that is distinct from those of the Holocene epoch. Among scientists dealing with the Anthropocene, only Earth sciences researchers and Earth Systems scientists have the cultural and technical tools to be aware of the excep- tionality of the times we are living in within the human enterprise, but also within geologic time spanning tens of millions of years. Consequently, they have a responsi- bility to inform policymakers and the public about the risks young people will face in near future, and the for- malization of the Anthropocene represents an extraordi- nary opportunity in this respect, that has been missed for now. 2. THE PROPOSAL When introducing the term Anthropocene, Crutzen & Stoermer (2000) and Crutzen (2002), proposed the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Europe, with the introduction of Watt-Boulton’s steam engine (1788). This technological breakthrough led to changes in green- house gas concentrations in the atmosphere through increased burning of coal, later accompanied by oil and natural gas. The resulting geological effects were gradu- al and varied in time and space, with no single clear isochronous signal in the geological record. However, the formalization of a new unit must re- spect the strict rules of the International Stratigraphic Guide published by the International Subcommission on Stratigraphic Classification (ISSC), a constituent body of the ICS operating within the IUGS. A precise global start date in the International Geologic Time Scale (GTS) and a correlative Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Available online http://amq.aiqua.it ISSN (print): 2279-7327, ISSN (online): 2279-7335 Alpine and Mediterranean Quaternary, 38 (2), 2025, 111-117 https://doi.org/10.26382/AMQ.2025.06 1. INTRODUCTION In March 2024, the proposal of the International Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), founded in 2009 within the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) to study the suitability of the Anthropocene to be promoted to a formal chronostratigraphic unit of the Geological Timescale, was refused by International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) and the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS). The statement reads: “Despite its rejection as a formal unit of the Geo- logic Time Scale, the Anthropocene will nevertheless continue to be used not only by Earth and environmen- tal scientists, but also by social scientists, politicians and economists, as well as by the public at large. It will re- main an invaluable descriptor of human impact on the Earth system” (IUGS, 2024). One of the main obstacles to the acceptance of the Anthropocene as a new epoch is the short duration (ca 72 years) of the time interval from the year 1952 CE, which the AWG choose as the beginning of the Anthro- pocene. However, the Anthropocene concept of the IUGS is different from the “epoch” concept proposed by Crutzen & Stoermer (2000) and Crutzen (2002). The Anthropocene “event” of those in opposition to the “epoch” relegates the importance of the post-mid-20th transformation to simply the latest of many phases of human influence on the Earth, which dates back to the Pleistocene, at least 50,000 years ago. The AWG has provided an enormous amount of data to support the Anthropocene as a chronostrati- graphic unit, with a clear signature in sediments and ice THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GEOLOGISTS IN DEFINING THE ANTHROPOCENE Dario Zampieri Senior scholar at the “Studium patavinum” of Università degli Studi di Padova, Padova, Italy. Corresponding author: Dario Zampieri ABSTRACT: The Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS), a constituent body of the International Commission on Stra- tigraphy (ICS), established the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) in 2009 to examine the Anthropocene as a potential new formal division of the Geological Time Scale (GTS). In October 2023 the AWG submitted the formal proposal to ICS, which in March 2024 rejected the proposal. Among the humanities and Earth system scientists, only the geologists, more than anyone else, have the cultural and technical tools to be aware of the exceptionality of today’s times and to place them in deep time context. For example, dealing with one of the main threats, the climate crisis, few are aware that the speed and scale of anthropogenic release rate of the CO2 are unprecedented during the Cenozoic (last 66 Ma). The rejection of Anthropocene formalization hinders the communication, to the public and to policymakers, of the exceptionality of what physically the Anthropocene is, and of the related catastrophic risks to human civilization. Geologists have a responsibility to inform society about the risks young people will face in the near future, and formalization of the Anthropocene represents an extraordinary opportunity in this respect, that has been missed for now. . Keywords: Anthropocene, climate crisis, tipping points, geologic analogues, geoethics. Point (GSSP, often called a “golden spike”), which is used to calibrate the stratigraphical record, are needed. Afterwards, the community of Earth System sci- ence (ESS) researchers identified an array of global and near-synchronous signals at ~1950 CE, reflecting abrupt changes of socio-economic factors and biophysical pro- cesses. This process, termed the “Great Acceleration”, was coincident with, and driven by, unprecedented in- creases in population, energy consumption, industriali- sation, pollution and globalisation following the end of World War II (Steffen et al., 2015a). Between 2020 and 2023, 12 research teams for- mulated proposals for candidate GSSPs and other refer- ence sections in eight distinct geological environments that cover five continents to define the base of the An- thropocene as a series within the GTS (Waters et al., 2023). Among the 12 candidates, the AWG chose as golden spike a level that separates the summer and autumn sediment layers laid down in 1952 within varved sediments in Crawford Lake, a small meromictic lake occupying a sinkhole in Silurian dolomitic limestones of Ontario, Canada. There, the primary marker shows a rapid increase in 239+240Pu radionuclide concentrations from above- ground nuclear detonations, a signal clearly seen in many of the proposed sites, and tens of secondary markers have been identified (McCarthy et al., 2023, 2025). The efforts made by AWG to respect the rules imposed by the ISSC, as testified by an enormous cor- pus of publications (e.g. Zalasiewicz et al., 2019; Head et al., 2023a, 2023b; Waters et al., 2024) - by now the term Anthropocene had been cited in over 145,000 doc- uments [(over 15,000 limiting the research to “article title, abstract, keywords” (https://www.scopus.com/)] - have so far proved useless, and formalisation of the Anthropocene must wait another submission in coming years. In my view, the geologists have missed a great opportunity to master what is within their own compe- tence, delegating to the social and economic disciplines the mastering of the Anthropocene concept. In doing so, they hinder the communication to the public and the policymakers of the exceptionality of what the Anthropo- cene is physically, and of the attendant multiple crises with related catastrophic risks for human civilization. 3. THE EXCEPTIONALITY OF THE ANTHROPOCENE Starting with the 20th century, the use of a cheap and high-power density energy - oil - has produced an abrupt planetary change forced by the cumulative and overwhelming impacts of human activities. The im- mense instantaneous power offered by managing fossil fuels has been compared by Hansen (2009) to the bar- gain with Mephistopheles, who offered Faustus his pre- sent desire (i.e. power) at the cost of future detriment (i.e. climate disruption). Fossil fuels raised living stand- ards in much of the world, by replacing the labour of humans and domestic animals. Globally, the world we inhabit is built and powered to the level of 87% by fossil fuels (Energy Institute, 2025), and some of their industrial uses are difficult to replace. Analysis of the past evolution of energy sources allows us to infer that the substitution of fossil fuels by renewables may require several generations (Smil, 2017). Since energy demands are increasing, renewables are presently supplementing fossil fuels rather than replacing them, supporting Fressoz's thesis (Fressoz, 2025) that there has never been a transition between energy systems in the past, but rather that different forms of energy are symbiotic. Consequently, climate breakdown and unprece- dented biodiversity loss and the dispersal of novel enti- ties (new substances, new forms of existing substances and modified life forms not previously known to the Earth system) to the environment put humanity at grave risk, and threaten human lives, livelihoods and wellbeing worldwide. Using the comparatively stable interglacial Holo- cene as the baseline, nine biophysical systems and processes that are critical for maintaining the stability and resilience of the Earth System have been recog- nized (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015b). Seven of nine Planetary Boundaries are now assessed as having been crossed, namely for biosphere integrity, climate change, land use, interference with biogeo- chemical cycles of nitrogen and phosphorus, novel enti- ties, freshwater change and lastly ocean acidification (Persson et al., 2022; Wang-Erlandsson et al., 2022; Richardson et al., 2023; Stenzel et al., 2025; Kitzmann et al., 2025). The two remaining planetary boundaries that are not transgressed are stratospheric ozone deple- tion and the increase in atmospheric aerosol loading. Many components of the Great Acceleration and Planetary Boundaries concepts can be analysed as regards their stratigraphic representation, since the An- thropocene emerged from ESS, but geologists have been able to assess the signals of the present environ- mental changes captured by sedimentary strata (e.g. Zalasiewicz et al., 2017). 4. TIPPING POINTS Earth system ‘tipping points’ are critical thresholds when environmental stresses become so severe that large parts of the natural world are unable to maintain their current state, leading to abrupt and/or irreversible changes (e.g. Marten, 2005; Lenton et al., 2008). Twenty-six Earth system tipping points have been identified from evidence of past changes, observational records and computer models: six in the cryosphere, sixteen in the biosphere, and four in atmospheric and oceanic circulation (Lenton et al., 2019, 2023, 2025). Global warming is rapidly approaching levels that could trigger individual tipping points in systems that can interact with and destabilise other tipping systems, mak- ing tipping cascades possible. As warming approaches and surpasses 2°C this may cause tipping points, once considered low-likelihood, to rapidly become much high- er-likelihood events (Abrams et al., 2023). Lenton et al. (2023) identified five major tipping systems that are already at risk of crossing tipping points at the present level of global warming: the Green- land and West Antarctic ice sheets, warm-water coral reefs, North Atlantic Subpolar Gyre circulation, and per- mafrost regions. However, considering the “committed warming” due to thermal inertia of the oceans, which take up ca. 90% of the Earth’s energy imbalance (von Schuckmann et al., 2023), global warming continues to rise for long periods after a given increase. Recently, Lee et al. (2025) carried out simulations showing that human-induced perturbations will persist well beyond 2100 for several centuries. Abrams et al. (2023) have investigated the commit- 112 Zampieri D. https://www.scopus.com/ (Pagani et al., 2005). High-frequency changes in climate have been driven by periodic oscillations in Earth’s or- bital parameters of eccentricity, obliquity, and preces- sion that affect the distribution and amount of incident solar energy. By contrast, gradual changes in Earth’s major boundary conditions were controlled by plate tec- tonics, with North Atlantic rift volcanism, opening of the Tasmanian and Drake Antarctic gateways, collision of India with Asia and subsequent uplift of the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau, and the uplift of Panama and clo- sure of the Central American Seaway. In the Cenozoic time interval, a prominent climatic aberration is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred at ca. 56 Ma near the Paleo- cene/Eocene (P/E) boundary, accompanied by a major perturbation in the global carbon cycle as inferred from carbon isotope data. More than 10,000 petagrams of isotopically heavy carbon were released from volcanism associated with the North Atlantic Igneous Province (Gutjiar et al., 2017). Sea surface temperatures as constrained by plank- tonic isotope records increased by as much as 8°C at high latitudes in less than 10 ka. The carbon release to the atmosphere occurred at a rate of 0.6-1.1 Pg C a-1, the record high during the past 66 million years. The initial carbon release during the PETM onset occurred over 4,000 to 6,000 years (Zeebe et al., 2016; Li et al., 2022). Presently, anthropogenic carbon release rates are ca. 11 Pg C a-1, one order of magnitude higher than inferred for the PETM. Therefore, the anthropogenic release rate is unprecedented during the Cenozoic, and this represents a fundamental challenge to constraining future climate projections. Climate simulations performed by Earth system models have shown that under very high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions scenario, the Eocene emerges as the most likely analogue, accelerating after 2050 and representing the future climate by 2140 CE. An Eocene- like climate emergence would suggest that the unmiti- gated warming of the RCP8.5 scenario is approximately equivalent to reversing a 50-Ma cooling trend in two centuries (Burke et al., 2018). Under the RCP4.5 scenario, characterized by moderate emissions mitigation, the Pliocene emerges as the most common best analogue and climate stabiliz- es at Pliocene-like conditions by 2040 CE. Pliocene-like and Eocene-like climates emerge first in continental interiors and then expand outwards (Burke et al., 2018). In the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) (IPCC, 2021) the RCP scenarios have been substituted by a new range of scenarios based on Shared Socio- economic Pathways (SSPs; O’Neill et al., 2016). The set of SSPs recognizes that global radiative forcing lev- els can be achieved by different pathways of CO2, non- CO2 greenhouse gases, aerosols and land use; the set of SSPs therefore establishes a matrix of global forcing levels and socio-economic narratives (IPCC, 2021). Since the RCPs are labelled by the level of radiative forcing they reach in 2100, they can in principle be relat- ed to the SSPs scenarios. In this sense, the RCP4.5 roughly corresponds to middle-of-the-road SSP2-4.5 (IPCC, 2021, Fig. 1.28), but they are not directly compa- rable. Although in AR6, the high-end scenarios RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 have been argued to be implausible to unfold, these low-likelihood but high-impact scenarios must be considered, given the stake. The Mid-Pliocene (3.3-3.0 My), also known as the ted warming associated with the CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) for each year for three emission scenarios. The results are that the best-estimate threshold will be passed for one, two, and six climate tipping points by the end of the century for the “pre-commitment transient phase” under RCP2.6. RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 scenarios, respectively [RCP2.6 is a strong mitigation scenario in which radia- tive forcing peaks at approximately 2.6 W/m2 before 2100 and then slowly declines; RCP 4.5 is the interme- diate stabilization pathways with 4.5 W/m2 radiative forcing stabilized after 2100; RCP8.5 is the high emis- sions pathway for which radiative forcing reaches >8.5 W/m2 by 2100 (Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) from IPCC, 2013)]. But, during the subsequent “commitment transient phase”, extra warming will increase the risk of triggering climate tipping points, pushing mean tempera- tures into the possible tipping threshold range for five, six, and nine climate tipping points under RCP2.6. RCP4.5, and RCP8.5, respectively. Under RCP4.5, the scenario that best matches current national commit- ments, the gap between committed equilibrium warming and pre-commitment transient temperatures is estimat- ed to be 1.2°C in 2100 (Abrams et al., 2023). Randers & Goluke (2020) have modelled the de- velopment of the global climate system from 1850 to 2500 under different assumptions about the emission of human GHGs, finding that a point-of-no return is already behind us. The self-sustained melting of the permafrost caused by methane release, lower surface albedo caused by Arctic marine ice melting, and higher atmos- pheric humidity would be triggered by just +0.5°C above the pre-industrial level. In any case, an increase of the global temperature of 1.5°C - as desired by the Paris Agreement and already reached by now - would not be “safe” (e.g. Möller et al., 2024). This level of warning, including the scientific uncer- tainty about how close we might be to a tipping point, would require climate governance based on principles of international law, such as precaution, equity and justice, as well as care for future generations. Short-term deci- sions can have severe, even catastrophic, consequenc- es over extremely long-time horizons, potentially affect- ing life on Earth for several millennia, and future genera- tions’ chances for survival and wellbeing (Lenton et al., 2023, 2025). 5. THE CENOZOIC ANALOGUES Of the nine planetary boundaries, climate change is of special interest to the Earth scientists, since the shift from Holocene stable conditions during which set- tled civilization developed could make the planet ungov- ernable. The planetary boundary for atmospheric CO2 concentration is set at 350 ppmv and for radiative forc- ing at 1 Wm-2 (Richardson et al., 2023). Currently, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is ca. 425 ppmv (https:// scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/) and the estimated total anthropo- genic effective radiative forcing is 2.91 Wm-2 [2022 esti- mate, relative to 1750 (Forster et al., 2023)]. Geologic analogues from past climate events are invaluable in understanding the impact of massive car- bon release on the Earth system. Since 66 Ma, the Ce- nozoic era, Earth’s climate system has experienced continuous changes, but the global climate trend has been one of cooling (Zachos et al., 2001), while atmos- pheric CO2 concentrations have declined overall 113 The responsibility of geologists in defining the Anthropocene. Piacenzian warm period, remains the best palaeocli- mate for understanding the workings of the Earth sys- tem at ca. 400 ppmv (360-420 ppmv) concentrations of CO2 (Burke et al., 2018; IPCC, 2021). Therefore, the Pliocene is the most appropriate analogue at 400 ppmv, since today we are at ca. 425 ppmv, although the ongo- ing increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration makes the Miocene Climatic Optimum (ca. 16.9-14.7 My, ca. 400-600 ppmv of CO2) a strong candidate to serve as a future climate analogue (Steinthorsdottir et al., 2021). In the Mid-Pliocene, mean annual surface temperatures were approximately 1.8 °C to 3.6 °C higher than prein- dustrial temperatures, the ice sheet extents were re- duced, and sea level was about 16 m higher than today (Burke et al., 2018; Dumitru et al., 2019). The AR6 sets as very likely (90-100% probability) a global mean sea level (GMSL) 5-25 m higher than today and tempera- tures 2.5°C-4°C warmer (IPCC, 2021). Therefore, sea level and temperature rises are both committed, unless implausibly large volcanic eruptions injecting aerosols into Earth’s stratosphere will last for decades. 6. DISCUSSION The main criticisms to the proposal of the Anthro- pocene as formal unit in the GTS is that 72 years is too short to recognize an epoch, and that the future is not geologic time. Apart the identification of a potential GSSP at the Crawford Lake, time is precisely the varia- ble that makes the formalization of the Anthropocene an urgent and invaluable issue. The global changes of the Earth system produced by Homo sapiens - though mainly by Western societies - in less than a century are so profound that they pose some of the gravest threats faced by humanity. For example, dealing with one of the main threats, the climate crisis, the anthropogenic re- lease rate of the CO2 is unprecedented during the Ceno- zoic (last 66 Ma). Such an exceptional event may be fully understood in its planetary context only by Earth scientists. During the Phanerozoic (last 538 Ma) our planet has suffered five main extinction episodes, and several minor extinctions, always accompanied by climate cri- ses, fostering the evolution of living organisms including our species. However, the rise of what we call civiliza- tion benefitted from the stable conditions of the mid- Holocene (the last 103 years), when climate and global mean sea level remained nearly constant. Therefore, what is presently at risk is human civilisation, not the life itself or the planet. Regarding the criticism regarding the inherently future scope of the Anthropocene, it must be remem- bered that although the Anthropocene is, so far, of ex- tremely short duration, the Anthropocene changes are already affecting the sedimentological and stratigraphic record, leaving a distinctively transformed fossil record that will persist long into the future. The climate system is already a mayor element of the proposed new epoch, and future projection is a standard part of science (Summerhayes et al., 2024). The long timescale of the temperature responses to anthropogenic forcing, with the committed warming in the pipeline, is a consequence of the ocean’s great ther- mal inertia (Hansen et al., 2023). The climate system’s slow response allows the possibility to avoid the “point of no return”. The delayed response provides humanity time to mitigate the anthropogenic climate forcing so that the equilibrium warming - or even the 100-year warming, the time in which 60% of the equilibrium warming is achieved - may never occur (Hansen et al., 2025). However, the time for action is now, not tomor- row. Among natural scientists, Earth scientists and par- ticularly geologists are the only ones who have constant awareness of the deep time dimension. Not surprisingly therefore, the setting of global standards for expressing the history of the Earth by means of the units (periods, epochs and age) of the GTS is the responsibility of geol- ogists. But, after all, the geological division of time is a human construction subjected to continuous refine- ments. In the recent past, geologists did not disdain to strongly quarrel over the GTS, the last time about the use of the name Quaternary (Kerr, 2008). The designa- tion of the Holocene epoch itself may be questioned, since it is based on a climatic definition, being just one more interglacial period in a long series started 2.6 Ma ago (Lewis & Maslin, 2015). However, the Anthropocene is not only an aca- demic issue, because its consequences are an existen- tial threat to civilization and the designation of the An- thropocene in general as an “invaluable descriptor of human impact on the Earth system” (IUGS, 2024) con- fuses the specific meaning of the Anthropocene as pro- posed by Crutzen and worked on by the AWG. 7. CONCLUSIONS The decision to reject the formalization of the An- thropocene, which must await a re-submission, has temporally delegated to social and humanity scientists the managing of this concept. In this way, its link to the dimension of deep time, the prerogative of the geolo- gists, is likely to be lost, along with the challenge of sys- temic risk governance. The long delay of climate in achieving its equilibrium response is both a curse and a blessing, because a great amount of future warming may be built up before actions required to stem climate change are undertaken. In addition, scientific uncertain- ty about how close we might be to a tipping point should be reason for urgent action, not delay. The full assumption of responsibility allowed by formalization of the Anthropocene by geologists would have greatly informed policymakers of the critical mo- ment we are living through in human history. The ethical obligation of modern geoscientists includes the transfer of knowledge to society, not only to the scientific com- munity (Bobrowsky et al., 2018). The extremely high stakes involved place a major burden of responsibility on the present generations and dramatically elevate the need for a precautionary approach, also to avoid inter- generational injustice towards young people and their descendants. The nature of the threats presented by tipping dynamics in the Earth system challenges the common linear logic of decision-making in global gov- ernance. Short-term decisions, that is actions and inac- tion over the next 10 years, can have ripple effects over millennia. Policymakers must consider their responsibility for future impacts that only they can prevent, but they must urgently be informed and pressed by geologists. It is desirable that the SQS and/or the ICS review the An- thropocene soon. 114 Zampieri D. Gutjahr M., Ridgwell A., Sexton P., Anagnostou E., Pearson P.N., Pälike H., Norris R.D., Thomas E., Foster G.L. (2017) - Very large release of mostly volcanic carbon during the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Nature, 548, 573-577. Doi: 10.1038/nature23646 Hansen J. (2009) - Storms of My Grandchildren. The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. New York, Bloomsbury, pp. 336. Hansen J.E., Sato M., Simons L., Nazarenko L.S., von Schuckmann K., Loeb N.G., Osman M.B., Jin Q., Tselioudis G., Jeong E., Lacis A., Ruedy R., Russell G., Cao J., Li J. (2023) - Global warming in the pipeline. Oxford Open Clim. Chang., 3 (1). Doi: 10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008 Hansen J.E., Kharecha P., Sato M., Tselioudis G., Kelly J., Bauer S.E., Ruedy R., Jeong E., Jin Q., Rignot E., Velicogna I., Schoeberl M.R., von Schuckmann K., Amponsem J., Cao J., Keskinen A., Li J., Pokela A. (2025) - Global Warming Has Accelerat- ed: Are the United Nations and the Public Well- Informed? Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 67, 1, 6-44. Doi: 10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494 Head M.J., Waters C.N., Zalasiewicz J.A., Barnosky A.D., Turner S.D., Cearreta A., Leinfelder R., McCarthy F.M.G., Richter, de B D., Rose N.L., Saito Y., Vidas D., Wagreich M., Han Y., Summerhayes C.P., Williams M., Zinke J. (2023a) - The Anthropocene as an epoch is distinct from all other concepts known by this term. Journal of Quaternary Science, 38(4), 455-458. Doi: 10.1002/jqs.3513 Head M.J., Zalasiewicz J.A., Waters C.N., Turner S.D., Williams M., Barnosky A.D., Steffen W., Wagreich M., Haff P.K., Syvitski J., Leinfelder R., McCarthy F.M.G., Rose N.L., Wing S.L., An Z., Cearreta A., Cundy A.B., Fairchild I.J., Han Y., Ivar do Sul J.A., Jeandel C., McNeill J.R., Summerhayes C.P. (2023b) - The Anthropocene is a prospective epoch/series, not a geological event. Episodes, 46 (2), 229-238. Doi: 10.18814/epiiugs/2022/022025 Kerr R.A. (2008) - A time war over the period in which we live. Science, 319, 402-403. Doi: 10.1126/science.319.5862.402 Kitzmann N.H., Caesar L., Sakschewski B., Rockström J. (eds.) (2025) - Planetary Health Check 2025, A scientific assessment of the state of the planet. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany. www.planetaryhealthcheck.org/ IPCC (2013) - Climate Change 2013: The Physical Sci- ence Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker T.F., Qin D., Plattner G.-K., Plattner G.-K., Tignor M., Allen S.K., Boschung J., Nauels A., Xia Y., Bex V., Midgley P.M. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1535. www.cambridge.org/9781107661820 IPCC (2021) - Climate Change 2021: The Physical Sci- ence Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte V., ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank Giovanni Monegato for discussions on the Anthropocene that have continued for several years. I’m also grateful to Michael Wagreich and Jan Zalasiewicz for their suggestions that enriched the previous version of this text. Declaration of Competing Interest The author declare that he has no known compet- ing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Data Availability No data was used for the research described in the article. REFERENCES Abrams J.F., Huntingford C., Williamson M.S., Armstrong McKay D.I., Boulton C.A., Buxton J.E., Sakschewski B., Loriani S., Zimm C., Winkelmann R., Lenton T.M. (2023) - Committed global warm- ing risks triggering multiple climate tipping points. Earth's Future, 11, e2022EF003250. Doi: 10.1029/2022EF003250 Bobrowsky P., Cronin V.S., Di Capua G., Kieffer S.W., Peppoloni S. (2018) - In Gundersen L.C. (ed.) Scientific Integrity and Ethics in the Geosciences, AGU Special Publications, 73, 175-212. Burke K.D., Williams J.W., Chandler M.A., Haywood A.M., Lunt D.J., Otto-Bliesner B.L. (2018) - Plio- cene and Eocene provide best analogs for near- future climates. PNAS, 115, 52, 13288-13293. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.1809600115 Crutzen P.J. (2002) - The geology of mankind. Geology, 415, 23. Doi: 10.1038/415023a Crutzen P.J., Stoermer E.F. (2000) - Anthropocene. IGBP Global Change Newsletter, 41, 17-18. Dumitru O.A., Austermann J., Polyak V.J., Fornós J., Asmerom Y., Ginés J., Onac B.P. (2019) - Con- straints on global mean sea level during Pliocene warmth. Nature, 574, 233-236. Doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1543-2 Energy Institute (2025) - Statistical Review of World Energy. 74th Edition, pp. 76. www.energyinst.org/statistical-review Forster P.M., Smith C.J., Walsh T., Lamb W.F, Lamboll R., Hauser M., Ribes A., Rosen D., Gillett N., Palmer M.D., Rogelj J., von Schuckmann K., Seneviratne S.I., Trewin B., Zhang X., Allen M., Andrew R., Birt A., Borger A., Boyer T., Broersma J.A., Cheng L., Dentener F., Friedlingstein P., Gutiérrez J.M., Guẗschow J., Hall B., Ishii M., Jenkins S., Lan X., Lee J.Y, Morice C., Kadow C., Kennedy J., Killick R., Minx J.C., Naik V., Peters G.P., Pirani A., Pongratz J., Schleussner C.F., Szopa S., Thorne P., Rohde R., Corradi M.R., Schumacher D., Vose R., Zickfeld K., Masson- Delmotte V., Zhai P. (2023) - Indicators of Global Climate Change 2022: Annual update of large- scale indicators of the state of the climate system and the human influence. Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2295-2327. Doi: 10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023 Fressoz J.B. (2025) - More and More and More. An All- Consuming History. Penguin Books, London, pp. 320. 115 The responsibility of geologists in defining the Anthropocene. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23646#auth-Heiko-P_like-Aff7 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23646 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008 https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494 https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3513 https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2022/022025 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.319.5862.402 https://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org/ http://www.cambridge.org/9781107661820 https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003250 http://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1809600115 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1543-2 http://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023 Zhai P., Pirani A., Connors S. L., Péan C., Berger S., Caud N., Chen Y., Goldfarb L., Gomis M.I., Huang M., Leitzell K., Lonnoy E., Matthews J.B. R., Maycock T.K., Waterfield T., Yelekçi O., Yu R., Zhou B. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2391 Doi: 10.1017/9781009157896 IUGS (2024) - https://stratigraphy.org/news/152. Lee S. S., Sharma S., Rosenbloom N., Rodgers K. B., Kim J-E., Kwon E. Y., Franzke C. L. E., Kim I-W, Sreeush M. G., Stein K. (2025) - Multi-centennial climate change. In a warming world beyond 2100. Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1427-1451. Doi: 10.5194/esd-16-1427-2025 Lenton T.M., Held H., Kriegler E., Hall J.W., Lucht W., Rahmstorf S., Schellnhuber H.J. (2008) - Tipping Elements in the Earth's Climate System. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Science, 105 (6), 1786-1793. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.0705414105 Lenton T.M., Rockström J., Gaffney O., Rahmstorf S., Richardson K., Steffen W., Schellnhuber H.J. (2019) - Climate tipping points too risky to bet against, Nature, 575, 592-595. Doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0 Lenton T.M., Armstrong McKay D.I., Loriani S., Abrams J.F., Lade S.J., Donges J.F., Milkoreit M., Powell T., Smith S. R., Zimm C., Buxton J.E., Bailey E., Laybourn L., Ghadiali A., Dyke J.G. (eds.) (2023) - The Global Tipping Points Report 2023. University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. Lenton T.M., Milkoreit M., Willcock S., Abrams J.F., Armstrong McKay D.I., Buxton J.E. Donges J.F., Loriani S., Wunderling N., Alkemade F., Barrett M., Constantino S., Powell T., Smith S.R., Boulton C.A., Pinho P., Dijkstra H.A., Pearce-Kelly P., Roman-Cuesta R.M., Dennis D. (eds.) (2025) - The Global Tipping Points Report 2025. University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. https://global-tipping-points.org/ Lewis S.L., Maslin M.A. (2015) - Defining the Anthropo- cene. Nature, 519. Doi: 10.1038/nature14258 Li M., Bralower T.J., Kump L.R., Self-Trail J.M., Zachos J.C., Rush W.D., Robinson M.M. (2022) - Astro- chronology of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Nature Communications, 13, 5618. Doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33390-x Marten G.G. (2005) - Environmental Tipping Points: A New Paradigm for Restoring Ecological Security. Journal of Policy Studies (Japan), 20, 75-87. McCarthy F.M.G., Patterson R.T., Head M.J., Riddick N. L., Cumming B.F., Hamilton P.B., Pisaric M.F.J., A. Gushulak C., Leavitt P.R., Lafond K.M., Llew-Williams B., Marshall M., Heyde A., Pilking- ton P. M., Moraal J., Boyce J.I., Nasser N.A., Walsh C., Garvie M., Roberts S., Rose N.L., Cun- dy A.B., Gaca P., Milton A., Hajdas I., Crann C.A., Boom A., Finkelstein S.A., McAndrews J.H. and other members of Team Crawford (2023) - The varved succession of Crawford Lake, Milton, On- tario, Canada as a candidate Global boundary Stratotype Section and Point for the Anthropocene series. The Anthropocene Review, 10(1), 146-176. Doi: 10.1177/20530196221149281 McCarthy F.M.G., Head M.J., Waters C.N., Zalasiewicz J. (2025) - Would adding the Anthropocene to the geologic time scale matter? AGU Advances, 6, e2024AV001430. Doi: 10.1029/2024AV001430 Möller T., Högner A. E., Schleussner K.-F., Bien S., Kitzmann N.H., Lamboll R.D., Rogelj J., Donges J. F., Rockström J., Wunderling N. (2024) - Achiev- ing net zero greenhouse gas emissions critical to limit climate tipping risks. Nature Communications, 15, 6192. Doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-49863-0 O’Neill B.C., Tebaldi C., van Vuuren D.P., Eyring V., Friedlingstein P., Hurtt G., Knutti R., Kriegler E., Lamarque J.-F., Lowe J., Meeh G.A, Moss R., Riahi K., Sanderson B.M. (2016) - The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (Scenario MIP) for CMIP6. Geoscientific Model Development, 9(9), 3461-3482. Doi: 10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016 Pagani M., Zachos J.C., Freeman K.H., Tipple B., Bohaty S. (2005) - Marked decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the Paleo- gene. Science, 309, 600-603. Persson L., Carney Almroth B.M., Collins C. D., Cornell S., de Wit C. A., Diamond M.L., Fantke P., Hassellöv M., MacLeod M., Ryberg M.W., Søgaard Jørgensen P., Villarrubia-Gómez P., Wang Z., Hauschild M.Z. (2022) - Outside the safe operating space of the planetary boundary for novel entities. Environ. Sci. Technol., 56, 1510- 1521. Doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04158 Randers J., Goluke U. (2020) - An earth system model shows self-sustained melting of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020. Scien- tific Reports, 10, 18456. Doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75481-z Richardson K., Steffen W., Lucht W., Bendtsen J., Cornell S.E., Donges J.F., Druk̈e M., Fetzer I., Bala G., Von Bloh W.,Feulner G., Fiedler S., Gerten D., Gleeson T., Hofmann M., Huiskamp W., Kummu M., Mohan C., Nogués-Bravo D., Petri S., Porkka M., Rahmstorf S., Scaphoff S., Thonicke K., Tobian A., Virkki V., Wang- Erlandsson L., Weber L., Rockström J. (2023) - Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci. Adv., 9, eadh2458. Doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adh2458 Rockström J., Steffen W., Noone K., Persson Å, Chapin F.S., Lambin E.F., Lenton T.M., Scheffer M., Folke C., Schellnhuber H.J., Nykvist B., de Wit C.A., Hughes T., van der Leeuw S., Rodhe H., Sorlin S., Snyder P.K., Costanza R., Svedin U., Falkenmark M., Karlberg L., Corell R.W., Fabry V.J., Hansen J., Walker B., Liverman D., Richardson K., Crutzen P., Foley J. (2009) - A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472-475. Doi: 10.1038/461472a Smil V. (2017) - Energy and civilisation: a history. The MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 552. Doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262035774.001.0001 Steffen W., Broadgate W., Deutsch L., Gaffney O., Ludwig C. (2015a) - The trajectory of the Anthro- pocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropo- cene Review, 2(1), 81-98. 116 Zampieri D. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896 https://stratigraphy.org/news/152 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1427-2025 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0705414105 https://global-tipping-points.org/ https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14258 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14258 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33390-x https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14258 https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196221149281 https://doi.org/10.1029/2024AV001430 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49863-0 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75481-z https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458 https://www.nature.com/articles/461472a#auth-_sa-Persson-Aff1-Aff2 Wang-Erlandsson L., Tobian A., van der Ent R.J., Fetzer I., te Wierik S., Porkka M., Staal A., Jaramillo F., Dahlmann H., Singh C., Greve P., Gerten D., Keys P.W., Gleeson T., Cornell S.E., Steffen W., Bai X., Rockström J. (2022) - A plane- tary boundary for green water. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 3, 380-392. Doi: 10.1038/s43017-022-00287-8 Waters C.N., Turner S. D., Zalasiewicz J., Head M.J. (2023) - Candidate sites and other reference sec- tions for the Global boundary Stratotype Section and Point of the Anthropocene series. The Anthro- pocene Review, 10(1), 3-24. Doi: 10.1177/20530196221136422 Waters C.N., Turner S., An Z., Barnosky A., Cearreta A., Cundy A., Fairchild I., Fiałkiewicz-Kozieł B., Gałuszka A., Grinevald J., Hajdas I., Han Y., Head M.J., Ivar do Sul J.A., Jeandel C., Leinfelder R., McCarthy F., McNeill J., Odada E., Oreskes N., Poirier C., deB Richter D., Rose N., Saito Y., Shotyk W., Summerhayes C., Syvitski J., Vidas D., Wagreich M., Williams M., Wing S., Zalasiewicz J., Zinke J. (2024) - Proposals by the Anthropocene Working Group: Executive summary, Part 1 and Part 2, EarthArXiv. Doi: 10.31223/X5VH70 Zachos J., Pagani M., Sloan L., Thomas E., Billups K. (2001) - Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in glob- al climate 65 Ma to present. Science, 292, 686- 693. Doi: 10.1126/science.1059412 Zalasiewicz J., Steffen W., Leinfelder R., Williams M., Waters C.N. (2017) - Petrifying Earth process: the stratigraphic imprint of key Earth System parame- ters in the Anthropocene. Theory, Culture & Socie- ty, 34, 83-104. Doi: 10.1177/0263276417690587 Zalasiewicz J., Waters C.N., Williams M., Summerhayes C.P. (eds.) (2019) - The Anthropocene as a geo- logical time unit: a guide to the scientific evidence and current debate. Cambridge University Press, 361 pp. Zeebe R.E., Ridgwell A., Zachos J.C. (2016) - Anthropo- genic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years. Nature Geoscience. Doi: 10.1038/NGEO2681 Doi: 10.1177/2053019614564785 Steffen W., Richardson K., Rockström J., Cornell S.E., Fetzer I., Bennett E.M., Biggs R., Carpenter S.R., de Vries W., de Wit C.A., Folke C., Gerten D., Heinke J., Mace G.M., Persson L.M., Ramanathan V., Reyers B., Sörlin S. (2015b) - Planetary bound- aries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347, 1259855. Doi: 10.1126/science.1259855 Steinthorsdottir M., Coxall H.K., de Boer A.M., Huber M., Barbolini N., Bradshaw C.D., Burls N.J., Feakins S.J., Gasson E., Henderiks J., Holbourn A.E., Kiel S., Kohn M.J., Knorr G., Kur̈schner W. M., Lear C.H., Liebrand D., Lunt D.J., Mörs T., Pearson P.N, Pound M.J., Stoll H., Strömberg C. A.E. (2021) - The Miocene: The future of the past. Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology, 36, e2020PA00 4037. Doi: 10.1029/2020PA004037 Stenzel F., Ben Uri L., Braun J., Breier J., Erb K., Gerten D. (2025) - Breaching planetary bounda- ries: Over half of global land area suffers critical losses in functional biosphere integrity. One Earth, 8, 101393. Doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2025.101393 Summerhayes C.P., Zalasiewicz J., Head M.J., Syvitski J., Barnosky A.D., Cearreta A., Fiałkiewicz-Kozieł B., Grinevald J., Leinfelder R., McCarthy F.M.G., McNeill J.R., Saito Y., Wagreich M., Waters C.N., Williams M., Zinke J. (2024) - The future extent of the Anthropocene epoch: a synthesis. Global and Planetary Change, 242, 104568. Doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2024.104568 Von Schuckmann K., Minière A., Gues F., Cuesta- Valero F.J., Kirchengast G., Adusumilli S., Straneo F., Ablain M., Allan R.P., Barker P.M., Beltrami H., Blazquez A., Boyer T., Cheng L., Church J., Desbruyeres D., Dolman H., Domingues C.M., García-García A., Giglio D., Gilson J. E., Gorfer M., Haimberger L., Hakuba M.Z., Hendricks S., Hosoda S., Johnson G.C., Killick R., King B., Kolodziejczyk N., Korosov A., Krinner G., Kuusela M., Landerer F.W., Langer M., Lavergne T., Lawrence I., Li Y., Lyman J., Marti F., Marzeion B., Mayer M., MacDougall A.H., McDougall T., Monselesan D.P., Nitzbon J., Otosaka I., Peng J., Purkey S., Roemmich D., Sato K., Sato K., Savita A., Schweiger A., Shepherd A., Seneviratne S.I., Simons L., Slater D. A., Slater T., Steiner A.K., Suga T., Szekely T., Thiery W., Timmermans M.- L., Vanderkelen I., Wjiffels S.E., Wu T., Zemp M. (2023) - Heat stored in the Earth system 1960- 2020: where does the energy go? Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 1675-1709. Doi: 10.5194/essd-15-1675-2023 Ms. received: October 2, 2025 Revised: November 5, 2025 Accepted: November, 11, 2025 Available online: November 20, 2025 117 The responsibility of geologists in defining the Anthropocene. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00287-8 https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196221136422 https://doi.org/10.31223/X5VH70 https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276417690587 https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2681 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020PA004037 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2025.101393 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2024.104568 https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1675-2023 118