I think you have a good point about the generally-accepted ranges for sea level rise being smaller than the figure Wanless mentions. The thing that has people

I think you have a good point about the generally-accepted ranges for sea level rise being smaller than the figure Wanless mentions. The thing that has people worried is that the mass losses from glaciers are large, not well-accounted for, and they could accelerate. (The sea level rise from volume increases due to temperature rise of the oceans are much smaller and much easier to account for.) Looking carefully at the IPCC summary (your [2]), it seems that 1m is the current top of the likely range for rise by 2100, even including possible loss of Greenland and the Antarctic glaciers. Here's a sample of the reactions to a recent, high-profile paper that put forward a 3m rise by 2100: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150721-james-hansen-sea-level-rise-climate-change-global-warming-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150721-james-hans...