cohenite, the huge amounts of ice being calved off Greenland and Antarctica need to go somewhere. The ice calved off doesn't melt straight away, it is at the mercy of currents and wind; that was stated in the article you provided. Its another proof that calving is happening. The Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland is 16 ks wide and stands around 800 ms where it calves, it is not the biggest glacier in Greenland.
You mentioned before about the Himalayas, I believe there is a glacier in Sikkim that is increasing. I have mentioned that there are exceptions, but overall glaciers are in retreat.
In one of the references you provided before it stated that as temperatures go up more snowfall can be a result, I'm not going to hunt for it, but from memory it was your wikipedia reference.
A reference I gave previously showed how the glacier on Kilimanjaro was retreating, but if it is increasing again that's great.

AS stated a few times Antarctica and Greenland hold most of the world's land locked ice. An iceberg 660 square ks has calved off the Pine Island glacier, it is up to 500 meters thick.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/huge-iceberg-breaks-off-antarctic-glacier-20140424-zqyjn.html

How do you explain cohenite that the Alaskan Inuits are in trouble in some of the areas that they live where ice once protected their shores; erosion is now a huge problem. Watch the film clip referenced above.
I'm not the one flogging a dead horse, cohenite.

ant, Antarctic sheet ice is INCREASING; the WAP is distinct from the rest of the Antarctic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AntarcticaRockSurface.jpg ] and has some calving but this is due to ice expansion! In any event nothing unusual is happening in the WAP.

History of WAP:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057782/abstract

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml#content

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL032529/abstract

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822131212.htm

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/

Basically the sea level is rising, and this indicates that the global temperatures are on balance increasing despite any minor differences over periods of several years.

It really is time that those who do not accept that greenhouse gases are not the cause of the 150 year long period of global warming at least accept that the climate has warmed and is continuing to do so.

warmy is there no end to your support of AGW? Well, yes there appears to be. Almost:

"It really is time that those who do not accept that greenhouse gases are not the cause of the 150 year long period of global warming at least accept that the climate has warmed"

"and is continuing to do so."

Mmmm.

Sea level rise is decelerating:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/24/slowing-sea-level-rise/

See also the Watson paper and Houston and Dean's various papers.

Global Temperature has stopped rising for at least the last half of the satellite record.

The world has warmed since about 1850 due to natural variability and increased TSI.

AGW is a disproved theory. The end.

Warmair,

You miss what is relevant or you avoid it. You need to get your head around what is important for policy, not keep arguing about 'the science'. Quite honestly, I don't think you have much of a clue about any of it.

Things I question about climate science and policy:

1. What is the value of ECS and TCR?

2. Is ECS and TCR relevant given that climate changes suddenly, not as portrayed by IPCC’s smooth projections?

3. What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2-e concentration have on the climate – will it make the next sudden change happen sooner or later? Will it make the next sudden cooling happen sooner or later? Or will it cause a sudden warming event? What are the probabilities?

4. Will it make the next sudden climate change less or more severe? (e.g. delay the onset of the next cooling and/or reduce its severity OR make the next sudden warming happen sooner and make it more severe)? What are the probabilities?

5. What would be the consequences of warming? What would be the consequences of cooling?

6. What is the probability that the advocated mitigation policies would succeed in delivering the claimed benefits (climate damages avoided), given real world issues with implementing and maintaining such policies (e.g. carbon pricing)?

a. To answer this question we need to understand the short and medium economic impact of the proposed policies for nation state, and consider how each will respond so as to maximise its advantage (i.e. game theory) through all situations that could occur over the next century or so.

7. What is the probability that alternative polices are more likely to succeed (such as removing the political and regulatory impediments that are preventing the world from having low cost nuclear energy and allowing lightly regulated markets to deliver the benefits at least cost)?

cohenite, thanks for your reference in relation to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822131212.htm which recognizes climate warming. Quote " And if this rapid warming that we are now seeing continues, we can expect that ice shelves further south along the Peninsula that have been stable for thousands of years will also become vulnerable."
Ice shelves melting will not have any impact on water levels.

The Antarctic area is quite interesting as to what's happening, but from everything I have seen the loss of ice is far greater than any accumulation.