It fell apart when you wanted "scientific" proof... You can't get better than NASA
Did you have a link to the NASA website that backs up a NET LOSS of glacier volume? (Remember, loss of this glacier here or that glacier there doesn't mean the average isn't a gain.) It also has to be a pattern over time. If there has been a loss of volume every year since 1980, and then we have one year of gain, it means nothing. I'm just saying, if you do find a NASA website, make sure it actually says what you want it to say.
For example, I found THIS on the NASA website, which says the opposite of what you are saying.
The satellite era, beginning in the 1970s, has given us a picture of accelerating ice changes in places like Alaska, Greenland and Antarctica, where the loss of land-based ice is contributing to global sea level rise. Forty-six gigatons of ice from Alaskan glaciers was lost on average each year from 2003 to 2010.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/
There is, in your benefit, a second study that was done more recently that outright contradicts this, that says there was a net gain during the same period.
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses How do we reconcile this? There must have been something different...
What was different was the method used for measuring the ice.
A controversial NASA study says Antarctica is gaining ice. Here’s why you should be skeptical Now they have to determine which method is the more accurate method. Until then, we don't know.
One of my questions would be, if there is a net gain in glaciers rather than a loss, how do we explain the rise in sea level? It does make me still a little more biased in favor of net loss of mass. But I admit it's best to wait for scientists to work this out among themselves.
Which means, vis, that at least you have informed me that we DON'T KNOW what the state of glacier gain/loss is. I didn't know that before.
I hope you are equally convinced.
