In fact only the coastal regions will suffer from sea levels rise per se. But no height will be sufficient to guarantee your safety, sadly, because this is not about literal Great Flood. This is about climate change and hundreds of millions of deperate displaced immigrants from places like Bangladesh who will make everywhere more chaotic than today. We're not prepared for the human part of the catastrophe.

> only the coastal regions will suffer from sea levels rise

that's sort of definitional, but what might be 'coastal regions' 50 years from now might be somewhat different than today.

I would bet that even under worst case scenarios + some black swan events 20 feet above sea level is still perfectly safe from sea level rise until 2100, but then you still have increased flooding from extreme rainfall events, draughts, heatwaves, ocean acidification, soil depletion, mass migration, and a number of other future problems that can wreak havok on people just about everywhere.

I don't think they're expecting much in the next decade or two, maybe a few inches?

> the worst-case scenario — of seas rising nearly 4 feet due to Antarctic ice loss alone by 2100 — assumes that very high emissions continue for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...

That also assumes the west Antarctic holds together until 2100. That's when it's expected to go into full retreat but the error bars are +-50 years. It could hold until 2150, but it could also start breaking up in 2050. That possibility and others are not included in those estimates.

I believe it's about 9m if the whole of Greenland (two major glaciers) melts. And another ~60m if the whole of Antarctica melts. Naturally this is unlikely to happen in our lifetime, but positive feedback loops are a fascinating subject.

For friends looking to buy coastal property on ~30 year loans I advise that they need to be able to sell those properties some decades out from a more general concern / awareness of the risk.

Don't live close to sea level anywhere that gets hurricanes (Sorry Houston, New Orleans, Tampa and Miami).

From TFA: "Globally, sea levels are rising by about 3mm a year."

That's really, really fast.

It's been a while since I did the math, but IIRC this amounts to maybe half of the historical average rise since the end of the last ice age, where things were at times moving really, really fast. So not really that fast at all in the big picture. BTW, there's no particular reason to believe that this natural rise ever came to a complete halt either, AFAIK.

If it gets worse, it wont matter how many feet you are above sea level, except to not have your house submerged in water.

But the repercussions, like economic downturns, loss of friends and relatives, climate change created phenomena, food and water shortages, diseases on the raise, and so on, will affect everywhere...

If you’re more than like 150 feet above sea level it will never be an issue.

Water submerging your property wont be an issue. All the tons of others far more important repercussions will still apply...

50cm by 2100. That's just under 20 inches for Imperialists.

This assumes a linear rise of 6mm/year.

So in the next 10 years sea level would rise by 6 cm (just over two inches; I understand there are twelve of those in a foot, so we're not talking "feet" until 102 years from now).

That's also average sea level. If hurricanes get more powerful or more frequent, then you're going to want to account for the storm surge as well.

The historical record shows that hurricanes have gotten neither more frequent nor more powerful. [1]

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hurricane-lull-couldnt-last...

Perhaps the word "if" doesn't mean what I used it to mean? In that case, you should correct my misconceptions on that subject instead.

The X in your "if X then ..." is demonstrated false. That's your misconception.

The historical record talks about what (a) happened in the past, (b) is on record. Neither applies to a rapidly changing climate landscape.

Science doesn't apply to a rapidly changing, politically charged topic.

It's probably not gonna stay that way tho.

"More thoughtful and effective disaster policies are needed because the future will bring many more weather disasters like Hurricane Harvey, with larger impacts than those of the recent past." (From your own link)

The bigger impact will likely be water stored on land -- e.g. snowpack. All of California's major rivers are fed by snowpack/glacial melt from the Sierras, if all that starts melting more, there will be flooding, and then in later years there will be much less water coming off the mountains (as it'll have already melted).