From what I remember reading, the problem points are really the Arctic and the Antarctic. If they melt, hello Waterworld.

For example, the ice cover in Greenland is melting at a record rate. If it goes completely, this alone would raise the sea level with something like 7 m (23 ft).

If everything goes, it will be something like a 65 m (213 ft) sea level rise.

Now, given the sluggishness of action-taking in this matter, some of the ice cover will almost certainly melt before anything gets done.

The end result will probably be much more than a few feet, but less than the maximum, so let's guess 30 m (100 ft).

Now, I suppose some self-correcting actions are automatically taken when enough people get displaced and pour to dry areas: traffic ceases in the coastal cities, air traffic to these areas will cease as well, factories will stop, and so on.

But still... given +30 m, have you already checked where the current coastline would be where you live?

I live a couple hundred feet above sea level in the middle of the United States in a place where winter sucks. It is a struggle to actively care about climate change despite knowing that I should.

That's an interesting map. Any idea why there are down and up arrows intermingled the way they are?

From my understanding the down arrows indicate the coast is expanding. The key at the bottom says the down arrows are negative sea level growth

I read that tide patterns are changing so locally measuring climate sea rise makes no sense yet, as tides superimpose ±8mm

So far you need the global integrate of all changes.

Likely changes to the coast itself. For example Louisiana and the gulf coast are going down faster, because of coastal erosion.

I would guess that the parts of Alaska that are seeing the sea level fall are due to the land rising from tectonic activity.

Things like changes in water temp and currents can also play a role.