Hacker News Reader

Comment by verisimi | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Well, because you could die in a horrible natural disaster, why wear your seat belt? There are things that "we" can control the effect "we" are having, and there are things that are totally out of "our" control. So we should just not care about the things we can because things we can't exist is just a very strange leap in logic.

that is not what he suggested

Rather than worry, we need to plan for the devastation caused to the people and massive investments in infrastructure that lie within centimeters of the current sea level.

The difference is time and how quickly things are changing now.

You do know most of that ice melted relatively quickly?

We don’t have much ice left to melt in comparison, and the levels haven’t changed much in the last 100 years really.

evidence doesn’t seem to support this thesis

Did temperature also change as quickly?

The problem with inferring ancient temperature is you have to rely on sparse proximal data (ie tree rings, ice cores, etc) that is only accurate within 1 or 2 degrees C for estimation and then you have to fill in whatever's missing, geographically and temporally.

Still sometimes the data does indicate sharp, dramatic changes, such as the Younger Dryas, about 12K years ago. After the recent glacial period ended, roughly 14K YA, there was a plunge back to glacial temps over a couple centuries which lasted about 1200 years, then very suddenly the temperature rose almost 20C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas#/media/File:Youn...

I agree.

The issue with doubting ancient temperatures, is that one has no faith in the predictions of science for the present, as this is the basis/metric in use.

We don’t know, we do know temperature increased (how quickly exactly no one knows)

Things are changing much slower now than in any prehistoric time we know of.

Temperature as well?

Putting aside the arguments on the merits of global warming ideology, your logical argument doesnt make sense, the sea rise in question was on the back of an ice age that receeded the waters prior, just because things have multiple causes doesnt mean it invalidates the other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com