I'm skeptical that this has no implications for humans. (Not to say that I think it has implications; rather, I feel the claim that it has none isn't obviously

I'm skeptical that this has no implications for humans. (Not to say that I think it has implications; rather, I feel the claim that it has none isn't obviously substantiated.) IIRC, undersea earthquakes can be more common at low tide, because the reduced water mass sitting atop a fault line can allow it to slip more easily. I'd be tremendously surprised if a reduction in water weight equivalent to a year's losses from the Greenland Ice Sheet doesn't change the strain pattern on some of the incredibly overdue fault lines in California. Enough to facilitate or even induce a slip? I have no idea. But absent better information, I have to be skeptical of a claim that there are "no implications".