Tag: Earth’s Future

Was the Anthropocene Rejected by Science — or Buried by Strategy?

That headline Science or strategy? Researchers call for transparency over the Anthropocene rejection  refers to the fallout from March 2024, when the Anthropocene as a formal geological epoch was voted down, and to a long- running critique coming out of the Max Planck Society.

Researchers aligned with Max Planck argue that without published criteria, open peer review of the vote, and inclusion of social scientists and humanists, we can’t tell the difference, and that opacity undermines trust.
There is the new paper, Schäfer et al. 2026 in Earth’s Future: “Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency”

It comes from researchers linked to the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Jena. It doesn’t argue to relitigate the stratigraphy. It argues the process of the rejection itself was opaque.

Image featuring a dark, industrial landscape with smokestacks, overlaid with the question, 'Was the Anthropocene Rejected by Science — or Buried by Strategy?'
AI generated by Meta

That headline Science or strategy? Researchers call for transparency over the Anthropocene rejection  refers to the fallout from March 2024, when the Anthropocene as a formal geological epoch was voted down, and to a long- running critique coming out of the Max Planck Society.

For almost 15 years the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) worked to put the “age of humans” on the official geologic timescale.

They proposed:

  • Start date: 1952, linked to the global spike of plutonium from nuclear weapons tests
  • Golden spike location: Crawford Lake, Ontario
  • Rationale: rapid acceleration of greenhouse gases, biodiversity loss, plastics, concrete, etc. since the 1950s

In March 2024 the proposal was rejected.

The Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) voted it down, and on 20 March the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), the final arbiter, announced it was upholding that decision.

Reports described it as a highly contested decision in March 2024, with a 12 to 4 vote to reject. 

The debate didn’t end with the vote, it intensified. Two camps of criticism emerged: 

1. Scientific critique: Critics argue the plutonium spike itself is not a direct stratigraphic marker of anthropogenic Earth- system change, that the ∼70- year interval is too short for an epoch, and that evidence of human impacts are diachronous in the geological record.

2. Procedural ans strategy critique: Supporters of the AWG said the vote was leaked to media before the AWG was officially informed, violated the 60% supermajority procedures, and flew in the face of evidence presented. That’s where the transparency call comes in.

This is not new for Max Planck.

In 2016, Nicole Boivin, then Director of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, and colleagues published a Comment in Nature arguing that the soon- to- be- finalized decision was inaccurate and hasty, and that its formalization must be the result of a transparent, broad based, interdisciplinary process.

They explicitly called for the criteria for the formalization to be published and peer reviewed, rather than established in closed meetings, and for at least half the commission to come from anthropology, archaeology, history, sociology, geography and philosophy- not just stratigraphy.

The newer work coming from the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology (MPI- GEA), including Jürgen Renn, Georg Schäfer and colleagues, makes a similar point after the 2024 rejection:

The rejected recognition of an Anthropocene epoch has not ended the Anthropocene debate, rather it underscores that the decisive question is less stratigraphic than political

Their argument:

  • The Anthropocene should not be reduced to a single GSSP (plutonium line). Human impacts started as “a whisper, became a voice and then a scream”, megafaunal extinctions, fire, agriculture, irrigation, urbanization, thousands of years before 1950.
  • Focusing only on 1950s markers sustains a narrow, Eurocentric, elite view of industrial society as the only cause.
  • Geoanthropology needs open epistemic webs that link models, data, and publics, and decision infrastructures that are auditable, hence the call for transparency.

In other words: Was the 2024 rejection a strictly scientific judgment that the evidence doesn’t meet chronostratigraphic rules? Or was it a strategic move to protect the stability of the timescale and avoid a very short, highly political epoch?

Researchers aligned with Max Planck argue that without published criteria, open peer review of the vote, and inclusion of social scientists and humanists, we can’t tell the difference, and that opacity undermines trust.

Even though the epoch was not formalized, the term is alive:

  • Nature Reviews Earth & Environment now frames the debate as epoch vs. event, epoch (a formal break after the Holocene) vs. event (a cumulative, time- transgressive transformation analogous to the Great Oxidation Event)
  • Many Earth- system scientists continue to use Holocene vs. Anthropocene informally in planetary boundaries work, regardless of the official timescale.

If you want the original sources, I can pull the 2016 Boivin et al. Nature comment Involve social scientists in defining the Anthropocene and the 2024-2025 Renn et al. MPI- GEA preprint The Decision for the Anthropocene – Between Activism, Doubt and Responsibility.

Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency

There is the new paper, Schäfer et al. 2026 in Earth’s Future: “Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency”

It comes from researchers linked to the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Jena. It doesn’t argue to relitigate the stratigraphy. It argues the process of the rejection itself was opaque.

What happened

In March 2024, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) upheld the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy’s (SQS) decision to formally reject the Anthropocene Working Group’s (AWG) proposal

Despite the outcome, the AWG continues to publish evidence that the authors say meets established standards, a globally synchronous plutonium signal and 12 depositional environments.

The problem, they say, is not that rejection is impossible, but that the manner of rejection remains unexplained.

What is problematic is the manner in which this rejection occurred.

The scientific basis for rejection therefore remains opaque. 

Documented procedural violations they list

1. Violation of SQS chair’s rights: the vote was called against the expressed will of the chair who according to the Statutes is leader of the Subcommission

2. Invalid voting process:

  • 11 of the 16 members who cast votes were ineligible under ICS Rule 9, their terms having exceeded the 12- year limit, leaving eligible members short of quorum
  • Valid Standard Auxiliary Boundary Stratotypes proposals were excluded from deliberation despite meeting ICS requirements

3. Compromised evaluation:
The AWG received no opportunity to respond to comments, including those that revealed misconceptions, or to revise the proposal, counter to ICS procedure that a proposal must receive extended opportunity for open discussion. The matter then passed to a quickly convened ICS meeting from which the SQS Chair was excluded and on to IUGS ratification within days.

4. Suppression of ethics oversight:
The IUGS’s own Commission on Geoethics submitted a report in January 2024 concluding the AWG had been unfairly treated and recommending immediate suspension of voting procedures. The Executive Committee ignored it, forwarding the report only after results leaked via the New York Times. That Geoethics report remains publicly inaccessible.

They also cite earlier suppression: at STRATI 2023 in Lille, the AWG’s press conference was withdrawn from the venue and media were instructed not to interview AWG members inside.

And the Geoethics Commission itself was then disestablished on 28 April 2025 with the justification that its objectives do not offer sufficient interest, only reinstated in June 2025 on an interim basis without financial support. 

Science or Strategy?

The core question they pose:

Was the AWG proposal rejected on scientific grounds, such as methodological concerns, marker inadequacy, disputes over the timing of the boundary, or did institutional politics and strategic gatekeeping prove decisive?

Until today, neither SQS, ICS, nor IUGS explained the evidentiary threshold by which it was judged inadequate.

What they demand

They explicitly say:

We are not calling for reversal of the IUGS decision, nor seeking to relitigate the stratigraphic evidence… We call for transparency.

Two steps:

1. Full disclosure of relevant documentation, including the IUGS Commission on Geoethics report, SQS voting records, and communications
2. Independent review commissioned by a body independent of the IUGS, such as the International Science Council

Their argument: The Anthropocene concept has long transcended geoscience, archaeology, history, ecology, law, public discourse, and if decisions as consequential as this can be made behind closed doors, geoscience’s capacity to inform society is diminished. 

Journal information: Earth’s Future

First published: 01 October 2026

DOI: 10.1029/2025EF007638

Provided: Max Planck Society

Authors: Georg N. Schäfer, Jürgen Renn, Christoph Rosol, Jochen Büttner

Abstract

In a recent Earth’s Future article, Skelton and Noone (2025, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024ef005719) crystallized the dilemma facing the geoscientific community: the Anthropocene Working Group’s (AWG) evidentiary case for an Anthropocene epoch is at least as strong as, and in their view stronger than, that for the Holocene. Yet a substantive scientific debate cannot proceed until the reasons for the rejection of the AWG’s proposal to formalize the Anthropocene as a geological epoch are made transparent. Often framed as a question of stratigraphic markers and boundary criteria, the Anthropocene controversy now turns on a more fundamental issue: whether current institutional practices for establishing geological time units meet the transparency and procedural standards expected in times of heavy public reliance on Earth-system expertise. Drawing on surfaced communications, public statements, independent reporting and publicly available documentation, we identify unresolved procedural irregularities in the evaluation of the AWG proposal, including questions about voter eligibility and quorum, restricted access to key documents, and the handling of an IUGS-commissioned geoethics report. These matters have not been addressed in a systematic or public way. We argue that clarifying the basis of the decision—scientific or otherwise—is essential to preserve trust in stratigraphic governance and, by extension, in the institutions that underpin global environmental knowledge. We therefore call for full disclosure of the relevant documentation and an independent procedural review to ensure that decisions about Geological Time Scale remain credible and legitimate in the context of rapid planetary change.

PDF: Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency

Promising Arctic Ice Restoration Technique Proves Feasible Locally, But Not at Climate Scale

During the cold Arctic winter, drill holes through existing sea ice floes and use pumps (powered by gasoline in the small tests, with plans for renewables like wind or hydrogen in larger concepts) to bring up seawater from below and spread it across the surface.

During the cold Arctic winter, drill holes through existing sea ice floes and use pumps (powered by gasoline in the small tests, with plans for renewables like wind or hydrogen in larger concepts) to bring up seawater from below and spread it across the surface.

The frigid air freezes the water quickly, adding a layer of ice on top. This also compacts overlying snow, which can reduce insulation and promote additional ice growth from below as heat conducts upward more efficiently.

Proponents, including startups like Real Ice and Arctic Reflections, and researchers at the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Climate Repair, frame it as “restoration” rather than full geoengineering—enhancing a natural process to make ice thicker and potentially more likely to survive summer melt.

The goal is to increase albedo (reflectivity) and slow the ice-albedo feedback loop: Less ice means more dark ocean absorbs sunlight, warming the region further and accelerating melt.

Two small tests delivered proof-of-concept results:

Svalbard lagoon (Norway): Researchers used a gasoline-powered pump delivering ~3,500 liters of seawater per minute. They flooded a limited area and saw rapid surface freezing plus extra bottom-up growth as the added layer compacted snow and improved heat conduction.

Cambridge Bay, Nunavut (Canada): Real Ice’s team (with partners) used battery-powered pumps to flood up to 250,000 m² (about 62 acres) of sea ice. They added roughly 30 cm (12 inches) of new ice thickness compared with nearby control sites—equivalent to decades of natural thinning caused by warming. Drone and satellite data even showed the engineered patches were initially ~40% brighter.

By June, the thickened ice had melted at the same rate as untouched areas. Ocean heat from below, surface slush, and ponding erased the gains. The engineered patches broke up when the surrounding bay ice fractured—exactly like the controls.

Independent glaciologists called even these tiny-scale efforts “enormous.” Scaling to cover meaningful portions of the Arctic (millions of square kilometers) would require fleets of floating, renewable-powered pumps operating through the polar night—logistically and energetically daunting. One researcher described it as “using a teaspoon to hold the ocean back.”

Arctic sea ice has been shrinking dramatically for decades (summer minimum extent down ~13% per decade). These experiments show the technique works locally in winter, but they also highlight the gap between small tests and climate impact. Broader reviews of polar geoengineering (including this approach, reflective glass beads, and underwater curtains) conclude none are currently viable at the speed or scale needed—and some carry environmental risks.

The results were published last week in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans and a preprint in Earth’s Future.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Here are the two specific studies referenced in the Science article (published around April 17, 2026):

1. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans (published April 2026)

Title: Field Observations of Sea Ice Thickening by Artificial Flooding

Authors: Lead author includes Hammer et al. (Svalbard team, involving Arctic Reflections and collaborators like The University Centre in Svalbard and Delft University)

DOI / Link: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025JC022738 (open access)

Key details from the paper:

  • Conducted in Vallunden Lagoon (Van Mijenfjord), Svalbard, from March to June 2024.
  • They artificially flooded a small area (~1,500 m²) with seawater pumped from below during April 11–15, 2024.
  • Results: Added ~26 cm of ice thickness on top of the original ~90 cm first-year ice. The flooding heated and increased salinity in the upper ice layers. Surface albedo changed due to slush, snow drift, and melt events.
  • Positive short-term effects: Thicker ice and a 6-day delay in “rotten ice” formation.
  • Limitation: The extra thickness did not delay the final disappearance of the ice in summer compared to the non-flooded reference site. Ocean heat and surface processes erased the gains.

This is the smaller-scale Svalbard lagoon test mentioned in the coverage.

2. Preprint in Earth’s Future (now accepted for publication)

Title: Artificial flooding leads to thicker and brighter Arctic sea ice (or similar; full title describes the Cambridge Bay fieldwork campaign)

Link to preprint: https://essopenarchive.org/doi/full/10.22541/essoar.176556285.57463888/v1 (December 2025 version; the peer-reviewed version is accepted in Earth’s Future)

Key details:

Conducted in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut (Canada), over the 2024/2025 sea ice season (Real Ice collaboration with University of Cambridge Centre for Climate Repair and others).

Larger test: Flooded up to ~250,000 m² using battery-powered pumps in multiple sessions.

Results: Flooded areas were up to 30 cm thicker than control (unflooded) sites by early May, with slightly thinner snow cover. Sites flooded twice thickened more than those flooded once. Drone/satellite data showed the thickened ice was initially ~40% brighter (higher albedo).

During melt: Brighter appearance and initially slower melt rates, but the ice ultimately broke up when the surrounding bay ice fractured in summer—similar fate to controls.

Both studies demonstrate that artificial flooding can thicken sea ice and temporarily increase reflectivity in winter/early spring, but the added thickness did not persist through summer melt under the tested conditions.

Access notes

The JGR: Oceans paper is open access (full PDF available directly via the Wiley link above).

The preprint is freely downloadable from ESS Open Archive.

If you have institutional access or are willing to pay for the final Earth’s Future version once fully published, that will be the polished peer-reviewed form.

These are the exact publications behind the recent Science news piece. The findings align with what was summarized: promising local winter thickening (~20–30 cm, equivalent to reversing decades of thinning), but no lasting summer survival advantage in these small trials, highlighting the massive scaling challenges for any meaningful Arctic-wide impact.