Clipping the melt volume at 1 meter worth of SLR, and using exponential curves to back-load the melt on the end of the melting period seem like reasonably conservative flux models.

With the flux cutoff at 1m of SLR, Hansen’s model is not melting more ice than can be melted in the next 100 years, but it is well within that Rahmstorff limit.

You see, the world’s best and brightest scientists disagree with you. Contrary to you staement that “the science is not settled” the experts have no doubt that it is. Take Nathan Bindoff for example, a well-known and highly competent lead author for many of the assessment reports. He says at 1:05:00-1:05:30 here:

…the science of climate change is unequivocal – the Earth is warming. If you go and think back to the 1950s actually we can formally demonstrate that all of the changes observed since the 1950s can be attributed to human activity – all of the changes, not some fraction… all of it.

Who should I believe – a noted expert in the discipline, or an uncredentialled nobody on the internet who is partial to logical fallacy and ideological denialism?

No. I have heard and read about the Bay of Fundy, of course. But on such a crucial question as whether the sea is rising (lowering) or the land is moving up and down, I was careful to restrict my testimony to a case with which I had extensive personal experience. No hearsay evidence.

“… their assumption that land could go up and down easily while the sea never moved. their assumption that land could go up and down easily while the sea never moved.”

Greg, in my experience, this is not just an assumption, but literally true. I lived for many years where the land bounced up and as much as 30 feet with a period of about 12 hours. See http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/noaatidepredictions/NOAATidesFacade.jsp?Stationid=9455920 for a graph of currently land-bouncing there.

When I learned about Eemian high strand lines it was commonly assumed that these were due to continental buoyancy (which is not exactly the same as isostatic rebound). I don’t know what the textbooks were saying but the people with whom I was working who were studying high strand lines in North and South Africa were thinking this.

I suspect this was a widely held assumption that had to do with our general inability as humans to grasp vertical changes in land or sea other than simple mountain building, especially the sea.

Maybe this goes back to when we first evolved as tiny microbes in the sea ( 🙂 ), but historically people looking at major patterns in geology have gravitated towards the sea level simply never changing and all the other stuff that happens is the land going up and down. Darwin and his contemporaries (and Darwin was one of the first scientists to study this issue) made a lot of mistakes in figuring out the past because of their assumption that land could go up and down easily while the sea never moved.

In Africa it made sense because Africa does seem to be a somewhat “buoyant” continent. All the edges are up. This, though, probably has more to do with the position of Africa in one or more earlier super-continents (and subsequent rifting) than any actual innate buoyancy.