Luciferase, You say, Something for JF http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region/2255/

In that link I do not see any mention of warmth in ocean algae plant matter causing sea level rise, such as at the Gulf of Mexico dead zone area as per earlier comments.

How does gravity make such a significant temperature rise only at the dead zone area and not along the coast where there is no dead zone?

How can science determine gravity is the cause of sea level rise here and there following ice melt, when photosynthesis linked solar warmth in ocean algae plant matter has not been measured and assessed?

Categorically warm water areas of ocean are higher than nearby colder water. Also, streaming warm water flows such as in the East Australian Current are convex shaped like an optical lens, deeper and higher in the about the middle of the warm stream.

I think AGW science has to start again and include all sources of ocean warmth and not just focus on CO2, in order to "settle" the science, to complete the science.

Further, if only a relatively small amount of polar ice has melted and has already altered gravity enough to cause a 9mm sea level rise at the Gulf Mex dead zone area, what might be the rise there be when all the ice melts as per AGW science? Several metres? Ten metres or more? I think not.

I think evidence of substance indicates nutrient pollution proliferated algae is causing that dead zone area, and the algae is causing the surface water to be warmer, and that warmth is causing a rise in sea level in that area ( as per URL evidence I posted earlier in this thread).

Do you have any reference to any science to prove me wrong on this dead zone - algae - warm water - high water situation?

JF, I don't know why I bothered.

What makes you a denialist rather than a doubter is your absolute insistence that your thought experiments have more validity than actual research by the most august, trusted and competent scientific bodies in the world.

The reason you may have difficulty finding research carried out on your pet hypotheses (e.g. algae causing the global sea-level rise, good grief!)is that they're implausibly stupid and scientists aren't interested in testing them.

Sorry to have to break this to you, JF, but it's time someone did.

This is my final response to you JF, on any topic, even in jest (which you don't get anyway). Best wishes, happy dreams.

Google did not know what you were talking about, ant, and neither do we. I asked you to specify whether you were talking English, or using the scurrilous weasel worded definition of climate change put out by the IPCC. Let us know. Of course, if you do not know what you are talking about, you will not be able to answer, and we will understand.

Who are these”thousands of scientists” of which you speak. You sound like that clown, Kevin Rudd, when he was lying about climate.

It's good to observe a CO2 obsessed individual, unable to show any evidence to prove or even indicate increased mass of solar-warmed ocean algae plant matter is not warming areas of ocean.

I think real scientists would be testing warmth in algae.
Why would real scientists ignore algae inundating waters where ice is reported melting more than usual, massive areas of algae that was not even known about at the date Kyoto - AGW agenda took place?
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/arctic-algal-blooms-060712.html

It's a pity Lucy, that you drop out when unable to answer reasonable questions.
And exactly where did I say algae is causing global sea level rise? But I am happy you can see evidence it is causing areas or seawater to rise (difference between areas and global).

You have not broken anything to me Luci, you just use words stating your own opinion.
You show no evidence at all to prove my opinion and evidence I present to be incorrect. None

JF Aus, I lived for something like 16 years next to a rivulet. As the waters became lower and warmer in Spring/Summer algae would begin to appear. When the water became cooler from Autumn onwards the algae would begin to disappear. The warming preceded the growth of algae. So your concern about algae might be a secondary proof that global warming is happening. But, it also displays a concern about what is being flushed into waterways.
The ocean is a carbon sink; also it is interesting that carbon molecules can be identified in relation to their source as indicated by:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/

Leo, you stated that "Google did not know what you were talking about, ant"... how many more home goals are you going to provide?
Just out of interest when away overnight I tried to google “proof that climate change is not happening.”; it is funny how I basically came up with the same result using an ipad instead of a laptop.

Leo, when will you be providing references to show that ice sheets, glaciers and tundra is not retreating or melting?

See ant you' ve done as I predicted. You have only supplied 12 of the outstanding 75 links you said supported your view.

As I said pathetic ant pathetic.

Go sit on the dunces corner and count to 75.

Another prediction ant will say he didn't say that there were 80 sources supporting AGW.

And with that I would agree. There are no sources proving AGW so it is impossible for him to supply any.

Any guesses why ant won't supply links to Tyndall?