No mention of the loss of albedo. Harvesting and shipping rock flour from Greenland to sequester carbon in ag fields in Denmark sounds a little far-fetched in terms of how that would add up to a net reduction of CO2.

The current article <title> Glaciers are melting, but the dust left behind may help save us is less misleading than the posted headline (maybe it changed?) and the page's <h1> The unassuming material that could soak up carbon emissions a little more-so although it has a clickbait ring.

Losing the reflecting ice will increase the average global warming rate. And you don't just melt an isolated piece of ice in the middle of the terrain, not to cause a change of a global trend at least. Melting enough ice means melting a lot of floating ice, than will not expose rocks but dark water that will absorb far more direct heat than the indirect heat trapped by the relatively small amount of captured CO2.

It is like saying that you should not be scared about falling from a cliff because the air resistance will lift you back up to safety.

We're about 10 years off from recreating that episode of Futurama where they drop massive ice cubes into the ocean to cool it down.

Futurama had this idea a long time ago

Click-bait title that doesn't match the actual title pointing to the real just of the article (it's not the flavors melting but three ground up rocks left behind)

This is about the rock dust left behind a melted glacier, not the actual ice in the glacier.

Didn't read the paywalled article, but I thought one of the benefits to glaciers was reflecting sunlight and this reducing warming?