I would argue that the gap between climate experience, climate perception, and climate knowledge has contracted since the Enlightenment. The knowledge and studies of climate during this time period were still very much localized, even though scientists during and prior to this period were well aware of the idea of human-caused climate change on a global scale. In addition, the age of industrialization was happening in real-time, which prevented people from seeing the full scope of the damage this would cause for the environment. Thus, their perception of climate change was developing in tandem with the rise of industrialization, rather than being shaped by previously accumulated data and knowledge from the past. This is emphasized by the ideas of human-environment relations put forth by different Enlightenment thinkers. For example, the idea of Cornucopianism gained ground largely due to the fact that people did not yet have the climate experience to see the damage that unchecked extraction and consumerism would have on the environment. Once these experiences were gained, Finitarianism and Romantic Scarcity emerged, which started to close the gap between climate experience, perception, and knowledge. That being said, imperial and settler colonial priorities added restrictions to the collection of climate data and therefore prevented this gap from fully closing. Studies of climate were not purely driven by inquiry, but rather by a combination of scientific curiosity and political motive. Furthermore, the narrative of the “human sciences” put forth by Foucalt parallels this restriction of knowledge and conceptualization of the environment. When we reduce the study of a concept such as Man to a few distinct categories - in Foucalt’s case: biology, economics, and linguistics - we limit our scope of understanding of this subject. This can help explain the climate state in the modern era, which is largely restricted to a few, distinct categories that do not overlap. This is why predictive climate models are usually inaccurate, because they are restricted to a small picture of what the future will look like, as opposed to taking into account historical and social factors that could help us see the “bigger picture.”