Different parts of the climate system have different characteristic timescales. The most important near term is the response of the top layers of the ocean, which is usually said to be about 30 years — that's the "lag" in the system. Ice sheets take longer to reach equilibrium with a changed climate — hundreds, perhaps thousands of years — but may still exhibit rapid responses in shorter periods (see the link I provided above).

One major difficulty in projecting the full impact of current GHG levels is that we're offsetting their impact with aerosol pollution. If we clean up the atmosphere, we could increase the warming. Google Ramanathan & Feng, they have an important paper on the subject.

How long was the Eemian in equilibrium for?

You state that other things can effect climate but then you say that the Eemian demonstates an equilibrium response to 300ppb CO2. If your first statement is correct the Eemian demonstrates a response to all the factors that existed at the time – not just the level of CO2.

Anyway… so the Eemian was 1-2C warmer than today and CO2 was 300 ppm, so how long until that catches up with us? Given CO2 was last at 300 ppm when? World war 2? If 300 ppm was going to cause 1-2C warming how long do we have to wait?

So this didnt happen?

You note CO2 levels were 300ppm yet it was warmer than today. Interesting…. its as if something other than CO2 can influence temperature.

During the last interglacial (Eemian), global average temps were a little higher than now (CO2 was only 300 ppm, remember), and sea level was about 6m higher at peak. It's thought that half of that rise came from Greenland and half from Antarctica. IIRC the Greenland ice sheet was about 25% smaller than at present, with trees growing on the southern part of the island.

You have to bear in mind that this was an equilibrium response: the climate system stayed warm long enough for the oceans and ice sheets to "catch up". That's not true at the moment. What we're seeing now is the early part of the transient response to warming. But the Eemian gives us an idea of where we're heading…

Only having data since the mid 1990’s (or 2003 above) however leaves many questions unanswered. How does today’s ice level relate to past levels (ie 1000+ years ago)? Is today’s melt unusual in the historical record? If the sheet has been warmer in the past were tipping points reached?

Sorry if I do not share your alarm but for me looking at only 10+ years of climate data and then projecting the trend forward is not cause for alarm.

"Satellite observations and a state-of-the art regional atmospheric model have independently confirmed that the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in Science."

Or this:

"Professor Jonathan Bamber from the University of Bristol and an author on the paper said: "It is clear from these results that mass loss from Greenland has been accelerating since the late 1990s and the underlying causes suggest this trend is likely to continue in the near future."

Your negative feedback has already vanished, which you would know had you understood the article.