> how is increasing ice mass not a mark against the theory of AGW?
This is explained in the article.
The article explains that there are two competing processes affecting the total amount of ice in Antarctica. One is the process of formation of ice mass from snowfall, the rate of which has been steady for the past 10,000 years (this study has now measured it at 200 billion tons per year). This affects the total amount of ice across Eastern Antarctica and the interior. Unfortunately, this process has not _increased_ either.
The second process is the thinning of the glaciers. The rate of _this_ process has increased since 1992-2008 by 65 billion tons. As the article points out, if this continues, than Antarctica will begin to see a mass decrease.
I'm not entirely sure how this can be interpreted as a point against AGW, or what it has to do with the anthropogenic part at all, nor do I see how it can seen as evidence against simple GW (regardless of cause), as the melting process is still increasing. At best, it can be seen as evidence that things haven't gotten out of hand yet. Now, if the Antartic snow growth was accelerating, then we could start arguing that we don't need to worry about CO2 increases, as the planet will just compensate any shift with some (unknown) homeostatic counter process. However, as it stands, this report provides no evidence for that.
This is explained in the article.
The article explains that there are two competing processes affecting the total amount of ice in Antarctica. One is the process of formation of ice mass from snowfall, the rate of which has been steady for the past 10,000 years (this study has now measured it at 200 billion tons per year). This affects the total amount of ice across Eastern Antarctica and the interior. Unfortunately, this process has not _increased_ either.
The second process is the thinning of the glaciers. The rate of _this_ process has increased since 1992-2008 by 65 billion tons. As the article points out, if this continues, than Antarctica will begin to see a mass decrease.
I'm not entirely sure how this can be interpreted as a point against AGW, or what it has to do with the anthropogenic part at all, nor do I see how it can seen as evidence against simple GW (regardless of cause), as the melting process is still increasing. At best, it can be seen as evidence that things haven't gotten out of hand yet. Now, if the Antartic snow growth was accelerating, then we could start arguing that we don't need to worry about CO2 increases, as the planet will just compensate any shift with some (unknown) homeostatic counter process. However, as it stands, this report provides no evidence for that.