I was not trying to deal with the factual accuracy of the statement (as pertains to the quantity of ice), which - the statement - was a quote from the article.
I was pointing out the unscientific assumption that that ice melting from climate change would raise the sea levels by an amount (any amount) said to be equal to the water that ice represents.
No matter what is the factually correct amount of ice/water on Greenland, climate change IS NOT going to melt it all at once, send it into the sea all at once.
It will be a gradual process. The amount it adds will also add to global evaporation from the seas, global cloud formation, global precipitation. Its waters will, through the total dynamic of the oceans’ role in the climate system, evaporate and wind up in clouds, from clouds it will wind up in rain over land as well as seas; from rain it will wind up in lakes and in ground water as deep as humans dig wells - in addition to adding to SOME component of the total sea level.
That component - that may add to sea levels, due to climate change, will never be the sum total of the ice/water on Greenland.
For that to happen, it would have to very suddenly and completely melt all at once, due to some catastrophe; not due to the gradual melting that may occur during any period of climate change. In a period of slow melting it will add to all forms of water across the earth - many land bound as well, not just the “sea level”.
How much? It cannot be calculated. The general climate and actual weather variables that a gradual melting will encounter cannot be accurately predicted. Therefore, where all throughout the earth all the ice/water will wind up also CANNOT be predicted.
What is scientifically clear is it will NOT, all of it (no matter what that amount is), simply add to sea levels.
Understood (and agreed :-)