The supplement to the paper cited in the immediately preceding post can be found at:http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/11/2013/esd-4-11-2013-supplement.pdf
This supplementary material provides additional information about both the author's methodology and also about their uncertainties, which are summarized by the authors in the first attached image.
The caption for the first attached image is:
"Fig. 12. (a)–(c) Uncertainty in regional sea level change, indicated as “likely” range (roughly 16th to 84th percentiles). Uncertainty in sea level change (a) and its steric component (b), for the RCP 4.5 scenario in the semi-empirical case. The uncertainty resulting from GIS/AIS partition in the semi-empirical approach is illustrated in panel (c), for a total ice sheet contribution equal to the ensemble median. Contours lines indicate 5 cm intervals. Black dots indicate individual locations highlighted in Fig. 9."
The caption for the second attached image is:
"Figure S5: Sea-level rise along the world's coastlines for the four RCP scenarios and the two ice-sheet cases (left: IPCCAR4+, right: Semi-empirical), between 1980-1999 and 2090-2099. The various coastlines are represented in separate panels. Red filled areas represent the upper bound of the uncertainty range in the RCP8.5 scenario (50th to 68th percentiles), and blue filled areas the lower bound in the RCP3PD scenario (16th to 50th percentiles). Global mean sea level rise for each RCP scenario is indicated in the left part of each panel, continued with dotted lines over the rest of the panel. See Figure 9 of the main document to visualize the coastlines on a world map."
The caption for the third attached image is:
"Figure S6: Glacial isostatic adjustment expressed as sea-level change along the world's coastlines, between 1980-1999 and 2090-2099. The data is averaged over a 300 km wide band of coastal waters. Based on ICE-5G (VM2) Peltier (2004)."
The caption for the fourth attached image is:
"Figure S7: Comparison of the IPCCAR+ ice-sheet case (with the RCP 6.0 emission scenario) (_lled) with regional SLR projections from Slangen et al. (2011) (with the SRES A1B emission scenario) (hatched). (a) Total SLR with 16th-84th (this study) and 1-sigma uncertainties (Slangen) (both uncertainty measures are equivalent for a Gaussian distribution). (b) Individual contributions to SLR. GIA is included in this Figure, to ease comparison (in both cases based on the ICE-5G (VM2) model, but with slightly di_erent implementations). The dashed vertical line in (a) indicated the global mean SLR. The RCP 6.0 emission scenario is comparable to SRES A1B, and the IPCCAR4+ ice sheet case is similar to Slangen et al's treatment of the ice sheets (except that they do consider negative AIS SMB and add a dynamic ice-sheet contribution based on the IPCCAR4 on top of GIS and AIS contribution, which leads to slightly higher ice-sheet contributions than our approach of setting Antarctica contribution to zero and ignoring any dynamic contribution from the ice sheets to SLR). These differences in treatment of the ice sheets, as well as slightly higher MGIC contributions in Slangen et al. (2011) than in our approach, explain the overall higher land-ice contribution in Slangen et al. (2011). Location coordinates may differ between both studies, which is an additional source of discrepancy in regions with small-scale SLR features. We choose this combination of emission scenario and ice-sheet case from our results to help focusing on the regional distribution of SLR. Figures 9 and S5 show a more comprehensive comparison between ice-sheet cases and emission scenarios."
Note that the reference for Slangen et al (2011) is:
Slangen, A. B. A., Katsman, C. A., Wal, R. S. W., Vermeersen, L. L. A., and Riva, R. E. M.: Towards regional projections of twenty-first century sea-level change based on IPCC SRES scenarios
, Clim. Dynam., 38, 1191–1209, doi:10.1007/s00382-011-1057-6, 2011.
While the authors admit that their analysis is in the nascent stages, I particularly appreciate their sincere effort to indicate their uncertainties illustrated by the first attached image; which emphasizes the high uncertainties in their studies associated with ice mass loss from ice sheets (sources for such uncertainties probably include: (a) all of the potential collapse mechanisms for the WAIS that I discuss in this Antarctic folder); (b) snow scoured by wind in East Antarctica; (c) Affects of Specific Humidity Changes on SLR; (d) dynamic ice surface melting in Greenland; (e) the steric influences of AABW changes on SLR; (f) etc. Clearly, this document was generated in time to be referenced as part of the AR5 WGI results to be issued between September 23 and 26th, 2013; and all of the assumptions are compatible with the draft release of the AR5 document (including the normal [non-collapse] Thwaites Ice Tongue surging cited in this thread).
I only hope someday that other researchers will present their uncertainties in this manner; and I also hope that someday researchers will formally include inputs such as RCP 8.5 95% CLR, and possible collapse mechanisms for the WAIS (see the "RCM" thread).