Redefining Geological Time: Exploring the Concept and Impact of the Anthropocene Epoch

Introduction

As per the research of Amin (2002), the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), which is a professional organisation currently executing the responsibility of defining the time scale of Earth, the current epoch of planetary history could be officially defined as the Holocene, meaning entirely recent one. This epoch had commenced since 11700 years ago when the previous major ice age had ended. However, during 2002, the Nobel laurite chemist Paul Crutzen, during a meeting of scientists at Cuernavaca, Mexico, had suggested that the human kind has transcended the Holocene and a completely new epoch set in which could be identified as the Anthropocene epoch. The rationale of entering such an epoch had been outlined by Crutzen, according to Anderson (2015), as the global environmental impact of increasing levels of industrial pollution created by the human populace and by expanding economic activities. For those needing environmental studies dissertation help, understanding this transition highlights the importance of analysing human impact on the environment. The term has been formulated by a combination of the Greek word Anthropos (human), and the suffix which is utilised for denoting names of different geological phases (-cene). The Antrhopocene epoch denotes the contemporary global environment which is dominated by human industrial and economic activities. To this effect, the corresponding essay would be delving into the evaluation of the notion that Antrhopocene could define the most concurrent period of geological time frame for Earth and it is primarily an epoch which has been generated through diverse human activities. Furthermore, the essay would also discuss the consequences of the different factors of Anthropocene on the environment in general as well as the associated implications of the same on the designing of global environmental policies.

Discussion

According to Aradau (2014), the term Antrhopocene has been included into the literature of Geology in an informal manner. Beck (1992) have observed that the fellows associated with the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, have extended the discussion of effects of human activities pertaining to the suggestions brought forward by Crutzen. This attempt has been made to apply similar criteria to those of the previous phases to evaluate the relevance and justification of any new term. Furthermore, this attempt has been outlined by Blanchot (1995) as an effort to determine where and how the boundary of such an epoch could be placed.

According to Bonneuil and Fressoz (2016), the term Anthropocene, could be discussed on the grounds of stratigraphy so as to explore the details of this epoch which have made it the current interval phase regarding the anthropogenic impacts on the global environmental conditions. Chandler (2013) has analysed and agreed with the arguments of Crutzen that a specific case could be made for the consideration of Anthropocene in the manner that since the commencement of industrial Revolution, the Planet Earth has encountered multiple changes which have been sufficient to impart a global stratigraphic signature. Such a stratigraphic signature is distinctively different from that of the Holocene and various other previous Pleistocene geological inter-glacial phases. The observed changes are novel biotic, geochemical and sedimentary in nature. Thus, Chandler (2014) has suggested that such changes, although probably in the most initial of phases, could be considered to be sufficient in terms of distinctiveness and robustness so as to establish the discernible Holocene-Anthropocene boundary. This boundary has been suggested by Chandler and Reid (2016) to be geologically reasonable.

Holocene

According to Clark (2011), Holocene is considered to be the latest of all of the Quaternary interglacial phases. Furthermore, Clark (2014) has highlighted that Holocene is the only interglacial phase which has been accorded the epoch status and, it also is considered to be the only unit within the entire Phanerozoic duration of previous 542 million years, the base of which could be defined in definite numbers of years from the present period. The duration of the Holocene has been determined to be 10000 previous radiocarbon years from 1950. According to Cook, Rickards and Rutherfurd (2015), the base of every other period and age in the geological perspective from the Cambrian onwards could be defined as ‘golden spike’. This factor involves selection of a suitable section as the Global Stratotype. The ‘golden spike’ could be placed at the predefined point within the Stratotype. The outcome is the development of a GSSP (Global Stratigraphic Section and Point).

According to Cooper (2008), Anthropocene has been increasingly becoming an environmental term through gaining velocity within the scientific circles and the most prominent example of such expansion in favourability of this term within elite groups of scientists is the publication of Anthropocene, an academic journal, by the renowned publisher Elsevier. Furthermore, according to Cornell and Seeley (2016), the IUGS had also convened a group of distinguished scholars for the purpose forming an informed consensus by 2016 regarding whether it would be scientifically and logically viable to declare that Holocene has come to an end and Anthropocene has commenced.

However, Cretney (2014) has emphasised on the fact that multiple stratigraphers, the scientists engaged in the study of layers of different rocks, do not subscribed to the idea of the commencement of Antropocene. According to Crowther-Heyck (2005), such stratigraphers outline that no clear-cut evidence indicating the commencement of a completely new epoch could be empirically confirmed. In this context, Crutzen (2002) has brought forth the opinion of Whitney Autin, the chief stratigrapher working at SUNY College of Broackport, in the form of a prevalent notion that one has to define exactly the boundaries in between geologic time frames and such boundaries would be required to be supported by empirical observation based acquisition of data from study of differential rock strata under the overarching purview of Stratigraphy. Thus, the opinions of Whitney Autin indicate that Antrhopocene is not effectively associated with core scientific discourses.

Stratigraphic perspectives

According to Culp (2016), the primary argument of such stratigraphers pertains to the question about identification of the exact time when human had begun to leave the mark of human civilisation based activities on the geological and environmental spectrums of Planet Earth. One such explanation could be the Atomic Era when the development in atomic and molecular science had left extensive traces of radiation within the soil of various parts of the planet. According to Dalby (2009), another such as the signature of agriculture at Europe which could be detected within deeper rock strata and the dating process could trace back such signature to 900 BC. Thus, Dalby (2013) has outlined that various stratigraphers consider Anthropocene to be nothing else by an appealing jargon which could not be supported through empirically researched physical evidence from the geological perspective.

In this context, Dillon (1996) has indicated to the various proponents of Anthropocene concede such a difficulty and emphasise on the necessity to stipulate an effective time boundary and to take the research further. One of such proponents has been Will Steffen, the head of the Climate Change Institute at Australian National University. Dillon and Reid (2009) have drawn attention to the fact that he had written multiple articles with Crutzen and has recommended the determination of a date of commencement of Anthropocene epoch from that of the advent of the Industrial Revolution during the early 1800s. Another recommendation of Steffen has been identified by Duffield (2011) to be that of the early 1950s when the atomic age had set in on the industrial domain of the world. To this effect, such recommendations suggest an attempt to send an effective reminder to the general populace that the human species is imparting definite and undeniable impacts on the global environment to the scale which could be considered adequate for the commencement of a completely new geological epoch.

Dunn Cavelty, Kaufmann and Soby Kristensen (2015) have observed that it has become progressively difficult for the geologists to ignore the idea of Anthropocene. In this context, the meeting of the Geological Society of London, during 2006, witnessed the stratigrapher Jan Zalasiewicz arguing in favour of considering the concept of the Anthropocene epoch with serious scientific ardour. The responsibility would be on the stratigraphers since their research is directly associated with the geological timescale. Evans and Reid (2014) have stated that during 2008, Gibbard, a colleague of Zalasiewicz, had enquired about the possibility that Zalasiewicz would be willing and prepared to assemble and they direct a detachment of experts for the purpose of investigating the concept of Anthropocene in detail. It was required that this group could discover irrefutably evidence that Anthropocene could be stratigraphically proved to be a reality, so that the scientists could submit a corresponding proposal to the ICS. With the possible approval of this proposal, the outcome could be extensively positive in favour of defining of this new epoch and a new chapter in the geological history of Earth would be required to be formulated.

In this context, according to Carrington (2016) , the focus of Zalasiewicz had been concentrated on the supposition that all of the implications of Anthropocene pertaining to socio-political discourses, transcending the ambit of Geology, have gained the significance of becoming unchartered territory for the geologists. Thus, the reluctance of the climate commissions and the environmental organisations to utilise this new term of Anthropocene could be understood from the perspective that the term implies hitherto unfamiliar notions and thus, is not readily associable with previously existing notions. On the other hand, Zalasiewicz et al (2017) have determined that the rate and scale of change in the climactic measures such as CO2 as well as Methane emission and concentration of other greenhouse gases within the atmosphere, catalysed by human activities primarily, could be irrefutably proven to be of much greater extent in terms of scope and swiftness of imparting implications of such development comparatively than those conditions which could define the initiation of the Holocene. Such an observation has been supported by the research of Grosz (2011) in the measure that humans have managed to introduce changes in the climactic environment which are absolutely novel in nature from the geological perspective. One particular example could be discerned as approximately the 300m metric tonnes of polymerised industrial products which are manufactured on a per annum basis. Furthermore, various artificially developed construction materials such as Concrete, have gained so much of prevalence in multiplicity of industrial as well as constructional sectors that in excess to 50% of the concrete which have been utilised in the history of mankind, had been produced and utilised in the previous 3 decades only.

Grove (2013) has specified that such developments have been relegating the ecological fabric of this planet into an ever increasingly precarious position. For instance, wildlife, has been progressively constricted to ever smaller portions of the planet with only 25% of the global landmass, which remains devoid of ice throughout the year, could be now considered to be regions which sustain wildlife in extensive varieties. According to the research of Grove (2014), this portion of the global landmass was at least 50% in terms of size only 3 centuries previously. This observation has been capitalised upon by Holling (2001) to suggest that the direct outcome of the global changes in environment precipitated by human activities have expedited the rate of extinction of various animal and plant species in comparison to the long term average extinction rates in the previous 1000 years.

Furthermore, the research of Holling and Sanderson (1996) have presented the fact that the most striking and unambiguous geological and ecological fingerprint left by the human industrial activities in the current planetary conditions has been the presence of radioactive isotopes which emanated from thermonuclear weapons tests which had occurred with recurrent frequency during the time period which extended from the late 1940s till the early 1980s. Such a notion has been subscribed to by Johnson and Morehouse (2014) in the form that the most widespread as well as globally synchronous Anthropogenic marker has been the fallout from hundreds of known thermonuclear weapons tests as well as accidents (such as Long Island and Chernobyl). In this context, Latour (1993) has stated that the acceleration in changes caused by technology along with the pervasive impact of technology on the human habitation as well as on that of the general condition of the environment of Planet Earth, has been contributed extensively in the growth of the global population and levels of consumption which have further driven the current geological age of the Planet into the hypothetically novel Anthropocene. The advocates of this age suggest that human beings have become such a major geological force that the conditions existing previously in terms of the environmental perspectives within this Planet have now been fundamentally transformed. Prior to such technological developmental phases of the 20th Century, the prevalent means of transportation throughout the planet had been mostly steam engine driven railways and cattle drawn vehicles.

Influence of Human activities on the environment and climate of Holocene

Lee (1993) has emphasised on the fact that prior to the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the extent of global population had only expanded marginally ( from 300 million during 1000 AD to 500 million till 1500 D and by 1750 AD, it had been 790 million). The primary reason could be envisaged as the limitations of energy generation to the utilisation of mostly firewood and coal. Machines driven by electricity had not been in existence prior to the Industrial Revolution. According to Lovelock (2007), evidence found at various Holocene strata could indicate the enhancement in the levels of human influence through changes in human remains and the traces of different artifacts which could be excavated. In this context, Malm and Hornborg (2014) have determined that from the middle of the Holocene epoch, involving areas which had witnessed human habitation for a long time, the identified stratigraphic signals consist of predominantly biotic elements such as cultivation traces which could have followed clearance of land for the purpose of agriculture and pollen of weeds. Various sedimentary signals, which have been primarily ambiguous in nature, such as pulses from the regions which had been deforested for agricultural purposes, have been found as well.

Massey (1999) has observed that atmospheric lead pollution has been also registered through evaluation of samples taken from polar ice caps as well as from deposits from peat bogs. Such samples have mostly dated back to the early Greco-Roman time periods and such evidence has contributed in the development of the scientific argument that the increment in the atmospheric CO2 from the early to the middle Holocene period consisted of a rise from 260 to 280 ppm. This outlined a factor in the climatic transformation towards greater warming which occurred during the epoch interval. The reason could be comprehended as clearance of forests by human habitations. Thus, Massey (2005) has argued that such activities undertaken by the humans could characterise the differential outcomes pertaining to the research about the Holocene strata. From the perspectives of Anthropocene proponents, thus, such activity perpetrated by the human could also culminate in the creation of a completely new and globalised environmental condition which could be translated into a fundamentally divergent stratigraphic signal in terms of the geological research.

Implication of initiation of Anthropocene on future environmental management policies

According to Nelson (2014), the rates of extinction of animal and plant species have been increased to a specifically by human industrial and technological activities. From the research perspectives of Rickards (2015), Earth could be on the course of another mass extinction, a sixth one to be exact, involving the projected disappearance of approximately 75% of the remaining species within the next 3 centuries if the current technological and environmental pollution generation trends could continue. Furthermore Schmidt (2015) has observed that the increment in CO2 within the atmosphere has been 120 parts per million since the advent of the Industrial Revolution on the basis of fossil fuel utilisation. The current concentration of such gases within the atmosphere is approximately 400ppm and the concentration is on the rise. To this effect, other pollutants introduced within the environment due to the industrial and technological factors which define the Anthropocene have been radioactive isotopes such as 14C, which is an uncommon one and could not be naturally found within the environment, along with other rare isotopes such as 293Pu, primarily at the middle latitudes of the planet. The primary sources of generation of such pollutants have been the previously mentioned thermonuclear tests which had been conducted during the 1950s and 1960s.

Furthermore, the research of Sharp (2011) suggested that, the virtual abundance of ubiquitous microplastic particles, produced during the previous 7 decades in gargantuan industrial scale throughout the world as the foundation of the petrochemical product based financial activity generation mechanism, is expected to leave fossil records for the future generations which could be identified even in the most remote and distant future as well. However, the opinion of Simon and Randalls (2016) indicated that the most extensive environmental impact of Anthropocene has been evident from the doubling of the levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorous within the soil of this planet within the previous century alone. The primary reason has been the pervasive application of chemical fertilisers and this constitutes, as per the observations of Steffen, Crutzen and McNeill (2007), the largest impact on the global Nitrogen cycle within the previous 2.5 million years. Ultimately, the human race has managed to impart a permanent marker within the glacial ice caps and in the geo-sediment layers of airborne particulates including black carbon which have been mostly generated through combustion of fossil fuel throughout the previous 200 years. Thus, from the perspectives of Steffen et al(2011), the factor of human industrial and economic activities in the previous 300 years, which, is considered to have catalysed the advent of Anthropocene, could be identified as the Great Acceleration in the emission of Carbon dioxide through industrial activities. To this effect, Swyngedouw (2010) has specified that human activity has been now acknowledged as forming and deforming force of the natural world and this acknowledgement has carried significant epistemological, ontological and political ramifications. The reason of this has been observed by Taleb (2012) as the destabilisation of the previously existing processes through which critical reflection and analysis the geological dimensions of the planetary conditions used to be performed in the academia. One particularly significant development, in this context, has been the growth in interest in specifically the manner through which the concept of Anthropocene has disoriented modern subjectivity and has brought the concern over Nature back into the overall debate associated with the environmental change related implications on the future of this planet.

Walker and Cooper (2011) have specified that Anthropocene has broken down the modernist concept of space as a bounded and quantifiable determinant in the global environmentalist and industrial developmental discourses. This has occurred since the debate over Anthropocene epoch has become a global discourse regarding the drawing of attention to the planetary processes which encompass the entire spectrum of environmental dimensions and also transgress the conventional perspectives of territorial divisions. However, Walker and Salt (2012) has opposed to consider this observation as a coherent vision in terms of environmental implications of Anthropocene. In this context, the highlighted argument has been that though it could be acknowledged that Anthropocene has established the fact that humans have become a planet shaping, geological force, the foundations of Anthropocene into the different discourses of Earth systems have not been empirically established. In this argument, Wynter (2003) has observed that Earth has not been considered as a territorial scale which has been distinctly categorised into national and local regions. Instead, the global and local regional implications have been intricately intertwined through emphasis on the perceived topological connection between these two concepts.

Thus, the future policies pertaining to controlling and limiting the incidence of pollution would be incumbent upon proper collaboration between the global and local environmental discourses. From the perspectives highlighted by Yusoff (2013), it could be acknowledged that the environmental discourse associated with the concept of Anthropocene, emerges through interactions between localised and global environmental transformational processes. The associated effects could be observed across and within the ecological and social systems of this planet. Effects of human industrial and technological actions could be amplified through specific contexts in which such actions are taken. Such contexts pertain to specific conjunctures of diverging ecological and social processes. Malm and Hornborg (2014) have elaborated on this context through outlining that the sense of time horizons, inherent in the concept of Anthropocene, indicates the form of a future where the convergence of biophysical and geophysical worlds could become a possibility. The reason is that such worlds pre-exist human intervention based activities and could demonstrate agential capacities involving both the past and the present. From a deterministic perspective, Anthropocene based concepts attempt to exclusively claim the sense of dynamism and world shaping properties for humanity and attempt further to deny the same to Nature. For this reason, it is imperative that future environmental and ecological governance policies be formulated with the objective of overcoming this supposed radical asymmetry between the human society and Nature. Any shortcoming in this process could culminate in the failure to properly stability the extensively narrow horizon of geophysical conditionalities which are inherently unstable due to the dynamism which underscores the fundamental constituents of such conditions.

Conclusion

At the conclusive phase, it could be understood that the preceding research study has outlined that the debate surrounding the research topic is primarily associated with the destabilisation of modernist concepts of time by this concept of Anthropocene. The idea associated with Anthropocene has posited an emergent temporality which has countered the modernist approach towards time as a unit which could be quantified and ordered. On a functional level, the emergent spatiality of Anthropocene has relied on complicated interconnections to generate non-linear changes which are unpredictable, involving both the present and past experiences in Geology. Thus, as far as the control of environment and human activity related generation of pollution could be concerned, this aspect of emergent temporality has infused extensive dynamism and unpredictability in the geo-scientific discourses which underscore the future of human species on planet Earth.

Reference List

Amin, A. (2002). Spatialities of globalisation. Environment and Planning A, 34, 385–399.

Anderson, B. (2015). What kind of thing is resilience? Politics, 35, 60–66.

Aradau, C. (2014). The promise of security: Resilience, surprise and epistemic politics. Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses, 2, 73–87.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. New Delhi: Sage.

Blanchot, M. (1995). The writing of the disaster. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Bonneuil, C. and Fressoz, J.-B. (2016). The shock of the Anthropocene: The earth, history and us. London: Verso.

Carrington, D., 2016. The Anthropocene epoch: scientists declare dawn of human-influenced age. The Guardian, 29(08), p.2016.

Chandler, D. (2013). Resilience and the autotelic subject: Toward a critique of the societalization of security. International Political Sociology, 7, 210–226.

Chandler, D. (2014). Resilience: The governance of complexity. London: Routledge.

Chandler, D.,and Reid, J. (2016). The neoliberal subject: Resilience, adaptation and vulnerability. London: Rowman and Littlefield.

Clark, N. (2011). Inhuman nature: Sociable life on a dynamic planet. London: Sage.

Clark, N. (2014). Geo-politics and the disaster of the Anthropocene. The Sociological Review, 62, 19–37.

Cook, B., Rickards, L.,and Rutherfurd, I. (2015). Geographies of the Anthropocene. Geographical Research, 53, 231–243.

Cooper, M. (2008). Life as surplus: Biotechnology and capitalism in the neoliberal era. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Cornell, D. and Seeley, S.D. (2016). The spirit of revolution: Beyond the dead ends of man. Cambridge: Polity.

Cretney, R. (2014). Resilience for whom? Emerging critical geographies of socio-ecological resilience. Geography Compass, 8, 627–640.

Crowther-Heyck, H. (2005). Herbert A. Simon: The bounds of reason in modern America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Crutzen, P. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415,

Culp, A. (2016). Dark Deleuze. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Dalby, S. (2009). Security and environmental change. Cambridge: Polity.

Dalby, S. (2013). Biopolitics and climate security in the Anthropocene. Geoforum, 49, 184–192

Dillon, M. and Reid, J. (2009). The liberal way of war: Killing to make life live. London: Routledge.

Dillon, M. (1996). Politics of security: Towards a political philosophy of continental thought. New York, NY: Routledge.

Duffield, M. (2011). Total war as environmental terror: Linking liberalism, resilience, and the bunker. South Atlantic Quarterly, 110, 757–769.

Dunn Cavelty, M., Kaufmann, M.,and Soby Kristensen, K. (2015). Resilience and (in)security: Practices, subjects, temporalities. Security Dialogue, 46, 3–14.

Evans, B. and Reid, J. (2014). Resilient life: The art of living dangerously. Cambridge: Polity.

Grosz, E. (2011). Becoming undone: Darwinian reflections on life, politics, and art. London: Duke University Press.

Grove, K. (2013). Hidden transcripts of resilience: Power and politics in Jamaican disaster management. Resilience, 1, 193–209.

Grove, K. (2014). Agency, affect, and the immunological politics of disaster resilience. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32, 240–256.

Holling, C. S. and Sanderson, G. (1996). Dynamics of (dis)harmony in ecological and social systems. In S. Hanna, C. Folke,and K.-G. Maler (Eds.), Rights to nature: Ecological, economic, cultural, and political principles of institutions for the environment (pp. 57–86). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390–405.

Johnson, E. and Morehouse, H. (2014). After the Anthropocene: Politics and geographic inquiry for a new epoch. Progress in Human Geography, 38, 439–456

Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lee, K. (1993). Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Lovelock, J. (2007). The revenge of Gaia: Why the earth is fighting back – and how we can still save humanity. London: Penguin.

Malm, A. and Hornborg, A. (2014). The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. The Anthropocene Review, 1, 62–69.

Massey, D. (1999). Space-time, ‘science’ and the relationship between physical geography and human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 24, 261–276.

Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage.

Nelson, S. (2014). Resilience and the neoliberal counter-revolution: From ecologies of control to production of the common. Resilience: International Policies Practices and Discourses, 2(1), 1–17

Rickards, L. (2015). Metaphor and the Anthropocene: Presenting humans as a geological force. Geographical Research, 53, 280–287.

Schmidt, J. (2015). Intuitively neoliberal? Towards a critical understanding of resilience governance. European Journal of International Relations, 21, 402–426.

Sharp, H. (2011). Spinoza and the politics of renaturalization. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.

Simon, S. and Randalls, S. (2016). Geography, ontological politics and the resilient future. Dialogues in Human Geography, 6, 3–18.

Steffen, W., Crutzen, P.,and McNeill, J. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36, 614–621

Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P.,and McNeill, J. (2011). The Anthropocene: Conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royals Society A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 369, 842–867.

Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change. Theory, Cultureand Society, 27, 213–232.

Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. London: Penguin.

Walker, B. and Salt, D. (2012). Resilience practice: Building capacity to absorb disturbance and maintain function. Washington, DC: Island Press.10

Walker, J. and Cooper, M. (2011). Genealogies of resilience: From systems ecology to the political economy of crisis adaptation. Security Dialogue, 42, 143–160.

Wynter, S. (2003). Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom: Towards the human, after man, its overrepresentation – an argument. CR: The New Centennial Review, 3, 257–337

Yusoff, K. (2013). Geologic life: Prehistory, climate, futures in the Anthropocene. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 31, 779–795.

Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C.N., Wolfe, A.P., Barnosky, A.D., Cearreta, A., Edgeworth, M., Ellis, E.C., Fairchild, I.J., Gradstein, F.M., Grinevald, J. and Haff, P., 2017. Making the case for a formal Anthropocene Epoch: an analysis of ongoing critiques. Newsletters on Stratigraphy, 50(2), pp.205-226.

Ziolkowska, J.R. and Reyes, R., (2016). Geological and hydrological visualization models for Digital Earth representation. Computersand Geosciences, 94, pp.31-39.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Recording Business Transactions Reflective Journal.