Why do you say the start date is pre industrial revolution? This article says the ocean began warming around 1860, which is well after the end of the industrial revolution.

Humans have been a powerful geological and biological force on this planet for quite a while. The first inhabitants of any land typically triggered a wave of extinctions, and deforestation. While preindustrial climate change might suggest that a natural process at play, you might also conclude that the impact of humans is substantially bigger than we might expect. The little ice age is an interesting example here. We don’t know the exact causes, however some have suggested that the population decline of the black plague and later measles/smallpox in the new world were the culprits. This would of course make the situation for geoengineering a solution that much harder.

>with a start date of global warming happening pre industrial revolution, how does that jive with the theory that global warming "is" man-made and not some natural phenomenon?

That’s not what I read in the article: "it’s well recognized that human emissions began increasing significantly in the 1750s."

>Or rather, does suggest that the earth can accommodate climate change and that attempts to control it are futile at best?

Well, Earth was an existing entity already 4 billion years ago, and indeed proved able to accommodate with very large spectrum of existential modalities. It doesn’t mean human species would thrive in Hadean climates: there’s a reason it’s called after the Hellenistic hell.

The article talks about the timeline. Coal burning started roughly 100 years before their measured warming effects.

What do you consider the start date of global warming?

It's right in the second sentence:

> These newly revealed paleoclimate records suggest that sea surface temperatures (SSTs) began rising in response to industrial era fossil fuel burning around 1860.

(Also, "jibe": https://www.grammargiant.com/confused-words/Jibe-or-Jive)

the industrial revolution is not the only cause of greenhouse gases. We burned basically all forests in europe before we had alternatives.

In fact the industrial revolution was only set in motion because the british ran out of firewood on their islands and had to resort to coal. The need to continuously operate pumps to stop ground water from flooding the coal mines led to steam engines.

The earth might be warming naturally but the accelerated pace of warming is absolutely due to our interventions to the biome. What do you mean by accommodate? The Earth will keep spinning no matter what, but a lot of ecological systems will certainly be destroyed and large parts of the world will become uninhabitable.

I postulate that there are other warming sources that could have been on the rise prior to the industrial revolution - do other timelines such as farming/ranching, coal burning for metal forging, deforestation, etc line up with the start of what's measurable via these sponges?

> Or rather, does suggest that the earth can accommodate climate change and that attempts to control it are futile at best?

Those are opposite things. In any case, we have proven we can control it. We are just doing it incompetently.

Click this XKCD and scroll to the bottom: https://xkcd.com/1732/

This is not a normal phenomenon.

Earth can accommodate climate change. We're not worried about Earth. Prosperous, free, advanced human civilization is what's at risk here, between disruptions to agriculture and refugee crises the likes of which the world has never seen.

"Im not racist, but..."