Interesting, tried it with brackish water (about 1500ppm salt (chloride) by titration), sound water (about 19000ppm) and ocean water (about 33000ppm), results were not substantially different, although the ocean saline content did yield something close to a rise, not statistically significant.
Publish? I'll leave that to the academia wonks who have to publish or perish. Too many of 'em already doing this with grant money...wait....perhaps I SHALL apply to the gravy train
Not sure why you're referencing statistical significance? Have you repeated the experiment dozens of times, so that the statistics become an way to account for your measurement error? Factors such as the salt concentration, ambient temperature and of course human error, can potentially provide small differences between trials, but I doubt that's your problem. The underlying physics of this experiment produce a repeatable, observable and quantifiable effect. Measurement precision is needed for this, so if you can't precisely enough measure the volume difference, no number of trials or statistics is going to help you.
Your various characterizations of academics, the grant process, that it's a gravy train, and implications that somehow there's some sort of global conspiracy between ALL the major international research agencies to perpetuate a global warming hoax indicate a significant lack of understanding how how that all works.
Research grants are actually really hard to get, especially in an popular topic area like climate science. So you have to be pretty exceptional to get and maintain funding. Most public research grants can be looked up, so it's easy to prove that there's no agenda associated with what their findings are meant to be. It's also actually really hard to get multiple scientists to agree with each other, let alone work together on a hoax (but hey.. it's your tin foil). The idea that there's lots of money in it, is also easily debunked. Significantly more money is being spent by private donors, the oil, gas, and coal industries funding the lobbying of politicians, public messaging on the "doubt" angle, and funding the "few" scientists who disagree with the overall consensus. The actual gravy train is If you have any kind of decent credentials if you promise to write papers that refute global warming, you're pretty much guaranteed funding by the American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute or Heritage Foundation, all of which have a clear political agenda. The "follow the money" argument doesn't support the hoax position, when you actually follow the money.
Dude, calm down, I'm not into chopping down your money tree or clogging your money funnel.
I think my uncertainty with seawater may have been trial bias. I was actually expecting a rise based on your accounts, and the meniscus of water level and condensation on the outer glass may have affected the accuracy of my measurement. Clearly my failure on an experimental basis. I am just a guy with a glass of water and ice cubes. I understand that common sense doesn't trump well-ffunded, settled science, and I'm cool with that.
A reasonable person may have doubts when others get defensive and write a tome discrediting the poster rather than the data.
That is all. Be well.