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).
See: Figure 8 (Shepherd et al. 2018) reproduced in link below
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-...
See: Figure 6 (Zwartz et al. 1998) reproduced in link below: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222450369_Holocene_...
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.
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.
> 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.