Nå har nok ikke IPCC sagt noen om det. Din kilde er ikke IPCC.
IPCC har desverre vært alt for passive når det gjelder dette tema.
Her fant jeg noe som kan være nyttig for en amatør som deg:
<
http://earlywarn.blogspot.no/2010/04/latest-sea-level-rise-projections.html>
> The situation on global sea-level rise due to climate change seems to
> be slowly becoming clearer. At the time of the fourth IPCC
> assessment report (AR4 in 2007) there was a big controversy over the
> numbers cited there. The problem was that those numbers ignored
> ice-dynamics (the fact that the big ice-sheets on Greenland and
> Antarctica might start to break up at the edges and slide rapidly
> into the ocean, rather than just slowly erode in place). It had
> become clear in the 2000s that ice sheets were much more dynamic than
> had been previously assumed and in particular, water was pouring down
> channels (moulins) in the ice to the base and lubricating their
> movement in the summer - glaciers were accelerating unexpectedly.
> This process was not well understood quantitatively, but appeared
> likely to be the most important mechanism by which ice sheets broke
> up (and in turn, a major contributor to sea level rise).
>
> What the IPCC elected to do was present numbers that explicitly
> excluded the ice dynamics contribution, which struck me as a poor
> decision at the time. In a summary publication of that kind,
> intended for the public and policymakers, it seems to me that if you
> can't quantify the most important effect, it would be better to admit
> ignorance and not to present numbers at all, rather than present
> numbers for the second and third order effects that you believe you
> can quantify, but which are bound to be badly wrong as a summary of
> the overall situation.
>
> In the interim, satisfactory ice dynamics models based on the
> fundamental physics are still not available, and more empirical
> methods are coming to the fore. The latest paper on this is Vermeer
> and Rahmstorf in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
> (there is also an interesting account of the genesis of this work at
> RealClimate). The paper is pretty impressive, at least to this
> non-specialist. It's an easy read - a hazy memory of your
> undergraduate calculus course will get you through if you are
> otherwise quantitatively literate - and the results, for what is a
> very simple model, are intriguing.
>
> The basic idea is to model the rise in sea level as being governed by
> two terms. The first term says that there is a contribution to the
> rate of rise in sea level that is proportional to the difference
> between the current global temperature, and some reference
> temperature T0. The idea is that the sea level is eventually - in
> millenia - going to be a lot higher, but the rate at which it starts
> to go towards that higher value is proportional to how much above
> pre-industrial temperatures we are. The second term basically assumes
> that there is a contribution to sea level itself that is directly
> proportional to temperature (that some aspects of the ocean expand
> immediately in response to temperature expansion). There is a
> substantial plot twist in the paper around this term, but I will let
> you go read it if you are curious.
>
> In any case, they take this simple three parameter model, and use a
> fit to global temperature and sea level from 1880-2000 to estimate
> the parameters. I have added the emphasis on 2000 as the end date of
> their fit - we will come back to that point later.
--
jo
"When you measure what you are speaking about and express
it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you
cannot express it in numbers your knowledge about is of
a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
--William Thomson (Lord Kelvin).