Using caps lock repeatedly throughout your post would make you seem to be the Donald Trump here, no?
I use it for emphasis.....and my hands aren't small
Of course it will be in balance when the energy coming in equals the energy coming out; the albedo effect is perhaps the single most important factor when it comes to this, and is why it could overwhelm the (admittedly enormous) +GHG signal that humans have created.
So let's take a STEP BACK to take a 40,000 foot view....and think about what the major issues of physics at play:
1) GHG are still high...and going higher (perhaps MUCH higher depending on how the feedback effects like permafrost and others continue to play out)....and when we get out "s***" together on policy. And don't forget....we still have a filthy China and India that will be cleaning up their air over time....and that will INCREASE temps due to diminished amount of aerosol, which will allow energy from the sun to work on that growing level of GHG.
2) We have more cool....fresh water being added to the ocean system from the current melting of Greenland ice sheet. The effects of which are dependent on ocean currents (or the shut down of some of those currents as you note).
3) We have more and more ice free ocean in the Arctic (currently).....at an earlier and earlier date with the passage of time over the next 10 - 20 years (until I see those change)
4) We continue have a Greenland that has continued to LOSE albedo over the last decade....and that has NOT turned around as yet. And unfortunately.....all that crappy looking coal dust and forest fire dust isn't going anywhere... much of it just keeps melting down and sitting on the top soaking up energy. And there is STILL coal dust flying around for the foreseeable future (40 years AT LEAST) to provide an annual "topping"....not to mention increased forest fire "dust".
Nick Naylor actually describes something that happened (rapidly cooling October) in several recent years in the US, most notably the sea ice minimums of 2011/12, which saw NYC's snowiest October on record and its earliest 4"+ storm on record (a few days into November in 2012).
I EXPECT snow storms in the northeast US to continue to be "nasty"....and BIGGER in coming 20 - 40 years. More open ocean....more water vapor, etc. A "snowiest October" on record IS what I would currently expect. It's New York....not North Carolina.
While conditions that previously created the ice-sheets had much lower CO2 concentrations, Hansen's research would imply surface temperatures cold enough to allow ice-sheet regeneration in many regions. His research needs only be a little bit wrong for the cold to expand west into Quebec/Hudson Bay as well.
Keep in mind.....his research can be wrong on EITHER SIDE of his expectations (could be surface temperatures not nearly as cold, which I am much more inclined to think would happen).
Why is it that Quebec is the only polar region with substantial and consistent +++ snowfall departures??
It (Quebec the province) is surrounded on basically 80% of its borders by ocean (or the ocean is VERY CLOSE). That is NOT surprising to me at all. In fact....I would expect that under current conditions with more and more water vapor in the air. To be fair...I haven't looked at the other "segments" of the Arctic and looked at EACH SEGMENTS snow history over the last 20 years (I assume you are saying that you DID something like that).
I would argue that low-level cold air emanating from Greenland & AMOC shutdown is becoming sufficient to overwhelm the +GHG signal in certain regions (like Hudson Bay and Quebec, as well as northern Europe) which is why these are the only polar regions with any apparent cooling.
I would argue that you might be giving "short shrift" to the fact that the Arctic has been losing ice....and the albedo difference in the ocean is MASSIVE. Much bigger than the HIGHER albedo of going from trees to grassland. As well....the amount of energy to melt the ice...is now being used to warm the water, and that warming water can retain that heat way more than the atmosphere can retain cold (per your explanation of why Greenland's surface might cool).
It should also be noted that despite significant melt occurring in April, there was no volume decrease on DMI. This goes to show that the absolute change year over year is, IMO, being overlooked.
One year....and especially one month....does not "hold much water" (pun intended:). I don't dismiss it totally...but it IS only one month.
Greenland losing mass as a whole is bad, but if precipitation on Greenland is increasing, then the total amount of yearly freshwater Greenland is unleashing on the NATL is going to be increasing much more than predicted,
Yes....if that happens (more precipitation on Greenland)....then I would expect more fresh water runoff. Whether that is MORE than predicted.....that of course depends on the current prediction in the models.
and ice gained while ice is lost does not take away the freshwater runoff into the NATL. Perhaps this is why the models are not account for how quickly these changes seem to be appearing?
OK...you lost me here: "ice gained while ice is lost". No idea what you mean there.
If Hansen is right, then some areas see a 20 degree C decrease in annual temperatures in the span of 30 years. That is about as bad as nuclear winter. And it affects all of Europe and much of North America.
Keep in mind that western Greenland has WARMED significantly over the past 10 years. If you're looking for the tipping point.....it certainly hasn't hit as yet. You "seem" to be saying (my guess) that it WILL HIT when the Arctic is first ice free (maybe within 5 years).
The fact that Greenland IS MELTING....is certainly putting more cold fresh water into the northern Atlantic. And that WILL effect the ocean currents of the northern Atlantic....AND...the weather/climate of northern Europe.
But I do NOT see anything in the next 10 years overriding the effects of:
1) Continued GHG emissions
2) Continued and GROWING positive feedback effects
3) Continued low albedo of the Greenland ice sheet itself
4) Continued and growing lower albedo of the Arctic ocean itself
In short....I don't see the "war" being won by cold fresh water melting from Greenland....over numerous other effects.