[altcognito]

Longer periods can be called paleoclimate. As you may have noticed, most types of humans did not exist in previous climates, and we are unfamiliar with the conditions of those time periods, much less if we were to bring them upon ourselves in a period of time that isn't even capable of being shown on the chart you've chosen to use.

[billfor]

I'm just clarifying parent comment that "1200 years of data is climate" by saying that longer periods also are climate data. I could have posted a graph of the holocene as well (I don't know that it would materially change my point). I made two points. The other was that we are in an ice age.

[kurthr]

Normally, discussions of climate refer to the last 12k year interglacial period as having come out of an "ice age". You're using the broader geologic term referring to any presence of any polar ice cap as an "ice age", which would cover the last 3 Million years. So what you're saying is that in the 300k years homo sapiens have never existed outside of an "ice age" and that the our speciation (eg in savannahs of Africa) was driven by the many glaciations of this current Ice Age? Even homo habilis hasn't been around that long.

That's saying that since the continents and earth's currents haven't changed, we're in the same age, AMOC is a minor technicality, and the oceans would need to rise to the straight of Panama to be significant.

[Retric]

No, climate is based on consistent weather data over a long period. Across long enough periods the underlying assumptions that make climate a meaningful thing to talk about fail due to orbital mechanics etc.

Plate tectonics for example shows you can’t even assume an area’s latitude is consistent, just look at the fossil history of Antarctica. Humans have dumped so much carbon and methane in the atmosphere even 100 years ago was quite different.

[wk_end]

It very much reads like you feel like you need to offer those particular points here to try to diminish concerns about global warming informed by the 1200 year Kyoto cherry blossom record. Is that not the case?

[billfor]

Yes I am diminishing the case of global warming about the tree. The tree they kept records of 1200 years ago is not the cultivated one seen in many parks now. That tree is about a million years old. Article just says "Kyoto’s cherry trees", which would include the old and new ones. Importantly, the new cultivated ones bloom earlier.

This could be a case of trying to make a climate argument, when the underlying data is more nuanced. Maybe we should just say it's nice the trees are blooming earlier.

[rafram]

The trees are unambiguously blooming earlier because of climate change.

[chiefalchemist]

My understanding is three-fold

- The climate has *always* changed. It’s been warmer. And yes, it’s been cooler. There is nothing abnormal about the climate changing.

- There is actually very little scientific proof that the current up tick, is human-made. Yes, there’s correlation with the Industrial Revolution, but that’s all it is atm, correlation. There’s little verifiable proof. It’s speculative. It’s a theory. Yes, there’s overwhelming consensus, but that’s still doesn’t make it fact. And consensus has been off target plenty of times in the past.

- “The science” isn’t always as fact / truth based as it would like us to believe. Scientists are human too. Egos, career aspirations, groupthink, jealousy, etc. The scientific method is a stunning standard. Unfortunately, it’s implemented / executed by humans, flawed humans.

There’s three sources exemplify #3, of course there are others.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-has-there-been-so-littl...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/dinosau...

https://longevity.stanford.edu/how-the-sugar-industry-shifte...

[wk_end]

While the climate has always changed and there's nothing abnormal about that, it has never, ever changed anywhere near so radically in such a short period of time; the rate is what's abnormal. XKCD has a fantastic visualization of this:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

So pair that with the correlation with the Industrial Revolution/increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and with the verifiable scientific fact that carbon dioxide works to trap heat...and surely you can at least see why there's overwhelming consensus, right? What would compel you to operate as though this isn't the most likely explanation for the unprecedented rate of warming we're seeing?

[vidarh]

We better hope we're the cause of the warming, because then we conversely have a shot at slowing it or stopping it. If we are incapable of causing a change of this magnitude, then the actions we are taking to slow the change would likely be ineffective too, in which cause coming generations are in for a world of hurt.

As such, it always strikes me as bizarre when people question human contribution to climate change without by extension freaking out far more about the urgency of taking drastic action.

[at-fates-hands]

>> then the actions we are taking to slow the change would likely be ineffective too.

Many countries are taking steps which are mitigated by many developing countries who rely on cheap energy to grow and build out of their third world status.

So yes, on the one hand a lot of countries are doing something but will it ever be enough to counter other countries continuing to pollute at unprecedented levels? I don't know.

[chiefalchemist]

Look at the climate record, what leads you to believe this isn’t natural and we should have a chance to “reverse” it.

[vidarh]

I have, and the dramatic change correlating with the rise of human release of co2 makes it highly improbable that it is natural. But as I said: If it somehow is natural we're far more screwed so we better hope it isn't, because if it is natural the cost and resource impact to protect us against the effects would be far more brutal.

[chiefalchemist]

The climate has risen before, and there were no humans around. None. And what then explains that increase.

I’m not arguing against climate change. All I’m asking for is scientific proof that isn’t correlation, hearsay, parroting, etc.

[wk_end]

In this very thread, two posts up, the direct parent of the comment you're replying to, I gave you a link to a visualization of the climate record and asked you to look at it, and pointed out that the sudden and unprecedented rapid rate of change since the Industrial Revolution is precisely what leads us to believe this isn't natural.

You responded by insisting (without evidence) that "the climate record over the looooong term simply is not that accurate". And now here you are telling someone else to "look at the climate record", the climate record that shows precisely what they're saying, the very same climate record you cast dispersions on moments ago, hoping to somehow trick them into not believing their own lying eyes. You're not operating in good faith.

[chiefalchemist]

I’ve looked at it. I’ve seen it before. I saw it when it was initially published. It’s why I said: the planet has been warmer, and it’s been cooler. There is no normal.

So when I hear “climate scientists” make big brush statements about the last 100 yrs, 500 yr, or even 1000 yrs, I laugh. When they make a proclamation about “since records were kept” I laugh again.

I laugh because I’ve seen that graph and I know they evidently haven’t seen it, or are for some reason pretending otherwise. I presume they’re trying to be funny. They’re certainly not being scientific serious.

[abletonlive]

I'll help you understand.

- Climate models are demonstrably incorrect, but the current consensus is that it is changing faster than expected

   - if the climate models are demonstrably incorrect, how much weight should we really put into it for understanding our impact on the model?
   
   - if cherry blossoms blooming earlier are an input into the climate and this is a surprise that is not modeled, how much are we missing in our model? do you know how insane it is to try and model secondary/tertiary effects. Climate change is not an independent variable, it is in fact also recursive, therefore any input we are missing (and we are demonstrably missing many) fans out in our model and makes it inaccurate in either direction
    
   - take for example what was being discussed in 2023 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380023001680
   
   - as a comparison to what we think we know now https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-026-02598-w

https://students.bowdoin.edu/bowdoin-science-journal/science...

   - if we can't even get this right, what do you think our chances of understanding the implications of the impact to everything indirectly dependent on phytoplankton?

- For the sake of discussion lets follow the premise that you align with: Climate change is human made, we should do what we can to prevent or slow down climate change.

   - to what end? everything we do affects the climate. we aren't just changing the climate, we *are* the climate. there have been many species that were so effective that they meaningfully changed the environment and climate and eliminated other species or themselves along the way. should we eliminate them too? do we actually understand what we are doing if we do that?

 the presumption that we are changing the climate in a way that makes it unsuitable for humans has not been demonstrated thoroughly. we can see that because population is still increasing, but therein lies the paradox. 

if you're arguing humans should stop human made climate change then we should go further and just say that there needs to be fewer humans. if you're correct, human made climate change is the mechanism for getting to fewer humans.

if the model is demonstrably wrong and if it were trivial to correct and understand what was wrong about it then we'd have an accurate model by now, but we don't. after all your premise that ~100 years of observation is enough to say anything, how come we can't get the model right? If you follow this far out enough it also says we have no idea how to reverse the trend. if we did our model would not still be wrong in 2026.

the climate and life on earth is changing, will always change, there will be winners and losers, while we try to change it so that we are the winners, we have more evidence that it's an inherent property of the system and that life will continue on despite change than evidence that pre-industrial climate was the ideal climate that we should strive towards. If you want to argue that we should strive towards an environment where humans have the most success, well the evidence points to the fact that we are currently in that climate. population is increasing. just know that there are many losers in the climate you wish to promote. also know that ANY climate has a lot of losers. that much has been clear.

[Johnny555]

It's almost certainly caused by man as all of the evidence suggests that it is. But if it's not, that's a much more serious problem since if it's some unknown natural phenomena we probably can't do anything to stop or slow it from happening and we don't know how hot it will get or how quickly. Maybe humans have triggered a yet to be discovered tipping point and there's no stopping it.

Some reports are already saying that global warming is progressing faster than predicted... maybe we're on an exponential slope to higher temperatures and don't know it yet.

[chiefalchemist]

Simple enough… share links to the science that thoroughly proves what you’re saying. “Al Gore said it, it must be true,” isn’t going to cut it.

As for the “never ever”, that’s another assumption. The climate record over the looooong term simply is not that accurate.

Of course, there is a fair amount of correlation and circumstantial evidence, but parroting that as absolute fact and causation does make it scientific. There is a lot of “telephone” on this issue. Those using hundreds of years or even thousands should be met with skepticism.

To clarify: I agree 100% that the climate is changing. It always have. Unfortunately, the rabbit hole of proof is not that deep. Most of “proof” is based on consensus and groupthink dictated by “the experts.”

[BLKNSLVR]

"the experts"

You mean those who have dedicated their careers to learning the science and studying the various evidence and using that as a base of reference?

Who would you cite otherwise?

Those providing the alternate view to "the experts" all seem to be seriously lacking in any related qualifications. Politicians, radio personalities, fossil fuel industry lobbyists, marketers, advertising executives. They're all pundits, they're not experts, they literally don't know what they're talking about.

If you believe everything, or even most things, those various groups tell you, well, I'm not sure how to help.

[chiefalchemist]

Let me rephrase:

The most important Science [1] in the history of Science and history of The World… is no science at all. It’s consensus. Nothing more.

Let that ^^^ sink in.

I might consent, as a matter of caution. But I do so reluctantly and with skepticism. Most importantly, I’m not fooling myself and thinking I’m believing in something that is. Not. There. That is, Science. I’m not mindlessly parroting a narrative [2] - like a bad version of kindergarten telephone - because I’m afraid of asking obvious, worthy, and intelligent questions. I’m not a victim of my biases.

We’re done here.

1 - Please note, the upper case S.

2 - Examples given, there are others.

[chiefalchemist]

You’re assuming. Dedicating their career doesn’t mean they’ve remained dedicated to The Science. They have egos, careers, reputations, etc.

Read the articles in my Original comment.

Add this (book) to the list:

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/05/05/children-pandemic-vi...

You said all you said and yet didn’t site anything. How is that? But this is exactly the problem. People take a position, bias kicks in. They double down. More bias. There’s no turning back.

Thank you. You’ve proven my point.

Why do you think “the experts” are any different? They’re likely worse, as they have more to lose.

[khriss]

> Most of “proof” is based on consensus and groupthink dictated by “the experts.”

Ah of course, because the 'experts' are tainted by 'groupthink' any 'rebuttal' made by armchair internet warriors must therefore be absolutely true.

[chiefalchemist]

Read the reference articles. All perfectly legit sources. All are examples of how corruptible “The Science” can be.

Maybe that’s not the case with climate? Yet, not a single shared link pointing to science-based proof.

This thread is a perfect example of the type of human behavior that leads to false consensus.

[anonymous_user9]

If anyone were to share a link, you'd doubtless say it isn't thorough enough.

Can you give any thorough scientific evidence as to why we should consider this unprecedentedly fast change normal?

[wk_end]

> To clarify: I agree 100% that the climate is changing. It always have [sic].

Did anything I said imply that I didn't recognize that? There's no need for you to clarify, I was very clear myself that I was responding to your lack of understanding about the nature of the changing climate.

The XKCD comic I already linked shows you the climate record for the past 22000 years; you can see with your own eyes that the rate of change since we began burning hydrocarbons on an industrial scale, particularly since the year 2000, has been precipitous and looks like nothing that's happened in the entire history of humanity as depicted. Maybe you missed it - it's a little subtle - but the comic already lists its sources on the side. At a high level, they determine the climate record by examining things like tree rings and ice cores; if you're curious, those sources are happy to explain their methodology in detail. Beyond that, do you have a specific reason for casting doubt on those sources?

So let's see - going back to my comment, I pointed out the climate appears to be warming up faster than ever before; I (well, XKCD) has given you sources for that. You yourself acknowledged that there was a correlation between the warming climate and the Industrial Revolution, but I suppose we need a source for the correlated rise in carbon dioxide. Here's a graph from climate.gov using data from NOAA, ETHZ, Our World In Data, and the Global Carbon Project. If you visit each of those sources (which are linked to from the graph) you can then drill down and how they themselves synthesized it (as we know, that's how science works).

https://www.climate.gov/media/12990

Finally, I guess I asserted that carbon dioxide traps heat. Here's a paper from 1856, where a simple experiment demonstrates the effect:

https://www.risorsa-acqua.it/PDF/eunicefoote.pdf

So at this point we have evidence of a phenomenon (the planet suddenly warming much faster than before, per the XKCD visualization and its sources) and we have a demonstrable mechanism (the warming effect of carbon dioxide, per Eunice Foote's experiments circa the mid-19th century) matching our data (the increase in carbon dioxide, per NOAA and ETHZ and Our World In Data and the Global Carbon Project) that solidly explains it. That looks like science to me. Further skepticism without any contradictory evidence and you're just getting into poor epistemology frankly, and I'll just have to start throwing around metascientific ideas like Occam's razor and Russell's teapot and post-critical logic. You keep demanding more "science", but what does that actually look like to you? You look at the entire scientific community (who you scare quote as "the experts") and their body of work and mindlessly dismiss it for not being "scientific" enough. It's a rhetorical feint, not genuine intellectual curiosity.

To be honest with you, I haven't even seen An Inconvenient Truth myself. Have you? Does Al Gore just come on-screen and assert things, or does he give explanations for you to ignore? Sources for you to ignore?

If my tone is short, it's because it's both frustrating and amusing to be treated with such airs of intellectual condescension when at this point the evidence and consensus for anthropogenic climate change is so strong. When everyone who's devoted their life to understanding something says you're wrong - even if you think you may actually be right! - it'd probably be better to argue from a position of humility, because the odds are very good that you are in fact wrong. As Carl Sagan said: they laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

A few years ago I was walking through Queen's Park in Toronto and saw a Flat Earther accost people with the same sort of arrogance. Most laypeople walking through the park on a sunny weekend afternoon, it turns out, couldn't tell you off the top of their head about how we know that the Earth is round; whereas Flat Earthers performing a stunt are more than prepared to tell you why they know that the Earth really is flat. And I guess there's something valuable about court jesters making people aware of how much common sense they take for granted, but that doesn't make them any less worthy of ridicule.

[chiefalchemist]

This is the last time I’m going to say this… FFS…

consensus === Science.

In fact the repetition of consensus is a classic tool of propaganda. “I’ve heard it a bunch of times… it must be true.” And if you don’t think scientists aren’t subject to the same influence, you’re naive.

Stop waving your finger.

Thanks for proving my point.