“Doom & gloom” is a defined differently to many people. What exactly do you mean here? Are humans going extinct & Earth is going to become uninhabitable? I certainly don’t think so.
But your claim about rate of change, which is often repeated, is actually wrong [1]:
> Unlike the relatively stable climate Earth has experienced over the last 10,000 years, Earth's climate system underwent a series of abrupt oscillations and reorganizations during the last ice age between 18,000 and 80,000 years ago ... There are twenty-five of these distinct warming-cooling oscillations (Dansgaard 1984) which are now commonly referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, or D-O cycles. One of the most surprising findings was that the shifts from cold stadials to the warm interstadial intervals occurred in a matter of decades, with air temperatures over Greenland rapidly warming 8 to 15°C (Huber et al. 2006). Furthermore, the cooling occurred much more gradually, giving these events a saw-tooth shape in climate records from most of the Northern Hemisphere (Figure 1).
[1]: https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-cli...
We're looking at mass extinctions, loss of whole ecosystems, more wildfires, more storms. Not good things. Worse if you do it to yourself.
Let the moving goalposts begin.
If the last 10,000 years of relative climate stability is unusual--and it seems to be at least within the context of the last 100,000 years--then how can you argue it's "bad for life"?
This is the point of my comment: people have a warped view of "normal" as being the first thing they experience.
For example: sea level changes in the last 20,000 years are massive [1]. Over that time the Sahara was a desert, became tropical and became a desert again (~6200 years ago) [2]. Climate change is viewed by many as a significant factor in the Bronze Age Collapse [3].
> So I don't think you can shrug it off and say "pah, this all happened before". So did WWII
Seriously?
[1]: https://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-se...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#:~:text=By%20around%204....
[3]: https://www.latimes.com/science/la-xpm-2013-aug-15-la-sci-sn...
Edit: I'm not arguing that 10k years of climate stability is bad for life. The opposite, actually.
I don't really think that the climate of 100,000 years ago matters too much, aside from the fact that our species (and those we rely on) survived. The critical difference is the last 10,000 years of relative stability is the period during which human population reached billions. I'm sure we can survive a return to inclement weather, but we probably won't thrive.
The rapid rate of change induced by human caused warming still isn’t going be followed by a global cooling like D-O cycles. D-O cycles also occurred in a world that was still wild and not overdeveloped. The Earth’s biosphere was far more resilient back then. I don’t really see the point youre making? Was it just to disprove a statement I made?