At https://phys.org/print451549404.html … the Holocene is a blink in the eye of geochronology but this has not stopped the grandees fo the International Union of Geological Sciences from dividing it into 3 sections – each defined as a separate geological period. It probably gives their egos a boost but is it justified as the Holocene is littered with climatic downturns and upticks which they largely pass over. True, they have homed in on two very pronounced climatic episodes (which should have geological parallels that are yet unexplored). Why the divisions? Is it to fall into line with the CAGW meme that seems to have overtaken most of science. The geological top nobs say a vast amount of water from melting glaciers flooded the North Atlantic and caused havoc with the global conveyor belt system – which is a theory that was aired quite a few years ago now. Seems like geologists are only just catching up with climate science – and its all join hands as they dance into the future. This event occurred around 8000 years ago – at 6200BC. It coincided with a remarkable rise in sea levels in certain parts of the globe (around the shores of Britain and Ireland for example, and the drowning of Sunda Land to create the islands of Indonesia. This can of course be defined as a geological event – but have geologists explored if sea level change was as severe in other parts of the world (in China for example, Africa, or South America). How abrupt was the rise in sea levels. Did it take place in less than 50 years – or over a period of several hundred years (or did it happen within a day or so). There is a lot for geologists to explore as far as 6200BC is concerned – and this is without finding evidence of climate change in the rocks (rather, soil and sediments). If there was a geological boundary there must be a geological marker – otherwise what is the point of geochronology.
The other marker point is defined as the late 3rd millennium BC (around 2200BC). In effect, this is the so called 2300BC event of Moe Mandelkehr as explored in a series of articles in SIS journals. He touched on geology in one of his published articles – together with a host of other evidence including climate, migrations, the demise of the Early Bronze age civilisations etc. Lo and behold the grandees have even caught up with the fact that civilisations were rocked in the late 3rd millennium BC – and if it involved earthquakes and then some kind of geological change may be apparent in the rocks (or soil strata). Are they suggesting an analysis of the geology at 6200 and 2300BC? No, they are are dwelling unnaturally on the climate – which is not a geological issue (so much). They say that rock layers in the Holocene contain sediments from sea floors, lake bottoms, glacial ice, and calcite (a mineral). They say, 'we are bringing this all together to form a coherent story that is now refelcted in formal geological time …' which will prove very useful for catastrophists I should imagine. Mind you they then spoil it all by adding, 'the massive flooding that took place 8200 years ago … is a warning shot of how contemporary human induced climate change can exacewrbate melting of ice in high northern latitudes'. They seem to forget that it was only a couple of weeks ago when we were being told temperatures in the early Holocene were much warmer than over the last couple of thousand years – including present global temperatures. The CAGW religion it seems is still thriving – sometimes in the most unexpected of places, geology.