The 70's example was from erosion and was simply a false equivalency with sea level rise. On the other hand coastal erosion is also made worse by sea level rise.

So, I continued by mentioning barrier islands / coastal cities and what's happening to them.

> So, I continued by mentioning barrier islands / coastal cities and what's happening to them

Exactly, but you failed to mention how "what's happening to them" is in any way related to sea level rise. You made the claim that "flooding keeps getting worse" and "Such events are going to become more regular" but didn't actually back up those claims. Instead, you seem to imply that sea level rise is responsible for some recent observations, despite the fact that even the most extreme projections of sea level rise couldn't possibly be responsible for the flooding you mention (in your own words, those events were the result of "storm surge" activity).

Even 1cm of sea level rise makes the problem worse. That does not mean on it's own it's the only cause, just that without sea level rise NYC would have received slightly less than 19 billion in damages. I am not saying that's 10B or 18.999B, but the point is not the scale of the difference just which side sea level rise sit's on.

Further, going from 1cm to 2cm or 20cm to 21cm of rise again makes the problem worse. The point is you don't wake up one day and the worlds on fire, just spend slightly more on reconstruction year after year.