Rat Faced, I think you've missed my point (though I admit I didn't put it very clearly).
Let's assume their "likely" event of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melting, leading to a 7 metre rise in sea level. This ice sheet covers less than 1/250th of theearth'soceans' surface, yet it will have absorbed the same amount of energy equivalent to heating water 80C to a depth of 7 metres across all the oceans, or 7C to a depth of 80 metres. Even though the greenhouse effect doesn't have an effect down to anything like this level, I'll use that as a basis. Of course, this assumes that the ice is already at 0C, but it is much colder than that.
If we assume that the energy distrubution is constant around the world, energy would be being absorbed by the sea at exactly the same rate. So the same amount of water would actually heat up 250 times as fast. Since this scenario is supposed to take place over the next 200 years, this warming would have to take place at a rate of 7*250/200C per year. Take into account the fact that the ice is NOT at 0C and you would have to have warming at a rate of around 12C per annum, at least.
Sea level rises of about 50cm over the next 200 years would require surface warming (to a depth of 80m) of about 1C per annum, which would most certainly be detectable. But actual temperature rises approaching 1C per decade have not been reliably reported, and that wouldn't produce a rise of more than 5cm.
Therer are some areas of the world which would be threatened by a 5cm rise so it isn't desirable, but that report is simply nonsense. As I said earlier, some people just haven't done their sums.
Edit:earth'soceans'
Bookmarks