deal more must be done to distinguish an epoch than to find a type section) or the convincing the rest of the geologic community side. 

I over-simplified, of course.  But even so, this project isn't going to take all that much grant money.

There are two ways to get grant money:

1.  Somebody wants to know something, so he hires you to find out.  It's called a grant, because in research there are no guarantees.  The money is provided for the study, independent of findings.  Grants can come from the govt, private individuals, companies, foundations, etc.

2.  You would like to study something, so you try to find somebody who will pay you to do it.

The National Science Foundation requires a grant proposal of the same quality as the finished paper.  I suppose that's to see if you really know how to write one.  Proposals are often 20 pages long, or more.  In order to write a proposal, you have to do a literature review and summarize what is known about the subject.  That's so you don't reinvent the wheel.  There's no point in repeating a study that somebody else has already done, unless there's good reason to suspect a mistake.  So any grant requires two papers - the proposal and the finished report or research paper - sometimes both a report and a research paper.  All papers need to be of professional quality if you ever want to get a second grant.  Though grants don't usually require a peer-reviewed article, it is looked upon as the proper course of action if you can make it happen.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 9:51 AM, Doug1o29 said:

I over-simplified, of course.  But even so, this project isn't going to take all that much grant money.

There are two ways to get grant money:

1.  Somebody wants to know something, so he hires you to find out.  It's called a grant, because in research there are no guarantees.  The money is provided for the study, independent of findings.  Grants can come from the govt, private individuals, companies, foundations, etc.

2.  You would like to study something, so you try to find somebody who will pay you to do it.

The National Science Foundation requires a grant proposal of the same quality as the finished paper.  I suppose that's to see if you really know how to write one.  Proposals are often 20 pages long, or more.  In order to write a proposal, you have to do a literature review and summarize what is known about the subject.  That's so you don't reinvent the wheel.  There's no point in repeating a study that somebody else has already done, unless there's good reason to suspect a mistake.  So any grant requires two papers - the proposal and the finished report or research paper - sometimes both a report and a research paper.  All papers need to be of professional quality if you ever want to get a second grant.  Though grants don't usually require a peer-reviewed article, it is looked upon as the proper course of action if you can make it happen.

Doug

I read someone from the working group estimating it'll take around 3-4 years to get all the approval to make it an official thing. Assuming they get all the approval along the way. Which they probably will. It's a neatly political epoch.

NSF grants are of high quality, to be sure, but I wouldn't compare them to a finished paper in terms of quality. (I say that looking at successful ones vs. the papers they've generated.) A lot of it is good accounting, a good track record, and a good proposal. Which in itself is an oversimplification. To satisfactorily fulfill those three tenets is a helluva job. Any papers that are being put in the public eye in need to be of professional quality in general, that's assumed. The NSF generally enjoys having at least several papers published - that'll help with the next grant proposal (track record and all).

Literature reviews are always fun. It's amazing what gets into older and less well-known peer-reviewed journals. Just basic miscalculations occasionally. And then you get into the field and see that basic sampling protocols were neglected and you weep softly to yourself. But hey, it's shaving down the old square wheel so that it actually rolls.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Codenwarra

If they have to choose a particular year, 1950 is as good as any. I'm a baby boomer and was aware enough to notice that suddenly synthetic products appeared. Detergents, nylon shirts and dresses, polythene goods and so forth. Of course synthetics had been around since the late 1800s but the variety and quantity were not there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.