Though, as you mention it, "1m by 2100" is very near many of the current "intermediate" scenario estimates, within a VERY wide range of estimates.

Jim, you are very good at running some numbers to see if projections are reasonable. What rate of earnings growth and what P/E ratio is needed for Telsa and Meta to give a 10% return over the next 10 years. Often the results show the optimists to be a bit unrealistic. The same logic works with glacial geology and paleo/future sea level rise. It is very popular to be pessimistic to alarmist, and very unpopular to doubt the alarmists. Media coverage, research grants follow the eye-popping projections.

In its 2019 report, the IPCC projected 0.6 to 1.1 meters (1 to 3 feet) of global sea level rise by 2100 (or about 15 millimeters per year) if greenhouse gas emissions remain at high rates. The high end, 1.1 meters, does not pass the test for a reasonable scenario, yet it is widely quoted in media. If you ask a glacial geologist (yes many of us specialize in just that) if it is reasonable to predict sea level rise to exceed the Holocene transgression, they will say it is very unlikely. If you ask them to refute an article that Florida is going to vanish soon, they will say they'd rather not comment.