Radical, I know, but has anyone actually read the abstract (linked in the article)?
For example, this finishes with " The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered regions is thus 1.48 ± 0.26 mm/yr, which agrees well with independent estimates of sea level rise "
so nothing too radical there - i.e. GRACE results agree with previous (worrying) estimates.
So where's the beef then?
Well, of that 1.48mm/yr, 1.06mm/yr comes from Greenland and the Antarctic, leaving only ~0.42mm/yr from other souces including Glaciers (GIC). Of that 0.42mm/yr the abstract says the following: " The GIC rate for 2003–2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate "
So what we have here is research saying that
1) The big picture of ice melt is unchanged within the (17%) error bars - yup, ice is still melting fast
2) if you exlude the 2/3 of the melting (Greenland/Antarctica) then the previous estimates for the remaining third were about 30% too high
3) almost all that 30% reduction comes from high glaciers
Is it really too much to ask (I fear it is) to include at least *some* mention of point 1) above in reporting of this paper?