One datapoint out of the norm would be explainable via noise, which is why the article is not about a single datapoint but the trend of all the recent datapoints being far below the norm. You're dismissing the article as a "simple report of an ice free october" when that's not what the article is.

It would not normally just be imperceptible slow to our human senses, it would normally be imperceptibly below the noise floor over our entire lifetimes.

First of all I criticize the alarmist headline. As for the article, I know see data goes only back 41 years. Is that even a meaningful geological timeframe?

Also there often seems to be the assumption that every year should be like average. In fact, average implies that some years should be below and some above.

Not saying there is nothing going on, but I don't automatically believe we are all going to die just from that article. (We as in mankind, every individual will of course die, unless there is a major scientific breakthrough).

I find it absolutely incredible the mental gymnastics you're performing to conclude that your "common sense" take is a more accurate representation of reality than what these scientists are telling us.

> but I don't automatically believe we are all going to die just from that article.

Nowhere in the article does it say that. Nothing about this article is alarmist.

The simple truth is you've already made up your mind about climate change in general, and now you're just looking for tiny crumbs of evidence that researchers are slipping up somewhere, and criticizing anything that doesn't fit your notion of how this should play out.

I guess you could describe all science as "mental gymnastics". And all we humans have is common sense.

"The simple truth is you've already made up your mind about climate change in general, and now you're just looking for tiny crumbs of evidence that researchers are slipping up somewhere, and criticizing anything that doesn't fit your notion of how this should play out. "

That exact line could be handed back to yourself, except that you are sucking up all evidence that confirms your point of view.

Science is specifically not just using "common sense", what are you talking about?

And no, I don't need to buy into the idea of climate change at all to take the contents of the article at face value.

So you are taking the contents of the article at face value, but somehow I am the silly person doing mental gymnastics?

Common sense is essentially how people think. Scientists are also people. If claims don't add up or data is missing to support a claim, common sense can be used to spot it.

> And all we humans have is common sense.

Quantum mechanics say hello

> except that you are sucking up all evidence that confirms your point of view.

how much evidence there is in the "there is no climate change" side?

You are thinking in Quantum Mechanics? Or scientists do, as opposed to normal people? Because scientists are somehow "superhuman"?

"how much evidence there is in the "there is no climate change" side?"

Why are you bringing up "there is no climate change"? Nobody made such a claim. But even if there is climate change, not every article has to be taken at face value, and not every theory on how it comes about has to be automatically considered true.

> You are thinking in Quantum Mechanics? Or scientists do, as opposed to normal people?

No, I'm saying that common sense doesn't have any saying in science

I haven't really seen Quantum Mechanics applied to climate science, though. Maybe it exists, but it doesn't seem to feature high in the public discourse. So I guess it is all bunk, because it is not Quantum Mechanics?

>I haven't really seen Quantum Mechanics applied to climate science

Ah, you';re missing the point completely

Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with climate change, but the point is that your claim that common sense is important in science is false