JF Aus, what do you think the ARGO ocean buoys have been measuring these many years.

Your fixation on algae is similar to the whole marine research community on Townsville had for so many years on crown of thorns.

It is a strange thing, how a bee in someone's bonnet can make them blind to the rest of the world. Don't be a one trick pony, it's counter productive.

Hasbeen,

I think your attitude here is a fault in human intelligence. Such attitude can negatively impact on humanity and environment because it can cause people to turn away from solutions required. Example, you are wrong but sound correct to the uninformed;

The ARGO buoys are deployed and operate in open ocean waters and they work in deep water, compared to coastal shallow ocean ecosystem waters where I have spent a lifetime, and where ARGO buoys would foul on coastlines.

My focus on algae is where general research has taken me. Life has apparently taken you on path of unjustified useless criticism.

Crown of Thorns larvae feed on nutrient proliferated algae, unprecedented daily loadings of nutrients are feeding unprecedented algae that in turn feeds COTS larvae and maintains abnormal survival rates.

Abnormal damage by COTS is killing coral as you know but what you don’t know is dead coral attracts invasive algal growth that surely retains added solar warmth energy during photosynthesis. Think of a big pond of water going rotten, warming, you surely understand that.

Is it a bee in the bonnet? Or is it mentoring to finish the job once started?
Better than being a no trick pony, eh Hasbeen.

Why don’t you answer the question, or ask someone who can and let us know.
Then I will get onto another focus ‘trick’, like indicating possibly viable and sensible solutions that could generate substantial business and many thousands of jobs, new productivity, exports, tax revenue etcetera.

I think a war of words between posters on this site is can sometimes be counter productive, jealousy also.

(P.S. My post limit of 4 in 24 hours may soon be reached but I will return)

Sorry JF Aus, but I don't need evidence for AGW to know that confusing meteorology with climate science is an astonishing display of ignorance. Nor do I need evidence for AGW to understand that different claims require different degrees of evidence. Thus your question simply comes across as a diversionary tactic; as if you were trying to say, “See? There’s something you don’t know too! Only this time confusing general knowledge and basic logic with complex data sets and the conclusions that may be deduced from them.

AJ Phillips,

I think your failure to answer my question provides example of testimony to why the world is in such a mess, so much data on hand yet economies and lifestyle and poverty and food security all going downhill instead of improving.
I think the evasiveness of your answer is incredible.
I have asked a reasonable question, albeit a very inconvenient one, and you have totally failed to answer it.
You seem to be claiming the subject is not in your field, meteorology perhaps.

As for what you do reply with, Wikipedia defines meteorology as the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere.
I note meteorological phenomena includes temperature and water vapour.
And this at Wiki;
“Meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, and atmospheric chemistry are sub-disciplines of the atmospheric sciences.

So what are you talking about with your comment, “ confusing meteorology with climate science” ?

You seem to be saying climate is nothing to do with meteorology. Best see Wikipedia;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology_(Aristotle)

Moving on with a water vapour question, do you think there could be warmth in a major algae bloom causing cloud vapour trails to appear to start to form parallel above that major bloom of algae? Here;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40716

And for you to believe or not, algae is linked to ice melting, although increased matter and associated increased warmth is still not yet apparently published.
Pity you are unable to answer my question as asked in the earlier post. Do try. I admit I am a student and I am asking for an answer.

Bit by bit however, at least science is now looking at algae links to ice;
http://www.futurity.org/underwater-tree-rings-show-650-years-sea-ice-change

JF Aus,

You don’t get to throw up a red herring, demand that someone answer it, then think you’ve somehow nullified their original point because they can’t answer your unrelated and irrelevant question.

I am not being evasive. I will quite happily and openly admit that I don’t have an answer for you. I said that I would answer your question once you had explained to me how you and LEGO have any credibility left on this topic after the silly comments you had both made, knowing full well that you couldn’t (and apparently overestimating your ability to recognised when dropping it and quietly moving on would be the wise thing to do). So technically there still wouldn’t be any evasiveness on my behalf even if I thought I had an answer.

LEGO failed to recognise an important distinction between climate and weather (and you, apparently, had missed that) - one that rendered his argument invalid - and all the Wikipedia articles in the world won’t get around that. So by all means, keep digging. In the meantime, here’s some information regarding weather versus climate, in case you still don’t know what I’m talking about http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html.

<<You seem to be saying climate is nothing to do with meteorology.>>

How you get this from what I have said is beyond me. I never said or implied anything of the sort. This is merely a strawman you have constructed. You can point to all the similarities between climate science and meteorology you like, but it was the difference between the two that mattered.

AJ Phillips,

Meteorology is surely supposed to mean study of meteors. What’s more, meteors are likely linked to algae, even to first life on our planet.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/seeds-life-collected-during-perseid-meteor-shower-scientists-say-algae-can-only-have-come-space

These days, meteorology has been split into various fields of study such as climate and weather. But in reality, climate is changed by weather and weather is changed by climate.
It is confusing, brief presence of El Nino or La Nino causing long term hot climate associated with drought, or short term humidity associated with flooding.

I have made no demand.

As for LEGO, there were many comments happening at the time, none from me until I dropped in briefly trying to change the subject, which I succeeded in doing because here I am discussing more on topic matters with you.

You have now answered my question in the best way you could. You do not know. I wish you could have said that in the first place. Anyway, thank you.

I have not constructed any strawman, your opinion.

As for climate and meteorology, you mentioned that confusing meteorology with climate is an astonishing display of ignorance. You said, quote, “I don't need evidence for AGW to know that confusing meteorology with climate science is an astonishing display of ignorance. (end quote)

Look, I think meteorology should include everything to do with the atmosphere, including biology that keeps waterways cool and not evaporating so much.
As oceans dominate short term weather conditions then oceans surely influence long term climate.

Maybe you can understand my point of view from being out there in the actual environment, as opposed to be trained to focus on a specific field of science.
I am not disciplined, neither is nature.

I hear medical science is now so specifically trained there are not enough GP’s.

So where to from here? Can I ask, do you think there may sometimes be photosynthesis-inked warmth in ocean algae plant matter? Could you arrange experiment to find out?