I notice in your second link that West Antarctica is the biggest contributor to rising global sea level.

Yet according to JPL, the main cause of this is believed to be volcanic activity under the western side of the continent. [0]

The best quote from the article was this: "I didn't see how we could have that amount of heat and still have ice on top of it."

[0] - https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6996

I was under the impression that the biggest contributor is actually just the rising temperature of the water, because water expands as it heats.

The average depth of the ocean is about 4km, so a thermal expansion of 1x10^(-4) per degree C (right order of magnitude), would result in about a 4m rise per degree increase in average ocean temperature. Which is obviously significant.

One of the issues with this theory is that the average temperature of the ocean is below 4 deg C, and in this regime the coefficient of expansion is negative. So we might actually see a small sea level drop due to ocean warming.

While there is probably a slight amount of expansion in liquid water from heat, water expands most when frozen solid. this is the entire reason ice floats

Half of all recent sea level rises have been from thermal expansion of water: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warmin...

Can you please elaborate for a non-scientist?

>ice sheet is gaining in mass due to the melting/compaction of snow

How does melting/compaction affect the mass?

It doesn't. The only way an ice sheet gains mass under any normal circumstance is new snow falls on top. As more and more snow accumulates over time, the ice sheet grows thicker.

What offsets that is that ice flows under pressure, so the entire sheet has a tendency to head for the ocean. Things are a bit complicated in Antarctica since some of the landscape where the sheet is grounded is below sea level. There are concerns that the seawater is getting warm enough to cause melting there, increasing the flow rate.

If, in fact, ice sheet mass is increasing, that's great in terms of sea level rise. There's no other way to spin it.

You have a layer of ice covered with a layer of snow. Each year, that snow melts a little and then re-freezes on top of the ice. Then, more snow falls on top of that snow. This happens year over year for a long time. Each layer of snow puts more and more pressure on the previous layers of snow and ice, compacting them. Eventually, these layers of snow become so compacted that they form new layers of ice and fuse into the existing layers of ice. Does that make sense?

I assume it means snow melts, turns into water, then freezes again turning into ice thereby increasing the mass of the ice sheet.

the density increases not the mass. the concentration of mass is increased density. it is further evidence of melting.

It reads to me like there's a distinction between ice and snow. Like the snow isn't considered part of the ice or isn't able to be measured as part of the ice until some compaction has happened, and the "snow" layer might be hundreds of years worth of snow. That's the only way I can resolve the definitions with the statements, and I'm hoping someone can more authoritatively describe the paradox because I'm feeling unsatisfied.

there is also a distincion between the coastal ice sheets and the continental interior ice and snow cap. the apparent paradox is caused by misrepresentative interpretation of a report, by the author of the article.

the coastal ice shelf and continental interior are two distinct physical systems.

isostatic rebound is a confound to the measurement of snow/ice accumulation when change of altitude is corelated to snow deposition.

http://rses.anu.edu.au/geodynamics/tregoning/7.pdf [PDF]

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-post-glacial-reb...

BTW Re: " and I'm hoping someone can more authoritatively describe the paradox because I'm feeling unsatisfied."

you wont get anymore of an authoritative take on it than discussing it with a scientist, as you are currently doing right now.

That really isn't how mass works.

You might be right and you certainly have a point regarding the "deniers". But your first bullet point is blatantly wrong. Melting and compaction cannot increase mass. You might have simply made a mistake here, but at first glance it seems like you throw any scientific accuracy overboard just to prove your point that the sea level will raise. That way you weaken your argument of "scientific people against deniers" considerably.

The idea is that the ice mass is increasing, because the millenia-old snow cover over the ice is melting and compacting into the ice sheet itself.

Took me a few reads to reconcile that myself.

these are the caveats of data presentation that consume an incredible number of hours compared to actually designing an experimental protocol and generating data sets.

this is one of the major activites during thesis defense, tearing apart semantics to be sure that verbal descriptors are representative of observations, and free of qualifiers or modulations.

Also defense of scientific thesis involves a discourse between supporters and deniers as a matter of course. This is the way science works, two opposing positions meet somewhere in between. usually a third external will weaken or reinforce one side over the other. The ultimate goal is not to proclaim who is right or wrong but to refine interpretations into representations of real physical processes

I must be tired and reading this incorrectly.

1992-2001: +112 b tons / year 2003-2008: +82 b tons / year Prior to 2012: -84 b tons / year 2012-2018: -241 b tons / year

It flipped from positive to negative somewhere between 2008 and 2012, correct?

2015 article: the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

2018 article: Prior to 2012, ice was lost at a steady rate of about 83.8 billion tons (76 billion metric tons) per year... Since 2012, the amount of ice loss per year has tripled to 241.4 billion tons (219 billion metric tonnes)