Thanks for this. The comment you're replying to gave a link to one study of a complex phenomenon, that partially conflicts other studies. As you point out, th

Thanks for this. The comment you're replying to gave a link to one study of a complex phenomenon, that partially conflicts other studies. As you point out, there's not total consensus on what's happening. But the comment's suggestion that this one study settles the question of Antarctic mass loss is wrong. The linked study (Zwally et al.) uses satellite radar altimetry (ICESat) to measure height of Antarctic ice, and thereby quantify mass losses. Other studies use satellite-derived gravity (GRACE) to get more directly at mass changes. They conflict. One possible reason (among several) for the discrepancy is that the overall height of Antarctica is also changing as it rebounds from ice loss in the distant past, i.e., some of the height increase seen by Zwally et al. is due not to ice increases, but to inter-ice-age rebound of the continent beneath the ice. More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/a-controversial-nasa-study-says-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-heres-why-you-should-stay-skeptical/?utm_term=.86898c732394 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...