I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm confused. I'm also sorry if I failed to react as much as I should to some idiosyncrasies re. the way you express yourself. I did notice previously that you seemed to be disagreeing with me and I ignored it and was right to do so because you were disagreeing with someone else. But it very much seemed to me as if you were disagreeing with the simple calculation. I apologise if I was mistaken. I have found however, that the "experts" seem to have failed to account for the lower density of ice and their calculations seem to be 10% high. I wondered about it yesterday but assumed that maybe compressibility and specific density cancel out but they don't. So the figures given for sea level rise actually are too high.
You conveniently discovered it less than an hour after I posted about it...
I don't read your posts. It's just a fluke I read this. I was thinking about it yesterday but assumed the experts were right and that compressibility (which they also didn't mention) cancelled out specific density discrepancies. I was tired and decided to check that today.
I've been busy today buying Christmas alcohol (31 assorted bottles) on an online auction for about 30% of its value. I got 6 bottles of Saki, which I like but no whisky which was going for high prices. One bottle of whisky went for £1500.
Anyway I only just got around to checking the figures. I never read all the posts here. I thought I'd told you that already but relative density is something that anyone who understands physics would naturally be aware of. I was talking to my son on the phone today because he wanted me to bid for a bottle of whisky. He's the one who learned physics up to degree level in the first term of his physics PhD after never learning it at school. It runs in the family because it was my favourite subject at school and of course I passed all the exams. 
.
I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm confused. I'm also sorry if I failed to react as much as I should to some idiosyncrasies re. the way you express yourself. I did notice previously that you seemed to be disagreeing with me and I ignored it and was right to do so because you were disagreeing with someone else. But it very much seemed to me as if you were disagreeing with the simple calculation. I apologise if I was mistaken. I have found however, that the "experts" seem to have failed to account for the lower density of ice and their calculations seem to be 10% high. I wondered about it yesterday but assumed that maybe compressibility and specific density cancel out but they don't. So the figures given for sea level rise actually are too high.
You conveniently discovered it less than an hour after I posted about it...