3 ms·

Title is editorialising; actual title is “Change in Antarctic ice shelf area from 2009 to 2019”. From the abstract: > Our observations show that Antarctic ice

Title is editorialising; actual title is “Change in Antarctic ice shelf area from 2009 to 2019”. From the abstract: > Our observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade, whereas the steady-state approach would estimate substantial ice loss over the same period, demonstrating the importance of using time-variable calving flux observations to measure change.

chrisco255 3y ago
The title of an HN submission does not have to match the article's title. It's also not editorializing. It's a factual statement, except it should probably be revised to 661 Gt instead of the 600 Gt quoted (doesn't change substance).
- aerojoe23 3y ago
  The ice shelves, not all of Antarctica, gained ice. I guess you could read the HN title and think, "see Antarctica must not be getting warmer if it gained ice." Where the shelves could have gained from the glaciers flowing faster off the land, and amount of ice could still have gone down.
  - postalrat 3y ago
    Well did Antarctica gain ice or are you simply speculating?
    - defrost 3y ago
      Overall Antarctica in total has steadily lost ice mass since 1990. See: Figure 8 (Shepherd et al. 2018) reproduced in link below https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/ https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-...
      - chrisco255 3y ago
        Overall Antarctica in total has steadily gained ice mass since 4200 BC. Sea levels are currently 9 meters below what they were at that time. See: Figure 6 (Zwartz et al. 1998) reproduced in link below: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222450369_Holocene_sea-level_change_and_ice-sheet_history_in_the_Vestfold_Hills_East_Antarctica https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222450369_Holocene_...
        defrost 3y ago
        Did you read your linked paper? Figure 6. does not show total Antartica ice mass change, it shows a local area change in relative sea level markers. Today the relative sea level markers are much lower as the land itself is riding higher overall due to glacial rebound, the lifting of the land as a great weight is removed. Your paper (as discussed in the conclusion) argues that during the past 6,000 years a great deal of ice has been lost, having retreated some 30km and thinned by some 800m in thickness. Did you make a typo, or did you misunderstand your own linked source material? Either way, thank you for the paper.
- yongjik 3y ago
  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.
- Jtsummers 3y ago
  > The title of an HN submission does not have to match the article's title. Actually, it should other than a couple guides on tidying it up. From the guidelines: > If the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link. > If the title contains a gratuitous number or number + adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids." > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
kgwxd 3y ago
Too late, everyone has already read the title and found a reason to continue thinking what they already thought about climate change.

chrisco255 3y ago

The title of an HN submission does not have to match the article's title. It's also not editorializing. It's a factual statement, except it should probably be revised to 661 Gt instead of the 600 Gt quoted (doesn't change substance).

aerojoe23 3y ago
The ice shelves, not all of Antarctica, gained ice. I guess you could read the HN title and think, "see Antarctica must not be getting warmer if it gained ice." Where the shelves could have gained from the glaciers flowing faster off the land, and amount of ice could still have gone down.
- postalrat 3y ago
  Well did Antarctica gain ice or are you simply speculating?
  - defrost 3y ago
    Overall Antarctica in total has steadily lost ice mass since 1990. See: Figure 8 (Shepherd et al. 2018) reproduced in link below https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/ https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-...
    - chrisco255 3y ago
      Overall Antarctica in total has steadily gained ice mass since 4200 BC. Sea levels are currently 9 meters below what they were at that time. See: Figure 6 (Zwartz et al. 1998) reproduced in link below: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222450369_Holocene_sea-level_change_and_ice-sheet_history_in_the_Vestfold_Hills_East_Antarctica https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222450369_Holocene_...
      - defrost 3y ago
        Did you read your linked paper? Figure 6. does not show total Antartica ice mass change, it shows a local area change in relative sea level markers. Today the relative sea level markers are much lower as the land itself is riding higher overall due to glacial rebound, the lifting of the land as a great weight is removed. Your paper (as discussed in the conclusion) argues that during the past 6,000 years a great deal of ice has been lost, having retreated some 30km and thinned by some 800m in thickness. Did you make a typo, or did you misunderstand your own linked source material? Either way, thank you for the paper.
yongjik 3y ago
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.
Jtsummers 3y ago
> The title of an HN submission does not have to match the article's title. Actually, it should other than a couple guides on tidying it up. From the guidelines: > If the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link. > If the title contains a gratuitous number or number + adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids." > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

kgwxd 3y ago

Too late, everyone has already read the title and found a reason to continue thinking what they already thought about climate change.