You are once again proving yourself to be an utter idiot. Read that article again, and get your head wrapped around what "having nothing to do with" means in scientific context. For what it's worth, the secondary / tertiary effect suggested in that article would be grossly outweighed by the ignored effect of higher temperature keeping more water in the air in the form of clouds and water vapor, thereby leaving less water in the oceans! The connections are so tenuous that its effect in the model is in reality overwhelmed by what's left out of the model itself (water vapor suspended in air due to the same rising temperature)!
Get a clue on what "having nothing to do with" means in science. All statements in the scientific context (i.e. about reality) are statistical statements. "Nothing" / "impossible" means "Infinitesimal probability." You are really making a fool of yourself (i.e. showing to almost everyone with a science background that you are statistically very likely to be an scientific illiterate).
My emphasis on thermo-expansion was to point out your obvious assumption that sea level rising in global warming is entirely due to polar ice melting. You said sea level would stop rising after all polar ice is melted (even as temperature continue to rise). That model is wrong, and a very common mistake made by early global warmists who were too clueless to recognize thermo-expansion. What strawman tactic are you talking about? I addressed sea ice and land ice separately as the two together make up the polar ice.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
