Accuracy, please.

Florida has been both completely submerged and prior to the ice age had much much more coast line. If you dig anywhere in Florida you can find evidence of it being the sea floor.

> with the result being that the oceans were about 400 feet (122 meters) lower than today. During the last global "warm spell," about 125,000 years ago, the seas were about 18 feet (5.5. meters) higher [1]

https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/coastline-eastern-us-chang...

Fair enough, I checked it was 60 meters, not 100m [1]

However I do not buy "stable for a very long time wrt human history". There was little ice age in 17th century. 11th century had very warm and fertile weather in Scandinavia, population boom and Vikings... We can go into Egyptian history and droughts that lasted centuries... Entire Sahara was garden in living memory, when pyramids were build...

> take action to mitigate

I guess I should buy Tesla then? Do you own any stock btw? Perhaps slight conflict of interest?

We will have to drastically reduce our life standards. Not to "take action" but to live within our means! For US that means no more 4000 pound cars, but small electric bikes!

[1] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506

The link you provided doesn't support your claim of any particuly substantial change in global sea levels within the past 10,000 years.

The hodge podge collection of minor localised climate cell changes had little impact on the general stability of global climate parameters during the past 10,000 years. (You're rather overstating the chill spell in Europe for example).

Do you think that buying a Telsa will solve the pressing climate issues?

I don't follow your reasoning there.

> We will have to drastically reduce our life standards. Not to "take action" but to live within our means!

I'm not in the US and I suspect I may very well live with a lower carbon impact than most in G20 countries.

Except it never leveled off. It's been rising at the same rate for several thousand years.

Source? Evidence?

When someone says "X", and provides a source for their position, saying "no, Y" with no source, evidence, or even argument is rightly viewed as a very weak reply. Saying "no, Y, according to source Z" is a bit better, but it still leaves you with dueling sources and no reason why the reader should believe your source. A really strong reply is "no, Y, see source Z to explain what's wrong with the source the parent cited".

So... can you give us some reason why we should believe your position, instead of the GP's cited one?

1-3mm a year is totally fine. Triple it even, it's not going to wipe out humanity or be the root cause of anything really bad. If it really gets warm, you'll see a lot more snow deposited in the higher latitudes, less rise. Obama's, Clinton's, Al Gore all have fabulous ocean front mansions.

Here's some sauces: https://www.clo.nl/en/indicators/en022909-sea-level-dutch-co...

https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/sea-level-...

https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/coastal-sea-level-rise/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level

> Obama's, Clinton's, Al Gore all have fabulous ocean front mansions.

I see people make this argument sometimes, but all it probably indicates is "mega-rich people can absorb a monetary loss", not "they don't believe it exists".

It also speaks to the fact that "rational agents" don't fully exist in making economic decisions. These are purchases that are largely driven by emotion not logical, I imagine