Dec 21, 2019 at 11:13 PM Phil Clarke
Total denial of science and evidence.

Climate Science still relies on liars.

No. John's new favourite denier is denying physics. There are kilometers of ice above the volcanoes and the resultant heat fluxes are measured in milliwatts.

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-volcanic-source-major-antarctic-glacier.html

Phil. But all geothermal heat fluxes are measurable in milliwatts. The average heat flux is 91.6 mW/m 2 and the Western Antarctic and parts of the Greenland fluxes (where ice melting is recorded as increasing) are always described as high.

Well, quite. For volcanic activity to affect the suface temperature and explain the warming it would have to be increasing at a physically implausible rate. Then there's the diffusive time constant, which is about 30,000 years for a kilometer of ice, so by the time the heat reaches the surface it is diffused out over a large area.

But there's no evidence that geothermal fluxes are increasing, whereas the forcing change from CO2 is estimated at about 2 W/m2. So the assertion that ice loss in Antarctica is mostly geological and not atmospheric is industrial strength balonium - as is almost everything else I've looked at on that particular site.

I think there might be a few assumptions you're making PC.
I don't recall anyone calling upon volcanism to explain any surface heating - the argument seems to be that volcanism causes basal melting, formation of sub-ice lakes, decreased friction and increased seaward flow of the icesheets. Melting occurs by contact with slightly warmer ocean waters.
Then there is some waffle about diffusive time constant, which you clearly don't understand. Lateral spread might affect a point source of heating, but look at any map of sub-ice volcanism in Western Antarctica or Eastern Greenland - these are entire wide belts of volcanism.
Furthermore, I don't believe any increased intensity of volcanism is being called for (as you imply).
Finally are you sure the estimate of radiative forcing you wish to use refers to polar regions where 1. Incoming solar radiation varies so much over the year and 2. Feedback from increased atmospheric water vapour shouldn't exist in the frigid air?

I don't recall anyone calling upon volcanism to explain any surface heating

Well, if you read the article John 'Intellectual poverty' Shade pointed us to, the author is clearly toting geothermal as an alternative to AGW in explanation of surface heating and ice melt, so he needs geothermal to be increasing on decadal timescales - for which there is no evidence.

The study that revealed the volcano under the Pine Island glacier (note: found by chemical tracers, not thermal flux) was authored by Professor Brice Loose who couldn't be clearer:

this does not imply that volcanism is the major source of mass loss from Pine Island. On the contrary, "there are several decades of research documenting the heat from ocean currents is destabilizing Pine Island Glacier, which in turn appears to be related to a change in the climatological winds around Antarctica," Loose said. Instead, this evidence of volcanism is a new factor to consider when monitoring the stability of the ice sheet.

[…]

Does that mean that global climate change is not a factor in the stability of the Pine Island Glacier?

No, said Loose. "Climate change is causing the bulk of glacial melt that we observe, and this newly discovered source of heat is having an as-yet undetermined effect, because we do not know how this heat is distributed beneath the ice sheet."

So no, ice loss in Antarctica not 'mostly geological', it is mostly the consequence of the air above the continent and the oceans around it getting warmer.

John will now move on to his next blogger, I predict.

Amazing how you route around and find a single source that substantiates your claim while ignoring the many others that refute it. Oh, and also ignore all the other points made that question your claims. But ah well, nothing has changed much.

Dec 22, 2019 at 7:49 PM Phil Clarke.
97% of your output is consists of lies, dishonesty and snark. Now you are having to get yet another substitute fielder to bat for you. One of John Cook's students this time?

Amazing how you route around and find a single source that substantiates your claim while ignoring the many others that refute it.

There are others. Just to be clear, my claim is that geothermal influences on Antarctic ice loss in recent decades are real, but significantly less than the effect of the enhanced greenhouse effect. And thus, Chaam Jamal is once again shown to be talking out of his bottom.

I would be interested in details of credible sources that 'refute' this idea?

Re Chaam Jamal, I do commend his now 200 posts as being worth a scroll to look for topics that may be of special interest as he often has a fresh take on them, and likes to back them up with statistical analyses:

Given that you have not read those 200 posts, given that they are each as credible as his claim that Antarctic ice loss is nothing to do with AGW (which is to say incredible, and which you have not defended), why bother?

Intellectual poverty indeed.

Milliwatts, Radical Rodent, Milliwatts. Multiply them as you want, you still need an awful lot to counter actual Watts.

Really?

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/2019/02/last-five-years-were-hottest-ever-nasa-and-noaa-declare

"..... you still need an awful lot to counter actual Watts."

Dec 23, 2019 at 12:11 AM Phil Clarke"

Yet you can't defend Mann with verifiable science, so Climate Science has given up, and now uses St Greta to promote the lies hoping no one will sue her.

Newton was inspired by an apple, but did not need to rely on the apple to perform promotional tours. Botanically, it would be unlikely that a cabbage patch swede would fall on Mann's head, but she certainly seems to have fallen into the clutches of lying Climate Scientists.

PC Just how many additional Watts at the West Antarctic Peninsula at June 30th? Might be rather less than you infer.

Dec 23, 2019 at 7:41 AM AK

Climate Science doesn't do Mince Pies at Christmas, just Pork Pies, as they dispense every day, all year, every year.

"I would be interested in details of credible sources that 'refute' this idea?
Dec 22, 2019 at 11:04 PM Phil Clarke."

Are you still relying on the unreliable Hockey Teamsters including the non credible Eric Steig?

https://climateaudit.org/2010/12/02/odonnell-et-al-2010-refutes-steig-et-al-2009
https://climateaudit.org/2011/02/07/eric-steigs-trick/

https://climateaudit.org/2015/12/02/antarctic-ice-mass-controversies/
"Do some of you remember Steig et al 2009, a pre-Climategate Nature cover story? Like so many Team efforts, it applied a little-known statistical method, the properties of which were poorly known, to supposedly derive an important empirical result. In the case of Steig et al 2009, the key empirical claim was that strong Antarctic warming was not localized to the Antarctic Peninsula (a prominent antecedent position), but was also very pronounced in West Antarctic. Their claims are set out firmly in the opening sentences of their abstract as follows: "

Nope, Steig et al is now a decade old, meanwhile this year

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/west-antarctic-glaciers-melting-human-influence/

You are relying on the National Geographic for your source!!!!????!!!!!
Can I interest you in what Desperate Dan said about polar melting in the Beano (or was it the Dandy?)

"Nope, Steig et al is now a decade old, meanwhile this year
Dec 23, 2019 at 9:14 AM Phil Clarke."

Steig remains a loyal Hockey Teamster, proving the incompetence of "et al", and the Peer Reviewers, though it remains unclear how they can be distinguished.

Decent science survives the test of time. Climate Science is normally "Best Before" the day it is subjected to honest review.

Dec 23, 2019 at 11:13 AM AK
The paper referred to is co-authored by Hockey Teamster Eric Steig, presumably to confirm it matches his normal standards.