I have provided this information in detail in the past and those who have challenged me to do so haven't even bothered to check it or respond. The information is freely available in all sort of resources. The bits you need are the surface area of the earth and the surface area of the oceans, the volume of land based ice required to melt to fill the appropriate surface area to whatever level you require (in my case 1 metre), the amount of energy required to do the phase change of 1 kg of solid H2O to liquid H2O (which is approx equivalent raising 1 Kg of liquid H2O from 0 degrees Celsius to 84-85 degrees Celsius) and viola you have your results. This give an approximation to the energy required and even if you were 20% out in any of your figures, the amount is of such a magnitude that those errors are fundamentally insignificant for the planetary effects that such an amount of energy would do.

That amount of energy on the lower bounds would have caused all life to become extinct before we would see the oceans rise by any significant amount.

Many years ago, I gave these calculations to a senior climate scientist and he noted at the time that the results were interesting and he would get back to me after he had analysed those figures. That was what 15 or more years ago and I have never heard anything back since those discussions.

I have provided such figures in detail to various climate scientists asking for their analysis and basically no response. Not even to the extent of saying that the calculations were flawed.

So when ever any fool climate scientist or their supporters promulgate any scenario that says we should expect any significant ocean level rises inside of 100 years (significant being anything above 0.5 metre - especially those who promulgate 1 to 10 metres) due to human activity then the onus is on them to demonstrate where the energy processes are occurring. They have not done so to date and based on their dogma, I suspect that they cannot.

The problem with all of this politically correct dogma is that they (the climate scientists en bulk) are not doing any science.

I have said it in the past - there are no stupid questions. It seems to be today that funding is the driver to follow the crowd and to not do actual science.

We need to know what is happening in our climate. This is irrespective of any ideological standpoint you may hold. If you challenge the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) dogma then you are anathema. Even if you believe in climate change, if you do not follow the party line then you are an infidel that needs to be destroyed. Jihad not only occurs in extreme Islam but is alive and well in Climate Science as well.

This whole matter is simple enough for a fifth grader to solve, let alone an adult who should be able to do this in 20 minutes (including looking up the information).

Scepticism has its place and we need a few more sceptics when it comes to the lack of rigour that is being used by those who promulgate such scenarios. If you want to follow a fool where he leads without at least a cursory look at the base of what they are saying then you are free to do so. When someone says that you need to look at what they are saying, you don't need to listen, you can just follow blindly.

end rant.