James P. M. Syvitski-rekin lankidetzan egindako argitalpenak (10)

2019

  1. A formal Anthropocene is compatible with but distinct from its diachronous anthropogenic counterparts: a response to W.F. Ruddiman’s ‘three flaws in defining a formal Anthropocene’

    Progress in Physical Geography, Vol. 43, Núm. 3, pp. 319-333

2018

  1. Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) for the Anthropocene Series: Where and how to look for potential candidates

    Earth-Science Reviews, Vol. 178, pp. 379-429

2017

  1. Making the case for a formal Anthropocene Epoch: An analysis of ongoing critiques

    Newsletters on Stratigraphy, Vol. 50, Núm. 2, pp. 205-226

  2. The Working Group on the Anthropocene: Summary of evidence and interim recommendations

    Anthropocene, Vol. 19, pp. 55-60

2016

  1. Stratigraphic and Earth System approaches to defining the Anthropocene

    Earth's Future, Vol. 4, Núm. 8, pp. 324-345

  2. The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene

    Science, Vol. 351, Núm. 6269

  3. The Anthropocene: A conspicuous stratigraphical signal of anthropogenic changes in production and consumption across the biosphere

    Earth's Future, Vol. 4, Núm. 3, pp. 34-53

2015

  1. Can nuclear weapons fallout mark the beginning of the Anthropocene Epoch

    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 71, Núm. 3, pp. 46-57

  2. Colonization of the Americas, ‘little ice age’ climate, and bombproduced carbon: Their role in defining the anthropocene

    Anthropocene Review, Vol. 2, Núm. 2, pp. 117-127

  3. When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal

    Quaternary International, Vol. 383, pp. 196-203