ALL of your objections are irrelevant to the mathematical point I was making; let me repeat it for everyone yet again:

The global sea level rose a total of 8 inches in the past century.

It is predicted that the global temperature may rise a maximum of 6.4 degrees C in the next century (but we’ll round it up to 7 degrees C in your favor).

If all of the ice caps melted, it would raise the global sea level in excess of 10 meters (but we’ll round it down to 10 meters even in your favor).

Since a meter is about 39.37 inches, 10 meters would be about 393.7 inches (rounded down).

393.7 divided by 8 = 49.2125

Therefore, for all of the ice caps to melt in the next century, their melt rate would have to be damn near 50 times the present rate, as a result of an only 7 degree C global temperature rise. And it’s much colder than the average global temperature in the polar regions, and adds ice and snow when the temps there drop below freezing, which they do more than half the time. And once again, ocean currents don’t melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps except at the edges, because they rest on land, and the Arctic ice cap does rest in water, but because of that, 7/8 of its volume already displaces water, so its melting would not significantly raise global sea levels. And since ice and snow have high reflectivity coefficients, and sunlight strikes the poles at a very oblique angle after traveling through much more atmosphere than the perpendicular equatorial rays, it’s not a significant factor. Nor are methane or CO2, as far as their chemistry are concerned; what melts ice is temperature, not atmospheric chemistry, so their only influence is how much radiant heat from the sun they trap and how much that raises global temperature - which is predicted to rise 7 degrees C at the outside in the next century, just as I factored in my calculations.

And according to the July 2009 Bristol study, every damn time in the last 22,000 years the temperature rose 6.4 degrees C, the global sea level did not rise more than 82 cm; otherwise, they would not have predicted that to be its upper end rise in response to a 6.4 degree C rise in the next century:

Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change
nature.com

And the results of the Bristol study closely correlate with the most recent (2007) IPCC estimates.

ipcc.ch

You may not like Wikipedia, but just follow the links:

en.wikipedia.org

Contemporary consensus climatological science agrees with ME, not YOU. Don’t even try to pretend otherwise.

One other thing; please show me from this article where a 7 degree C increase in temperature translates to a 50 fold increase in melt rate:

Physical Basis for the Temperature-Based Melt-Index Method

You can’t. Because ‘nonlinearity’ can provide no fucking justification whatsoever for the ADDITION of 7 degrees C in global temperature to be the cause of the MULTIPLICATION of the ice cap melt rate by more than 7 SQUARED times!!!