The headline overstates things. It's not a prediction of a loss, just a different way of measuring: To compare the different methods, we calculated the dif

The headline overstates things. It's not a prediction of a loss, just a different way of measuring: To compare the different methods, we calculated the difference between the two numbers on all ice shelves within the study. We observed mass loss on 18 ice shelves and mass gain on 16. Overall, the steady-state assumption will overestimate ice loss on ice shelves that are advancing and underestimate ice loss on ice shelves that are retreating. The assumption also does not hold well for any irregular behaviour, such as ice shelves that have lost ice through large calving events. Our observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 660.6 Gt of ice mass from 2009 to 2019, whereas the steady-state approach would estimate ice loss of −20 028.1 Gt over the same period (Table 1). The steady-state prediction is an approximation and is described in the article: In the absence of an observed measurement of ice loss from iceberg calving, previous studies have used the steady-state calving approximation to estimate the volume of ice lost through calving processes (Rignot et al., 2013; Depoorter et al., 2013). This method assumes that all ice flow through a fixed flux gate, usually located near or at the last known calving front position, is lost through iceberg calving.