SPQR, the Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland has been reported by NASA as retreating at a record speed. The glacier is 22 kilometers wide and stands 800+ meters high.
There is even acknowledgement in a Greenland tourist brochure about the amount of receding of Jakobshavn glacier. In relation to the

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/jakobshavn.html

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/environment/greenland-s-jakobshavn-glacier-retreating-at-record-speeds/article/369185

I had a look at the reference you provided, it being an abstract; and discussed variability. It also discusses how water is undermining the glacier where it meets the sea, its a pity your reference is behind a paywall.
Here is a reference directed towards tourists wishing to visit Greenland:

http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/natur-klima/klimaaendringer.aspx
Derived from: http://www.greenland.com/en/ which says at top left "The Official Tourism Site of Greenland"
Over the last few years it has been noticed that the amount of melt water on top of the Greenland ice sheet has been increasing in extent until now it covers 100% of the ice sheet in a film for a short period.

SPQR, you may or may not have watched the clip I provided in relation to thermocast failure, my references relate to Alaska.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CVKsZhrsAec

The Richardson Highway in Alaska was blocked through a landslide, created through permafrost melting; that is, thermokarst failure.

http://epic.awi.de/31461/1/Morgenstern2012Dissertation.pdf

In neighbouring Siberia they also have thermokarst lakes.

Probably something to do with ocean currents. Surface area of ice will effect temps; and play a role in weather patterns.

The ice melt is increasing, America is copping the fallout from Greenland, but don,t tell ARJAY he has his own ideas of what is causing Americas weather.

By the time all the ice has melted, the expected sea level rise is expected to be six meters.

Just a reminder of the dishonesty of participants in the AGW fraud, Steele:
“Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

You are now part of a blatant fraud, Steele. An 80 year cooling trend in the US has been turned into a warming trend, by alteration of data.
A typical example of the fabrication of global warming.

SPQR
"Would NOT it also lead to similar *increases* around Greenland --and why are we not seeing it mirrored there?"

The simple answer to your question is sea currents alter the situation; warmer sea currents melt the ice.

http://mex1.whoi.edu:8080/http2/WHOI_CMS/Woods_Hole_Oceanographic_Institution/70536_glaciersPacewebopt.mp4

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/mediarelations/ArcticSubpolarCurrents550_103268.jpg

Leo, you might enjoy this experiment with CO2.

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/1906/how-co2-traps-sun39s-warmth CO2

People who live in an area generally have some feeling for whats going on, a short clip:
http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/2687/life-in-the-arctic-sami-view

I was talking with a mate yesterday, he stated if there was a 1 in 3 chance of a plane coming to grief we would not put our children onboard.
Even if the chance was 1 in a 100 we would not place our children on board. He stated that the actual chance of a plane accident is around 1 in 10,000,000.
He commented that we have a 1 in 3 chance of climate change doing huge damage. I didn't ask him how he came to the figure of 1 in 3. We insure our houses where the chance of it being burnt down is far less than 1 in 100. Yet, we take great chances with climate change.

Dear Tinkerbell,

I love it when guys like you post stuff from Steven Goddard. You did realise of course there is no real person called Steven Goddard running an anti-AGW blog. It is actually someone else entirely.

The last time this rather shadowy figure had a real crack at NASA figures was in 2008 when The Register, again in the UK, published an article claiming the Arctic ice melt was not as severe as that proclaimed by NASA.

“data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007.”

“The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn't even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

Although this was picked up by other news agencies it was of course complete bunkum. If you go to the above link you will find this correction;

“Walt Meier, research scientist at the NSIDC, has contacted us disputing the validity of Steven Goddard's methodology, and of his use of University of Illinois data to question the NSIDC's charts. We accept that these two data sets are not directly comparable, and that the University of Illinois data does not provide support for Goddard's charge that the NSIDC data is incorrect.”

After a week of getting roasted Steve Goddard aka Tony Heller finally conceded;

"it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated."

Which honest broker do you have for us next?