We Are in the Anthropocene—Now What?

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Earth system modelers and climate scientists can gain insights on long-term pathways and feedback dynamics for scenario analysis.

🏛政策担当者:Policymakers should note the paper's emphasis on residual emissions and feedback risks, informing long-term mitigation and adaptation planning.

While the term “Anthropocene” is well established across scientific disciplines and social spheres, interpretations are diverse. Taking account of the 2024 rejection by a geological commission to accept the Anthropocene as a geological epoch and the related scientific debate, here we offer a future‐oriented perspective from the viewpoint of Earth system science. We describe different pathways in the Anthropocene up to the year 3,000, systematically characterizing them according to impacts and causes. We discuss the enormous global consequences of anthropogenic pressures on the Earth system and quantify the corresponding long‐term commitment to change. Regarding the causes, we conservatively explore best‐case and middle‐of‐the road emission scenarios, in combination with climate sensitivities drawn from within the IPCC likely range. We also discuss implications for Earth system resilience that could result in what we call worst case scenarios for Anthropocene outcomes. We conclude that, beyond the slow pace of natural climate recovery spanning many millennia, even minimal, unavoidable residual emissions like from the food sector risk perpetuating global warming in the absence of other human forcing. One implication is that if climate or carbon cycle feedbacks shift toward reinforcing warming, they risk not only exacerbating climate impacts but to also surpassing human forcing in relevance. At that point, human influence on the Anthropocene would no longer play the dominant role.

• semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.1029/2025ef007730first seen 2026-06-29 09:11:40