JF; protecting the oceans from algae bloom, could be very profitably done.

First we replace the open sewers and antiquated treatment plants with much smaller Aussie invented two tank systems that treat the raw sewerage (soluble solids only) in house, so to speak.

Tanks the approximate size of shipping containers large enough to treat all the waste from high rise buildings or small suburbs.

And located at the lowest possible point to remove the necessity, to waste energy on unnecessary pumps.

This is a closed cycle system, which therefore presents no smell problem, even where located in the basement.

There are two separate systems, one aerobic the other anaerobic.

Due entirely to the system and the bacteria allowed to survive, the first one operates in an oxygen rich environment, the second an oxygen free one.

The first tank is maintained at around 31C, the second 55C.

This duel process thoroughly sanitizes all the end products; which include biogas (methane) reusable water, and a carbon rich soil improver loaded with expensive nitrates and phosphates.

The average family produces enough waste to completely power their domiciles 24/7; and even produce a large salable surplus, if they include a methane consuming ceramic fuel cell, to provide whisper quiet power/endless free hot water.

The still nutrient loaded water can then be endlessly recycled as billions of litres through algae farms, which produces endlessly sustainable diesel or jet fuel.

Some algae are up to 60% oil. And farming it only uses around 1-2% of the water of traditional irrigation!

Under optimized conditions algae can be made to double their bodyweight/oil production capacity every 24 hours!

And the "clean" water can then be returned to the environment, free of the nutrients that create the wild algae blooms in the first place!

Extracting the oil is child's play.

Some of the filtered material is sun-dried then crushed to remove most of the virtually ready to use oil; with the ex-crush material more than suitable to underpin a food and arable land free; endlessly sustainable, energy input free, ethanol industry.
Rhrosty.

JF, I can't answer your questions, I'm sorry, it's simply not my field. On the topic of nutrients though, especially phosphorus, we have very compelling reasons to reduce the loss to oceanic dilution quite apart from the damage to the oceans. Rhrosty has given what seems to be a fairly comprehensive engineering scheme for recovery of some nutrient waste, but once again, it's not my field, so I can't really make a useful comment on how effective it might be. There is still the large problem of nutrient run-off from agriculture and urban areas that isn't so easy. Capturing and treating large quantities of storm water, for example is very expensive and hard to do; even harder if you want to do it close to the outfall in the ocean. Still, like Rhrosty's proposal it's engineering rather than science, I suspect and there are probably no theoretical reasons it couldn't be done if enough resources were put into it.

What is so special about ‘science’ is that you have to present evidence for claims made. What has happened with the global warming debate is that those who did not like what the scientists were saying decided to undermine their credibility. This was easy to do as generally scientists are not trained to speak to non-scientists, or to formulate public policy advice, or to speak to the media. But we can be as certain as we can be of anything that global warming is caused by human activity. The question now is what we do about it.

as with many disciplines much of what passes as science is pig headed dogma. The evolution fantasy followed by the gw myth are two clear examples of pseudo science. When this idiotic nonsense becomes mainstream you know something is drastically wrong.

Don, A useful discussion. However as a professional scientist for many years I would like to remind readers that science is a process for gaining knowledge. Genuine scientists support views for which there is good evidence, especially if it is confirmed and if it expands genuine understanding of the field of endeavour. Real scientists should not allow emotions or political views to distort their views. There is no doubt that global warming fanatics have highjacked both the science and the politics. This is not to say that some evidence for environmental warming should be ignored. There is however a price for crying wolf. Other areas where science has been seriously highjacked include the use of GMO foodstuffs and associated fields and the use of vaccines for disease prevention. The abuse of science in these latter two instances is mind boggling. Unfortunately the global warming fanatics, and especially the Greens, have done enormous economic damage to the nation (and the world) with their simplistic abuse of science and have made efforts by rational governments etc who wish to manage climate change much more difficult. It is not science that is at fault - it is the abuse of science, sometimes by persons who regards themselves as scientists. It's very dangerous to fall in love with your preconceptions or even hypothesis.

“ we can be as certain as we can be of anything that global warming is caused by human activity.”

What is your basis for this unsupportable statement, tomw ?

Refer us to the science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.