Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I see, good point.

However, it seems insignificant, since that process happens relative to the surface of the ocean, not to the bottom of the ocean. Assume that the top 1cm of sea water in the southern hemisphere evaporates, turns to clouds, and lands on Antarctica in the form of snow. If that top 1cm of the ocean is 2.2mm (or 1.8mm) further from the ocean bottom, I don't see why that would increase (or decrease) evaporation.




The source of the article does mention Antarctica: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020...

"In Antarctica, ongoing high mass losses in the Amundsen Sea Embayment of West Antarctica, the Antarctic Peninsula, and Wilkes Land in East Antarctica cumulate to 2130, 560, and 370 Gigatonnes, respectively, since 2002. A cumulative mass gain of 980 Gigatonnes in Queen Maud Land since 2009, however, led to a pause in the acceleration in mass loss from Antarctica after 2016."


Sure, Antarctica affects sea level even if it doesn't affect brlewis' computation. My point is just that brlewis' arithmetic doesn't seem naïve.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: