In addition to others' comments, I see no reason why "vs. a prediction of a 20k Gt loss" should be a good summary, when (I assume) the number was lifted from:

In addition to others' comments, I see no reason why "vs. a prediction of a 20k Gt loss" should be a good summary, when (I assume) the number was lifted from: > whereas the steady-state approach would estimate ice loss of −20 028.1 Gt over the same period I'm not a climatologist, but for all I know this could mean something like "If we draw a straight line between point A and B it will intersect a point that is 20,000 Gt below the observed value, which is clearly silly, and that's why we should not do that." I see no claim about which research group actually made a prediction of 20k Gt loss, but obviously I didn't read the whole article, so I'll wait for the OP to chime in and explain where in the paper it cites a previous work that made such a prediction. I'm not holding my breath, though.