This is a very good article.

A "lukewarmer", that is the way to go according to evidence from the real world.

However be sure to forget the CO2 aspect.

Cry wolf comes to mind.
Perhaps another factor or more are causing more severe weather.

Matt. A couple of points which I feel I must take issue with your essay.
Firstly: you state that CO2 Is "normally harmless, indeed moderately beneficial, gas,".
Evidence of increasing biomass on the planet, as a result of increased levels of this gas would put it in the 'definitially beneficial' category. Imagine the decrease in tomato prices were growers able to reduce their cost inputs by not needing so much CO2 to maintain their growing houses at 1000ppm?

Secondly: you state that "I am a ‘lukewarmer’: somebody who has come to think that climate change is likely to continue to be slow and mild". You did not make clear whether your opinion of 'climate change' would result in temperatures going up or down. That temperatures will change is not in doubt, just the direction is somewhat doubtful. With historic records indicating that there is a one to one relationship between sun spot activity and temperature, indications would be that the temperature will lower with a recent reduction of sunspot activity.
Beside these two caviats, I would agree wholeheartedly with your concerns regarding the trashing of 'science' and the scientific method that you have very clearly and simply presented. Not to mention the trashing of 'western' notions of free speech.

Matt, you will get a good response for the most part in this echo chamber, however for those of us that think differently.

My main problem with your article is you write as if we don't live in a world where big corporations haven't lied about the effects of smoking. That haven't lied about asbestos. Didn't delay when birth defects started showing up due to morning sickness drug.
or that the two main western powers that still use land mines just happened to have been the largest makers in the weapons.

Your article should have been about these influences as well as some of the excess on the other side. Fair and balanced shouldn't be a little to much to ask.
As for you not understanding why some climate scientist go in so hard, ask yourself how you feel about people trying to shutdown research into testing with human embryos.

"Most scientists close enough to the topic say: possibly. Some say: definitely. Some say: highly unlikely"
And though the third group is very small, sections of the media give them as much prominence as the (very large) second group.

"The ‘consensus’ answer is that the warming could be anything from mildly beneficial to dangerously harmful: that’s what the IPCC means when it quotes a range of plausible outcomes from 1.5 to 4 degrees of warming.”
Even the 1.5° outcome is far from beneficial, as most of the warming will occur in already hot areas.

"To me, given that most environmental scares never turn out as bad as first feared, given that climate change has proceeded much more slowly and mildly than expected since 1990, and given that there is now a vast vested industry in alarm, thanks to munificent public funding, this feels like an over-reaction."
Many, if not most, environmental scares turn out as bad as the scientists fear unless action is taken. How they compare to the public's fears depends on the how the media stokes or downplays the fears. In 1990 the scienctists knew the warming would be slow, but also that the problem would not go away, and that there were significant threats of triggering positive feedback mechanisms. There still are.
_____________________

Prompete,
The relationship between sunspot activity and temperature used to be significant, but it broke down in the 1980s. That breakdown was (and indeed still is) thought to be the result of global warming.

The last line reveals the credibility of this article as another "puff piece"...

"I meet a lot of people who are skeptical and a lot of people who are alarmed. The latter have all the plum jobs, hefty grants and fat salaries. Yet respect for the scientific method is far more prevalent among the former. I genuinely worry that science itself is being damaged by this episode."

Who are all of these "fat cats", name them! I suspect you are trying to again by stealth create an impression that climate scientists are pushing the cause due to financial advantage and it really isn't a big problem. There are equally many scientists being paid to deny the science, right wing bloggers and media commentators who all have "skin in the game".

There is no freedom of speech impairment on climate change...witness your article and no doubt the other comments to follow in this forum. What is missing is a reputable repudiation of the scientific data. And don't worry about science being damaged; science is just fine and the scientific method continues as usual.

Thanks Aidan, I hadn't heard that one before: that the hiatus in global warming may have been due to sunspot activity, but that global warming has interfered with the effects of sunspot activity. A bit circular, as well as a bit self-defeating ?

Hi Cobber,

You suggest that we don't

"live in a world where big corporations haven't lied about the effects of smoking. That haven't lied about asbestos. Didn't delay when birth defects started showing up due to morning sickness drug. or that the two main western powers that still use land mines just happened to have been the largest makers in the weapons."

So ....... corporations lied about smoking, asbestos, birth defects, land mines - and, are you suggesting, 'therefore', they are now lying about anthropogenic global warming ?

Has it escaped your notice that the vast majority of major corporations have got on board the AGW gravy boat ?

So .... are you suggesting that AGW is therefore a scam ?

Just one other thing: has there, or hasn't there, been an 18-year pause in global warming ?

Cheers,

Joe

The science of climate change is not a matter of opinion anymore than is medical science. We are not dealing with a matter of belief but a matter of facing the facts confronting us in terms of the observed global effects of climate change. Climatology embraces a number of scientific disciplines which collectively have isolated the facts relating to the changes and the causes. I have recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer, am I going to debate the medical science because I don't like the diagnosis? Of course not. Matt you are clearly an intelligent person so perhaps your failure to "understand" certain attitudes as you state can be overcome by a completely objective reassessment of the facts about what is now happening on the planet and the science which seeks to explain it. When you have done this in good conscience get of the fence and see whether you would write the same opinion piece.
Denis White

Hi Loudmouth,

I never claimed the hiatus was due to sunspot activity, and considering the previously observed breakdown (and also the satellite measurements) I find that explanation very unlikely. A much more credible explanation is that the oceans absorbed more heat. And the more that occurs, the more sea levels will rise.

"Has it escaped your notice that the vast majority of major corporations have got on board the AGW gravy boat ?"
That is an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary evidence, yet I've seen no evidence whatsoever. Many corporations acknowledge the existence of AGW, as the evidence for it is very clear to those who look objectively. But there's no gravy boat or train; it doesn't bring much in the way of new opportunities to make money. And much of the response we see from major corporations turns out to be greenwash advertising.

Meanwhile coal and oil companies have an enormous financial incentive to deny AGW, and have spent huge amounts of money trying to fool the public into thinking it doesn't exist.

Thank you for the article, Matt.

If you hate the big corporations, then be a "man" and state so, fight them, boycott them - but don't beat around the bush blaming an innocent small molecule instead!

We have seen the 'consensus' science with evolution and now gw. Both frauds that make thinking men look like fools.

Loudmouth my comment was around Matt's bring up of

"James Hansen, former head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute and the man whose congressional testimony in 1988 kick-started the whole debate, said a few years back, of fossil fuel company executives: ‘In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature’."

If people know what they are doing causes harm but seek to hide the fact that is where James is coming from. I'm merely reminding all that corporations do lie about stuff.

Runner I find it hard to believe your ancestors where apes, I would have said some sort of invertebrate in your case.

An inconvenient question or two might lead to inconvenient truth and proper solutions to change in climate caused by human activity.

Why did AGW and IPCC and Kyoto associated science not measure and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant matter proliferated by land use and sewage nutrient overload - pollution?

Can any scientist establish ocean and lake algae does not absorb solar warmth?

I hope that you are reading this, AJ Phillips.

Once again, the "intelligent" tertiary educated elites backed the wrong horse.

All you have to do now, is figure out that you were conned on multiculturalism, socialism, genetic predisposition to anti social behaviour, and the so called "stolen generation(s). Oh, and human races are not equal either.

Yee who champion the "good authoritarianism" of the Chinese leadership watch out.

Behind the green-reds' and idealists' foul "when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages’." is:

On November 4, 2015 the Chinese government released statistics revealing Beijing has severely underreported its coal consumption for the past decade. That, in turn, raised doubts that it can reach ambitious targets to cut coal use and reach peak emissions.

China had underreported coal consumption by up to 17 percent per year over the past decade. That means China may have released nearly a billion tons more carbon dioxide than previously thought from 2011 to 2013 alone. http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/chinas-climate-change-efforts-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

And that is just coal. When you add the 100s millions of new CARS, trucks and motorbikes, China's 1.5 Billion people will buy in the next 20 years pollution is going to be even more choking for China, surrounding countries and do no good for Aussies.

Repent or meet thy Doom!

Q, what about social science? A, "biological sex is a social construct" seriously these SJWs are learning this drivel in universities today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtsHv7iUZSE

Hi Aidan,

Thank you, but I was intrigued by your explanation:

" A much more credible explanation is that the oceans absorbed more heat. And the more that occurs, the more sea levels will rise."

So, after decades of inaction, just lying around, the oceans decide to absorb more heat from the atmosphere ? Is that it ? Hopefully, they won't get into a temper, a la Poseidon, and release all that heat suddenly back into the atmosphere, just as capriciously as it sucked it up before ? Perhaps the sacrifice of a few virgins may avert that catastrophe ?

As for rising sea levels, if there has been a hiatus in rising temperatures since 1997 due to the sudden action of the oceans, shouldn't we expect to see a complementary rise in sea-levels since 1997 ? Has that happened ?

As for a relative rise in sea-levels in Pacific atolls: I'm just reading Crocombe's wonderful book on land tenure in the Pacific, and he makes the point that island populations may rise four-fold in the forty or fifty years after 1971(when he wrote the book), at the same time as expectations of improving living standards have been rapidly rising there, AND at the same time as local fishing has been falling and the growing of crops on those atolls has been rising. [I apologise if all those rises and fall are confusing].

And, of course, we know from school geography, that atolls are constantly building up because - why ? Because they are constantly sinking.

The upshot of all that is a massive and simultaneous increase in the removal of ground-water (therefore subsidence) and over-crowding (therefore building much closer to the water) at many atolls. It would be great to be able to measure sea-level rise on both inhabited and nearby uninhabited atolls. Or Fiji's coast-line.

But I do like those snap-shots of ocean waters lapping over (presumably remote) beaches. A bit like that polar bear on a (obviously shrinking) lump of ice - so scary !

Joe

Loudmouth, come on, there has been NO warming or sea level rise at all. this is a left wing scare campaign to steal from the 99% proletariat & give to the 1% banksters.

Hi Imanoldpervlikeloudmouth,

Gender may be slightly influenced by social factors, and maybe if one closes one's eyes, and gets around with a guide dog, one may occasionally think that biological sex is a social construct in some way or other. That would be yet one other way to waste your time, as well as attending cultural studies lectures. I prefer to study the 'real' constructs in society, and boy, are some of those realities constructed.

But biology, the little I know of it, suggests that men and women have different chromosomal make-up. A tiny number of poor buggers may have neither, but maybe that's only a rumour.

As for constructs, I think it was Thomas back in the twenties who pointed out that if 'If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences', perceptions about reality [cf. Berger's construction of reality, 1966] 'in which subjective impressions can be projected on to life and thereby become real to projectors.'

Nothing new under the sun. Except some of those beautiful constructs. Thank you, God.

Joe

The science of climate change has been in evidence for many more decades than the arguments put forward by deniers.
Scientists from ExxonMobil in the 1970s and 1980s were in agreement with the view of anthropogenic climate change. Management of ExxonMobil set about to undermine the very science their scientists had come up with.

CO2 is taken up by Oceans, as well as, the atmosphere; CO2 plus salt water create a weak acid.

Comments about Professor Jagadish Shula are a diversion, it has been the Los Angeles Times, Union of Concerned Scientists and Inside Climate News that through investigations have shown that ExxonMobil to have a case to answer.

Matt, you make many statements, but provide no evidence through references.
There is no climate war, climate scientists agree with the view that man has an impact on climate. Please name a peak scientific body that does not agree with anthropogenic climate change

Oceans are more to do with biology than physics.

Physics is not biology.
AGW climate models have been developed using physics, not biology.
Climate models do not include impact of warmth in ocean algae.
Can anyone prove that as incorrect?

In AGW associated science, sea level rise is being measured in water where nutrient pollution and over abundance of nutrient proliferated algae is located, or has been. Often available nutrient becomes exhausted, algae dies and falls away leaving the water very very clear and warm for some time.

Sea level of warmer clear ocean water of the East Australian Current streams south from algae inundated equatorial waters where it has been, and the stream is higher in the center than at the edges.
Warmth near the center is more insulated by the outer water, and the vertical shape toward the center of the stream is described by oceanographers as optical.

The whole ocean level is not rising at the same time.
Sea level rise apart from tides is only where algae associated warm water is or has been located. But physics is not seeing impact of algae, nor are flat earth type CO2ist's.

Some atolls have sunk down due to tectonic movement.
Some atolls or parts of atolls are being washed away and are not naturally rebuilding because so much coral is dead and coral rubble supply is reduced or non-existent. But this is not broadcast e.g. by ABC 'news'.

I have a 1943 photo of US soldiers crawling ashore in water lapping a Pacific Islands shore and shore erosion under tree roots can be clearly seen, and is the same type of erosion as modern day AGW photos show.

Historically unprecedented dead coral is widespread, everywhere other divers tell me (I am careful not to generalize).
That dead coral coincides with fish stock devastation that coincides with nutrient overload pollution that coincides with over abundance of algae killing seagrass food web nurseries.

Science has to change and include ocean plant matter in climate science, if not then ocean ecosystem devastation and climate change and consequences will continue and worsen.

Hi JF,

I was horrified to read about "shore erosion under tree roots". No ! How could that be ?! Has that ever occurred before in human history ? Never any storm damage ?

Tell you what: take a photo of mangrove roots at low tide, then one at high tide. Notice the difference ? 50-100 cm sea-level rise, in barely a few hours ! At this rate, we'll all be perched on top of Uluru within a decade.

You could use those photos at the next IPCC Conference :)

Thanks anyway,

Joe

Hi Joe,
Yes, LOL.
Cheers.

Matt, stated that there is very little extra CO2 created through the burning of CO2 in the atmosphere. On that basis, it is perfectly safe for healthy people to inject themselves with 1 mil of insulin (0.01) or one ml of tiger snake venom. One ml is an extremely small measure in comparison to the size of an adult human body. There has been an increase in the level of CO2 from around 270 parts per million to 400 ppm since the Industrial Revolution; about a 30% increase. A 1 ml injection of whatever substance into an adult body is an incredibly small percentage in comparison to the percentage of increase in CO2.
Methane in the atmosphere is measured in parts per billion; yet, it impacts on climate when measures increase. The question is, whether anybody would be game enough to inject themselves with a ml of insulin or tiger snake venom?

Matt, please provide evidence that methane is not a dangerous gas in relation to climate.

Deniers get very excited about the huge el nino of '97, even though higher temperatures have been measured since. The MET suggests that the global average temperature will increase by over 1C for 2015.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34763036

Quite an inexplicable occurrence was cyclone Chapala which hit Yemen, the first time in recorded history for such a storm to impact on Yemen. Cyclone Patricia did huge damage to South Carolina. Meteorologist Steve Bowen suggested that it was the sixth 1 in 1,000 year statistical weather event in the US since 2010.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/2015-a-very-bad-year-for-the-global-warming-policy-foundation/

Photos provide a strong message:

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/multimedia/Severe-Drought-in-Brazilian-Amazon-Leaves-Boats-High-and-Dry-20151019-0044.html

https://theconversation.com/the-oceans-are-changing-too-fast-for-marine-life-to-keep-up-48977

It should be obvious that the problem is the politicisation of science.

Even Matthew Ridley participates in this error by using the ambiguous term "science" without distinguishing between:
1. science meaning the scientific method, and
2. science meaning the vested interests of the vast class of dependent professional intellectual arse-lickers to government.

If government hadn't been wasting billions in funding science -either kind - in the first place, the whole hysterial hoo-haa would never have happened.

The statists never take account of the lost value, in terms of real human welfare, from the billions and trillions they flush down the toilet. They *always* employ double standards in their evaluations, or rather assumptions, about policy, and always irrationally favouring the State without acknowledging, or even identifying the assumptions they sneak in.

All the positive science, at best, could only amount to a conclusion to the effect that temperatures may be going up.

This would leave entirely unanswered and untouched by science the all-important questions :
1. whether the change would be a net benefit or detriment or neither, and what the balance would be for whom, when, where, how, and how we would know, and
2. whether any policy would be worthwhile, when all the downsides both ways are taken into account; and how the counterfactual scenarios would be known, calculated, and evaluated.

These so-called "scientists" are in the realm of pure superstitious state-worship. For example, at no stage have I seen any of them admit that science does not and cannot supply value judgments and this invalidates their entire argument; or make any honest and competent attempt to come to terms with the issues of value.

At no stage has any of them supplied any theory of the State, or of value, that would justify ANY of their policy proposals.

It is disgraceful that an entire industry of professional intellectuals should have so fundamentally failed to perform, so woefully failed to see the yawning abyss of ignorance they were blithely skating over, and the gross errors of their assumptions in favour of government, which put simply, have no basis in reason or evidence, and therefore are not and cannot be "science".

And it all JUST HAPPENED to suit their own interests, and the aggrandisement of government power, didn't it?

The governmental funding of intellectuals is intrinsically corrupt, no different in essence to the mediaeval state's links with the mediaeval church, and should be abolished.

And yet somehow I think science will survive.

Ah yes Bugsy. Science shall indeed survive. Despite the misuse of it by people such as...

No, I won't write that.

It's always disturbing to read denialists, who habitually publish sneaky half-truths and lies and (some) even take money from big oil and king coal, cry their hearts out for their persecution at the hands of those mean peer-reviewed guys! In the meantime big oil and king coal continue to spend hundreds of millions lobbying for their (destructive) products, funding lying 'institutes' like Heartland, and confusing the public. Yeah, denialists are victims, one and all. I'm crying into my beer thinking of you!

On the other hand the physics of CO2 were discovered nearly 200 years ago by Fourier, and many others since then have verified the radiative forcing.

"By the early 1960’s much had changed. Many scientists had become seriously concerned that warming might be no mere phase of a modest natural cycle but the onset of an accelerating climb, unprecedented and foreboding."
Spencer Weart
Physics Today 1997
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/ClimateChangeWhiteboard/Resources/Uncertainty/climatech/weart97PR.pdf

Catastrophic climate change was becoming mainstream science, as this Bell Telephone company Science Hour show from 1958 demonstrates.
It's only a few minutes long: watch it and enjoy the retro animation!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY

So whatever 'global conspiracy' you're trying to believe in, now you've got to make it stretch back nearly 200 years! How good is your collective denialist imagination to come up with a conspiracy that can survive industrialisation, WW1, WW2, the 1960's and the Cold War? Good luck with that!

It is very interesting that deniers make a huge fuss about climate change; yet, their opposition only has a few decades history, while as you say Max, the history of climate change science goes back nearly 200 years.

What we get from deniers is regurgitation of the same old arguments over and over. It has been possible to show through simple experimentation in a High School lab that CO2 and light interact; much more sophisticated experiments in the environment have also proved the point.
Where is the experimentation deniers can refer too?
The fundamental premise of climate change has not been touched.

Something fascinating to watch is how deniers decry the IPCC as some kind of plot created by the United Nations; though, happily quote the IPCC when it suits them.
The other interesting aspect is that deniers such as Watts and Moncton have been shown to be wrong on several occasions by analysing their comments against science or what is happening in the environment. An example, Moncton suggested there has been no warming in the marine environment when defending a paper he had written with Willie Soon; a quote suggests otherwise:
"Sea surface temperatures were as high as 15.8°C or 60.4°F near Svalbard on November 7, 2015, a 13.7°C or 24.7°F anomaly. Let this sink in for a moment. The water used to be close to freezing point near Svalbard around this time of year, and the water now is warmer by as much as 13.7°C or 24.7°F."

From:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au

Climate scientists have informed us that a warmer atmosphere carries much more water vapour; meaning that precipitation events potentially can be more severe. It is now common to see news clips of cars and even houses being swept away by floods. There have always been floods, but the number and severity of floods have increased.

Yes Ant,
the same tired old arguments and then selective quoting of the IPCC while accusing it of all being a conspiracy: so tiresome!

Can't these people realise coal kills 3 million people, poisons our populations and costs us DOUBLE the retail price by the externalised health costs inflicted on the population? That coal dumps ash 100 times more radioactive than any nuclear plant just in the local environment somewhere? (If only that were the only concern, because even that radiation is not really that bad). That it dumps heavy metals into the environment, and will one day peak and become far more expensive? That it will run out?

Hi Max,

Yes, I think that was one of Lomborg's points, that we have to find ways of making renewable energy sources so cheap, and coal so much more expensive, that the world will switch to renewables.

BUT in the meantime, have we the right to deprive developing economies of the benefits that we have so obviously enjoyed over the past two hundred years, a doubling of life expectancy for instance ?

As well, Lomborg, if I understand his position correctly, is confident that innovations in science will most likely find ways to minimise CO2 production, and find ways to remove CO2 already in the atmosphere. I suspect that those benefits of scientific innovation and enterprise may occur much earlier than the doom-sayers like to believe.

And were you suggesting, in a roundabout way, a switch to nuclear energy ?

Cheers,

Joe

Max,
What has fallout from coal burning got to do with CO2?
Oxygen is part of that chemistry too.
And how much coal dust is now being filtered out at the source due to modern science and technology? And how much more may be filtered out in future? But yes, air pollution is a problem.

Strangely you fail to comment on unprecedented nutrient overload pollution that coincides with unprecedented human activity-linked ocean algae plant matter as raised on page 4 of this thread.

Boycott on talk about warmth in ocean algae is allowing ongoing damage to property and loss of life associated with increase in storm activity that could otherwise be reduced or perhaps prevented by complete science.

Nobody has the right to deny humans their right to understand it is algae and not CO2 causing devastation of traditional seafood supply for seafood dependent islanders.

The tourism industry and surfing people also have a right to understand algae is also linked to devastation of fish stocks associated with change in feeding habits of sharks and attack on humans. N.B Ballina NSW yesterday, etc.

Being torn apart while you are alive is quite different to sniffing some coal dust.

But what about warmth in algae plant matter, is it true or not true? I submit it inevitable science answers that question.
Meanwhile consider relevant impact and consequences from further delay with solutions.

Hi,
I haven't read a lot about warming & algae. I would have thought that was to do with nutrient flows from nearby farms, especially the massive brown floods that run down the rivers from the banana industry.

As to fish stocks, that depends on so many factors. Overfishing, nutrient flows, coral health (impacted by acidity, predation by Crown of Thorn Starfish, warmer oceans due to climate change, more nutrient flows, cloudy water due to dredging, our over-hunting of top keyline predators, etc), and many other factors. That's kind of getting off topic, but I do note that 'global warming' should really be called 'ocean warming' given most of the heat ends up in the oceans... and then gets burped back up during an El Nino year like this one.

I'm amazed we're not already in a drought.

JF, there is no doubt that algal blooms do much damage to the marine environment, the shell fish industry off the West Coast of the US had to be closed earlier in 2015, warnings have been given about algal blooms off the East Coast of Tasmania. Scientists specialising in Oceanography certainly discuss the impact of algal blooms, from what I have read there are no references to a huge amount of heat being created. Do you have references, if so, please provide them. Marine scientists are in accord with anthropogenic climate warming.

Max, the film This Changes Everything showed how many coal power plants were scheduled for India, Indian citizens took exception to those developments which had a huge impact on the development of coal power. The film intimated that the citizens had won their battle against coal power interests after some fearsome demonstrations.

An interesting article in relation to temperature, el nino and polar amplification:

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/11/10/more-weather-weirding-godzilla-el-nino-vs-a-mean-polar-amplification/

Max Green,

Thank you so much for commenting.

With absolute respect to you, I have a question.
Have you ever read anything about warmth in algae, if so, what do you remember and where can such literature be found?

Nutrient from all sources adds to a total that sometimes becomes an overload causing nutrient pollution.
Runoff from farms only occurs in association with rain whereas human sewage is dumped daily.

Re fish stocks. All the fishing regulations in the world have not stopped fish stock devastation that has occurred.
Right now 70 percent of fish used in Australia is imported.
Local supply has been decreasing for a long time, it's just not duly reported.
Evidence of substance on hand indicates nutrient proliferated algae has damaged and destroyed the majority of seagrass that small fish depend on as nurseries, worldwide.

I submit warmer oceans are due to algae, not due to CO2 and climate change as you indicate.

I think all possible relevant factors are on topic.
How else can reality of climate change and correct solutions be urgently found and put in place?

Beginning 1982 after producing an underwater film, it was protein deficiency malnutrition among seafood dependent islanders that led me to understand some aspect/s of algae.
Turbidity and matter and light penetration in water is key to exposing film

I have known about warmth in algae from the wool industry about 60 years ago. LOL

Ant,

Trickery or spin with words about climate can be noticed.
I suggest the majority marine biologists and other scientists are not in consensus anthropogenic emission of CO2 is the cause of climate change.

As for toxic algae, toxic algae blooms in the news are not the only algae.
In reality, toxic algae blooms are few and far between compared to common algae. There is so much algae and over 4,000 species.

CSIRO and other government funded climate science have a duty to inform Australians about algae, including about all the green that can be seen in waves in surfing video and news, and all the green in the Caribbean for example.

How much algae plant matter exists and what chemistry is involved?
Even algae growing on coral, killing the coral, takes up warmth during photosynthesis.

To my knowledge scientists have not been taking action to reduce the total nutrient loading entering the ocean ecosystem. The nutrient loading being dumped is not measured and managed

The onus of proof must be on scientists paid by government to do science. Those scientists must prove if possible that there is no warmth in ocean algae plant matter and that such warmth is not warming ocean currents at all.

Environment Minister Hunt has advised he knows of no peer reviewed paper about warmth in ocean algae.
To my knowledge, warmth is ocean algae being linked to change in climate is new information.

Ant, warmth can be felt on the back of a human hand when touching a mat of algae floating in water in a pond on a sunny day.

Dude,
we've known for 200 years what CO2 does, how it lets sunlight through but tehn scatters and in effect 'traps' longwave heat radiation on the earth. A little physics and a little mathematics, and anthropogenic global warming now traps 4 Hiroshima bombs PER SECOND worth of extra heat. Spread out, it's about 3 Christmas lights per meter of the earth's surface.

Most of that heat ends up in the oceans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_oceans

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-sea-temperature-rise/

Algae respond to nutrients but are limited by the overall incoming sunlight balance of energy. But the oceans are warming far more than algae could heat them, and the sunlight itself hasn't changed. Only CO2 trapping outgoing heat energy has.
Are you really trying to tell me that algae have heated the oceans by 127,000 1GW nuclear power plants?

"Oceans are warming across the globe. In fact, globally oceans are accumulating energy at a rate of 4 x 1021 Joules per year - equivalent to 127,000 nuclear plants (which have an average output of 1 gigawatt) pouring their energy directly into the world's oceans. This tells us the planet is in energy imbalance - more energy is coming in than radiating back out to space."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Max,

You say, "the oceans are warming far more than algae could heat them".

How do you know that?
What evidence proves that?
Warmth in ocean and lake algae has not been measured and assessed.

You also say, "and the sunlight itself hasn't changed. Only CO2 trapping outgoing heat energy has."

Evidence indicates other change has occurred.
Supply of nutrient has changed from a natural loading to natural plus unprecedented anthropogenic loading/s. Action/reaction.

I am trying to say sun warms ocean algae and that such warmth has not been measured and assessed in AGW IPCC and Kyoto associated science.

Are you saying there is no warmth in algae

JF, algal blooms are very destructive; the question is, what are the requirements necessary for an algal bloom to take place. The reference from EPA provides some clues; such as, extra nutrients being necessary and the warmth of water being a helpful attribute.

http://www2.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms

The first sentence from the reference says:

"Scientists predict that climate change will have many effects on freshwater and marine environments. These effects, along with nutrient pollution, might cause harmful algal blooms to occur more often, in more waterbodies and to be more intense. Algal blooms endanger human health, the environment and economies across the United States."

There are three concepts that are fundamental to climate change:
.CO2 reacts to light
.warmth over water bodies creates evaporation, a warm atmosphere is able to carry extra water vapour.
.water and CO2 react to create a weak acid...carbonic acid.

Those who deny anthropogenic climate change are not able to sully these fundamental concepts which are backed up by science.

Another concept that is difficult for deniers is that major deforestation (e.g. Amazon Basin) has an impact on the water cycle.

Deniers often claim that climate science is a religion; that would make physics and chemistry a religion as well, as per concepts above.

Hi Ant,
just quickly, while I know what you're getting at, it might be unhelpful to say that CO2 reacts to light. It doesn't. It lets all that short-wavelength sunlight straight through the CO2 quite happily, a bit like a one-way mirror.

The sunlight then hits the earth and becomes short-wavelength energy we call heat or thermal radiation, and the CO2 stops that leaving for space.

This video is worth watching, but I wanted to direct you to 90 seconds in where there's a very good demonstration of CO2 trapping heat that really helped me visualise what was going on. Watch the candle! ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

If science is not damaged then genuine science can continue and become completed to the best ability of scientists.

So I would like to question to understand CO2 reacts to radiation and absorbs solar heat.

Algae absorbs CO2 so therefore algae absorbs warmth from CO2, as well as warmth from direct radiation during photosynthesis inside the plant matter.

Yes algal blooms are destructive but it’s not just blooms. Algae epiphyte growth has smothered seagrass leaf and wiped out most of the world’s seagrass nurseries that are supposed to supply food to ocean fish and ocean birds and whales etc.

Algae grows in freezing cold water beneath polar ice, warm water is not essential. But as with most vegetable matter, suitable warmth promotes growth.
A drone is presently being shipped south to measure radiation in ice algae beneath Antarctic sea ice.

There is need to enable science to explore biology of this planet's atmosphere in order to keep it healthy.
But first real science must come forward and engage in debate about warmth in ocean algae that has not yet been measured and assessed.
Is there need for such research, or not? Are answers required urgently, or not?

Denier is not a scientific word, neither is warmister.
How about leave those words aside and concentrate on admitting whether or not there is warmth in ocean algae plant matter that should be measured and assessed in climate science?

JF Aus,
"Algae absorbs CO2 so therefore algae absorbs warmth from CO2,"

I'm getting sick and tired of you making these truly IDIOTIC statements about algae. You're clearly drunk on you own propaganda, as for months you've been making those totally baseless claims! Before you write ANYTHING else about algae, please equate yourself with the facts.

Algae does not absorb warmth from CO2. The CO2 algae absorbs is dissolved in water, whereas the CO2 that absorbs heat is in the air.

Deep water absorbs most of the sunlight that reaches it, whether or not there's algae in the water.

Algae can reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the deep water, and that can cause warming of the water near the sea surface and reduce warming further down. But satellite measurements show that more heat is going into the oceans, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that algae's a significant contributor to global warming.

Algal blooms can have two strongly detrimental effects: firstly some species of algae produce toxic chemicals, and secondly when algae photosynthesise most of the oxygen they release bubbles out of the water, but when they eventually die they sink and the bacteria that feed on them can use up all the available oxygen further down.

Algae smothering seagrass can be a major local problem where excess nutrients are entering the sea, but have you any actual evidence that it's "wiped out most of the world’s seagrass nurseries that are supposed to supply food to ocean fish and ocean birds and whales etc."?

Aidan,

Truly, thank you for reply, it's what debate depends on. But if you are sick, see a doctor, if tired have a sleep. And remember damage to science can be caused by unjustified abuse leveled at students.
Let's say I am your student and I have some questions in response to your opinion here on OLO.

1. How can dissolved CO2 (and dissolved oxygen) in ocean surface waters not take up solar heat and be warm when taken up by algae?

2. What evidence do you have to prove deep ocean water absorb most of the sunlight that reaches it, when deep water is dark and cold and darker and colder the deeper it is on a hot sunny day?

I think you have put you foot in it with your comment, "Algae can reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the deep water, and that can cause warming of the water near the sea surface and reduce warming further down. But satellite measurements show that more heat is going into the oceans, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that algae's a significant contributor to global warming."

3. If algae reduces sunlight reaching deep water, where does the heat from blocked sunlight go to? Into the algae?
It is known algae absorbs solar heat.
No wonder satellites are measuring increase in ocean surface temperature.
Surely warmth in algae would have to be measured and assessed before it can be declared algae is or is not a significant contributor to global warming.

continued.......

contd.........

4. Do you have scientific evidence of only two strong detrimental effects from algae?
I have evidence algae causes precipitation leading to super storms. Surely some super storms are detrimental to life and property and to coastal marine ecosystems.

5. How much available oxygen exists further down, how far down according to scientific evidence?
I think it is over abundance of living algae near/at the water surface that takes up available oxygen causing a dead zone - hypoxia. Deep down anaerobic bacteria exists.

6. What do you mean by local?
Evidence indicates dissolved nutrient from sewage is being transported by alongshore current (energy), for example from Sydney to Cape York and beyond. Alongshore current transports heavy sand and also nutrient bonded to fresher surface water pressed by prevailing winds against the east coast of Australia.

Yes, I have a case of evidence, empirical evidence including available scientific evidence gleaned virtually full time since 1982.
I do not running off at the mouth, so to speak.
I will never get egg on my face.

Prove my statements incorrect if you can

A very new paper has described how there has been a quickening of pace in the breakdown of
a major Greenland glacier.

The first sentences from the article referenced below:

“As the world prepares for the most important global climate summit yet in Paris later this month, news from Greenland could add urgency to the negotiations. For another major glacier appears to have begun a rapid retreat into a deep underwater basin, a troubling sign previously noticed at Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier and also in the Amundsen Sea region of West Antarctica.

And in all of these cases, warm ocean waters reaching the deep bases of marine glaciers appears to be a major cause.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/12/scientists-say-greenland-just-opened-up-a-major-new-floodgate-of-ice-into-the-ocean/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_green

High temperatures exhibited in Arctic.

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/11/10/more-weather-weirding-godzilla-el-nino-vs-a-mean-polar-amplification/

Doubters might say that glacial breakdown generally is caused through natural climatic variation.

Doubters need to take into account, the physics and chemistry of climate change:
. CO2 reacts with infrared radiation.
.the origin of CO2 can be identified through the isotopes displayed.

Other basic science foundation blocks of climate change are:
.more moisture is carried in the atmosphere when temperature increases.
.CO2 and water can create carbonic acid.

xPrime Minister Howard has stated that he had faith that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. “Faith” is a word that belongs to religion, it is definitely not a science term. In science terms “faith” is a meaningless concept.

The EPA has answered a number of questions which keep being regurgitated by doubters:

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

JF AUS,
I'm not a marine biochemist and don't actually have to answer your petulant questions to show that the vast majority of REAL experts in this science find your suggestions absolutely absurd.

Every National Academy of Science and scientific Institution on the planet accepts anthropogenic climate change as valid, peer-reviewed, accurate science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

We've already shown extra algae as a feedback, not cause, of warmer waters.

To suggest you and you alone have stumbled upon some bold new scientific theory that involves algae as a worldwide climate forcing is delusional! Please try to gain an appreciation of how OLD climate science is, and how LONG the human race has actually known CO2 does what it does. What kind of 'conspiracy' can survive Balkanisation, WW1, WW2, The Cold War, the collapse of Soviet Russia, the 1960's cultural revolution, and modern peer-reviewed science? You would have us believe in some sort of misinformation conspiracy going back nearly 200 years! Either learn some science history, or go off and publish your new 'algae as the main driver of climate change' theory in peer-reviewed journals. Or better, go and do a free physics course at:
https://www.khanacademy.org/

Short history of climate science:

"The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859.[12] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[13] However, the term "greenhouse" wasn't used to describe the effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.[14][15]
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote "[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect", and "The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house."[16][17] Bell went on to also advocate the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[18]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History

JF Aus

"1. How can dissolved CO2 (and dissolved oxygen) in ocean surface waters not take up solar heat and be warm when taken up by algae? "
The reason CO2 warms the atmosphere is that it absorbs the infrared radiation that the ground emits after the sun heats the ground.

The opposite process also occurs: CO2 converts some heat to infrared. So we often get CO2 high in the atmosphere absorbing some infrared that's going up, then reradiating infrared back down.

The situation in ocean surface waters is totally different. Firstly it's not above hot ground, so there's not so much infrared to absorb. Secondly water is much more effective at absorbing solar radiation than CO2 is, so the effect of dissolved CO2 would make no difference.

"2. What evidence do you have to prove deep ocean water absorb most of the sunlight that reaches it, when deep water is dark and cold and darker and colder the deeper it is on a hot sunny day?"
The fact that it is darker and colder is itself the bulk of the evidence! If the ocean wasn't absorbing it, a lot more light would reach deeper down. Unless the ocean was reflecting or scattering much more of it, in which case it would be a lighter colour than it is.

"3. If algae reduces sunlight reaching deep water, where does the heat from blocked sunlight go to? Into the algae?"
Some of it certainly does. But more sunlight is reflected back upwards, with some of it going back into the atmosphere without being converted to heat or infrared.

"No wonder satellites are measuring increase in ocean surface temperature."
Ocean temperature is not something that satellites can measure accurately. What they can measure is radiation going out, which can be compared to the amount of radiation going in. And when they do that they see that significantly less is coming out than going in.

(TBC)

JF Aus (continued)

"Surely warmth in algae would have to be measured and assessed before it can be declared algae is or is not a significant contributor to global warming."
Not really: we know that algae don't significantly decrease the oceans' albedo (indeed AIUI they increase it) and we know that the oceans are absorbing rather than emitting the extra heat. So there's really no plausible way that algae could be a significant contributor to gobal warming.

"4. Do you have scientific evidence of only two strong detrimental effects from algae?
I have evidence algae causes precipitation leading to super storms. Surely some super storms are detrimental to life and property and to coastal marine ecosystems."
What's the quality of your evidence? I don't see any possible way that algae could cause superstorms. I agree they can cause precipitation, as some emit chemicals that cause cloud nucleation. But that would have a cooling effect (due to clouds reflecting sunlight back into space) so would decrease the possibility of superstorms.

But in answer to your question, it is possible that there are other detrimental effects that I'm not aware of.

"5. How much available oxygen exists further down, how far down according to scientific evidence?"
I admit I don't know the answer to this one.

"6. What do you mean by local?
Evidence indicates dissolved nutrient from sewage is being transported by alongshore current (energy), for example from Sydney to Cape York and beyond. Alongshore current transports heavy sand and also nutrient bonded to fresher surface water pressed by prevailing winds against the east coast of Australia."
My understanding is that that's unlikely, as the Eastern Australia Current runs fron north to south. But even if you were right, it's at too low a concentration to cause any harm to seagrass.

"Yes, I have a case of evidence, empirical evidence including available scientific evidence gleaned virtually full time since 1982.
I do not running off at the mouth, so to speak.
I will never get egg on my face."
Your questions 1 and 2 indicate the opposite.

Notice how the statists keep discussing the issues as if the policy conclusion is to be decided by temperature data?

These fools actually believe that you can use a thermometer to read off what the rate of tax should be. The all-important issues of human evaluations are terra incognita, a complete blank on the map to them. Only where the State is, instead of "here be monsterrs", they have "here be God".

Don't laugh. This level of stupidity is being repeated all the way from the United Nations down to local government and if anything, it gets worse the higher you go.

JF Aus, you were suggesting algae had an impact on climate 18 months ago.
Please provide references.

At present, I'm thinking you are mixing up causal factors with associations. Eg, algal blooms seem to be more wide spread when there is warmth, an association rather than a causal factor.
In winter, in a temperature climate algal blooms are not present; or do not show as strong an appearance; yet, the weather can be quite warm for that time of year.
What percentage of waterways are covered by algal blooms?
How are algal blooms associated with wildfires, drought, extreme weather and glacial melting?

You really need to provide references.

@ ant, Friday, 13 November 2015 11:43:25 AM

Prince Charles has expressed concern about the environment for a long time and now I can understand importance of proper management of the environment. In 1982 I informed HRH Prince Phillip, then President of the World Wildlife Fund, that ocean fish stocks were becoming seriously depleted worldwide. I received reply dated two days later.

Later during 1982, mass starvation of Victoria's fairy penguins led me to algae.
In about 1987 Australia began developing aquaculture policy, while I have continued since then with focus on algae.

Quickening of pace of glaciers melting in vicinity of Greenland, is linked in my opinion according to evidence, to increase in seaweed/algae in the Sargasso Sea, and prevailing wind blowing warm ocean surface water and associated warmth in the air, northwards at least to Greenland.

I think historically there is now more sargassum seaweed/algae/phytoplankton occurring in the Atlantic Ocean than known before.
Sargassum has been causing havoc for tourism in Caribbean waters and also on the eastern Atlantic shore of Sierra Leone. Southward and trans Atlantic increase in sargassum coincides with increase in anthropogenic nutrient pollution.
Wind moving northwards from Atlantic equatorial waters must pass over waters inundated with sargassum, including mats of sargassum floating on the ocean surface.

Solar warmth in floating mats of algae can easily be felt by the back of a human hand (as I have previously indicated).
Prevailing wind drives ocean surface currents.

The rapidly melting Columbia Glacier in Prince William Sound Alaska is downwind from "the blob" of warm water situated in the north east Pacific, where prevailing wind blows northwards seven months of the year.

Scientists are puzzled by warmth in "the blob".
In my opinion warmth in "the blob" is coming from historically unprecedented algae in N/E Pacific waters, including from a major toxic algae bloom impacting from California to Alaska.

"Quickening of pace of glaciers melting in vicinity of Greenland, is linked in my opinion according to evidence, to increase in seaweed/algae in the Sargasso Sea, and prevailing wind blowing warm ocean surface water and associated warmth in the air, northwards at least to Greenland."
Nope. What heat do algae generate? How much per gram? How many grams are there in these seas? Or are you suggesting an albedo change? Again, what heat do they generate? Science papers please! Is that enough thermal energy to warm WINDS to melt the glaciers and ice sheets? (Remember a lot of the melting there actually comes from warmer oceans, underneath the ice sheets. Which is a real worry because it destabilises the ocean).

"I think historically there is now more sargassum seaweed/algae/phytoplankton occurring in the Atlantic Ocean than known before."
You think? There's a science reference right there! ;-) Seriously mate, when are you going to back up any of your wild flights of fantasy with references? Oh, you're not, that's right, because there *aren't* any.

"Sargassum has been causing havoc for tourism in Caribbean waters and also on the eastern Atlantic shore of Sierra Leone."
Irrelevant to climate change.

"Southward and trans Atlantic increase in sargassum coincides with increase in anthropogenic nutrient pollution."
Could be.

"Wind moving northwards from Atlantic equatorial waters must pass over waters inundated with sargassum, including mats of sargassum floating on the ocean surface."
Where? How much?

"Solar warmth in floating mats of algae can easily be felt by the back of a human hand (as I have previously indicated)."
I can feel heat of a candle, but it doesn't mean thousands of candles across poorer areas of the world are causing global warming. How much? What papers have analysed this?

"Scientists are puzzled by warmth in "the blob"."
Really? I thought they were puzzled by the cycles in the blob, not the warmth itself. They know perfectly well where that comes from. The CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere!

"In my opinion warmth"...
and there it is! Your *opinion*. Nothing more. Situation diagnosed.
NEXT!

Max,

Can you provide reference to how gravity is created?

No, because that's why we have CERN, as you well know.

But we DO know what CO2 does!

Mythbusters even tested it with their own greenhouses full of different atmospheres and lamps pouring exactly the same amount of energy onto each greenhouse box.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

The climate sciences are old, and the human race has poured immense time and effort and money into studying how it works. You're not earning any credibility points by sitting there as an internet desk-jockey just sneering at it. Your algae idea has about as much credibility as some deranged street kid yelling "It's actually the aliens! The aliens did it!"

>>The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning, of at least 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[2][3][4][5]<<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

@ Aidan, Friday, 13 November 2015 2:21:58 PM

Re: 1.
Both land and ocean warms atmosphere, not just the land. Dissolved CO2 in at least in ocean surface water surely also absorbs solar warmth. Ultra violet radiation is filtered out by ocean surface water, a known fact because the color red becomes lost during exposure of pre-digital film.

Is the situation with the ocean totally different as you say? I think the first 200 feet depth of ocean water would absorb more solar heat than land does. For example, does land absorb ultra violet radiation? Water does.

Re: 2.
When adequate nutrient is present with solar radiation, photosynthesis occurs forming algae and solar radiated warmth is absorbed by that algae. If adequate nutrient was not present the algae would not occur.
When I dive down 150 feet most of the warmth and light is gone. When I dig a hole on land most of the warmth is gone in the first 300 millimetres, forget the light.
It’s obvious to me that ocean near surface water absorbs the heat and other solar radiation, and near surface water is where most algae can only grow when adequate nutrient is present.

Re: 3
I think the amount of sunlight and heat radiated back upwards from oceans would primarily depend on the amount of suspended matter in surface water. Clear water would allow more penetration. Suspended matter such as algae near the surface would absorb radiation, preventing deeper penetration.
A key here is that algae carries warmth into several hours of darkness, whereas if nutrient proliferated algae was not present that warmth would rise and/or be reflected upwards.
You indicate satellites do not read how deep radiation is going, and what may stop what amount of heat near the surface where algae can be situated.

I think another key toward relevant evidence is this.
Satellite sea surface temperature climate anomaly is not an anomaly in study of nutrient dispersal and warmth linked to algae in AREAS of oceans. Not globally at the same time.

Continued……………

Cont’d…………..

Re: 4.
Quality of evidence for example, are NASA satellite images showing heat-linked water vapour rising and forming into cloud above visible and also known areas of algae inundated water, the latter including ocean dead zone waters.
I see superstorm/s occurring when algae causes cloud causing shade and cold that is transported by wind coming in contact with warmth and precipitation rising off a warm body of water elsewhere.

Aidan, you sound like an honest scientist of character that could /would repair damage to science.

Re: 5.
I don’t know the answer either, that’s why I asked. I think the level may be the same as in surface waters, it’s the light and warmth that decreases with increase in depth.
There is no visible evidence of excessive anaerobic presence on deep seabed, as would be expected if increasing depth reduced dissolved oxygen .

Re: 6.
Alongshore current on the east coast of Australia distributes sediment and dissolved nutrient northwards and to a diver it has poor visibility, due to suspended matter including solid nutrient matter and micro algae. The alongshore current transports sediment northwards, including nutrient that feeds algae when conditions suit. More here re sediment and direction: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/08-1120.1?journalCode=coas
The East Australian Current is offshore and streams southward from equatorial waters to about Bass Strait, and is a very clear sediment free and warm current. The EAC forms huge eddies off the NSW coast.
I was first to report open ocean high current speed associated with those eddies, to CSIRO’s then George Creswell .
I have also correctly reported missing person official searches in the wrong direction due to high speed of the EAC. I know well of the EAC and have dived in it’s 300 feet visibility water , compared to 40 feet or less visibility of the Australian east coast alongshore current.

If I am incorrect please explain how.
Thank you, Aidan, for not adding unsubstantiated and waste of time personal insults like you know who does on this thread, to which post limits and decency are handicapping my response.

Hi JF Aus,
I apologise. I thought you were an informed Denialist, working a known Denialist angle. Blaming the Earth's albedo (which is what you're discussing in algae) instead of CO2 is an old Denialist tactic. But now I see that you appear genuine in your enquiries? That you are genuinely asking for more information? OK, I'll calm down a bit.

The many factors that impact Earth's albedo have been studied. It's a very large subject, with both land and ocean and atmospheric influences, but they have all been studied. It's *very* important, and you are *right* to ask questions about it. Because just a 1% change in albedo (reflectivity) could undo a doubling of CO2! That's why, if we leave weaning off fossil fuels too late, an increasing number of climate experts are saying we should consider dumping sulfur into the upper stratosphere to reflect sunlight way! Not that they *want* to do that, but we might be forced to.

Anyway, Earthshine involves studying light bounced off the earth onto the moon back to the night-time side of the Earth, and the averages measure everything: atmospheric, land use changes, and ocean changes. If anything, in the 90's there was an increase in albedo / reflectivity which means slightly more solar radiation is reflected, meaning less heat. Lately, the albedo has stabilised.

Basically, albedo has been ruled out as the driver of all the warming we've noticed in the last few decades as there was a cooling trend in the 90's and now it's stable. But in the meantime, the planet has just been getting hotter and hotter. Therefore, algae cannot be behind this.

Cheers.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect-intermediate.htm

JF Aus,
1. I think you'd better read http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibrational_spectrum.html

Water is pretty good at absorbing infrared, but in contrast to the atmosphere (where there's a lot of infrared emitted by the land when the sun warms it) there's not so much infrared there. Dissolved CO2 would not make a noticeable difference. Nor would it make a difference when the dissolved CO2 is taken up by algae.

The sea doesn't get as hot as the land. The sunlight warms the layer it reaches, not just the very surface. So while the sea does emit some infrared, its main effects on atmospheric temperature are by evaporation (where it has a strong cooling effect when the sun is shining, followed by two warming effects (when the water vapour absorbs CO2 in the atmosphere, and when it condenses). So you can expect an overall cooling effect during the day, and a warming effect at night. The cloud it produces is also likely to have that effect. And of course conduction will also warm the atmosphere at night/early morning (when the atmosphere is cooler than the water) and cool it during the daytime and evening).

Land does absorb UV radiation, though as with visible light, some is reflected. The same is true of the sea, where some is reflected off the surface of the water.

I don't understand what you're saying about film. Surely that shows the sea absorbs red light, but says nothing about UV?

2. If adequate nutrient was not present the algae would not occur BUT THE SOLAR RADIATED WARMTH WOULD STILL BE ABSORBED BY THE WATER.

3. "A key here is that algae carries warmth into several hours of darkness, whereas if nutrient proliferated algae was not present that warmth would rise and/or be reflected upwards."
Why?

"I think another key toward relevant evidence is this.
Satellite sea surface temperature climate anomaly is not an anomaly in study of nutrient dispersal and warmth linked to algae in AREAS of oceans. Not globally at the same time."
Yes, globally at the same time.

@ ant, Friday, 13 November 2015 3:30:27 PM

Thank you for your sensible questions.

Actually I have been suggesting since 2009 that algae has impact on climate.

No, I am not incorrectly mixing cause with association. Adequate nutrient comes first, not just CO2.
Yes, common algae is more prolific during summer, BUT another key is this.
Warmth transferred from algae into the water becomes residual beyond existence of the algae. Algae eventually dies and falls away.
E.g. The East Australian Current is warmed in algae inundated tropical /equatorial waters but the warmth is transported without the algae, southward far down the NSW coast.

I have been watching evidence warm water from the nutrient overloaded coast of India is streaming southward and eastward to off the Western Australia coast. That warmth helps warm atmosphere, including sometimes during winter.
I note recent cloudy weather I think is associated with warm Indian Ocean water, reacting off south west WA with cold water and air streaming ENE from Antarctic waters.
I note cloud forming off SE - WA and then streaming eastward across the Great Australian Bight and sometimes over mainland.
Last month I noted high cloud predominating over Australia, coming from the west, with little or no rain, sometimes with small violent storms, all not good for growing crops.

Cloud leads to cold. Warmer and cold dry air both dry the bush. Lightening can start wildfires.

I explained my view of glacial melt in an earlier post.

I think if mostly in coastal waters and seas where common micro algae is concentrated, not generally in open ocean, although macro algae in the “Sargasso Sea” is situated mid water in the Atlantic Ocean and “the blob” and an unprecedented toxic algae bloom are situated in the western Pacific Ocean out to sea off the US.

References? Marine science barely knows the basic biology of life in oceans according to marine science, and a marine biology professor once told me even less than that is known.

The Precautionary Principle declares full scientific certainty no longer essential to prevent further environment damage.
JF

@ Max Green, Saturday, 14 November 2015 9:39:21 AM

Max, apology accepted. I understand your concern. And thank you for your input.

Have all the atmospheric influences been studied? I think all have not been studied.
For example, scientifically what is “the lake effect” and when was it first scientifically studied?

Climate experts proposed adding nutrient to oceans to create a greater sink for CO2, but the amount of algae already in oceans was not measured and assessed.

I have underwater experience since 1954 and I have never seen so much algae as can be seen now in 2015.
I am talking here about deeper green, and/or green more often, or green where not seen before, including muddy green rivers now.
Darkening of whole seas must surely have an albedo effect. Yes or no?
Has science noticed and studied increase in green of algae worldwide? Reference please, as ant requests.

I think albedo associated with ocean and lake algae plant matter should be scientifically measured and assessed, despite lack of scientific baseline data. Yes or no?
Paris climate talks should get onto the task. If not why not?

Cooling I notice is linked to increase in cloud, including cloud that can be seen as most likely linked to algae, albeit micro algae.

Have a good day, and week.

JF Aus,
I'd like to clarify what you are suggesting by turning it around.

Have you studied how CO2 traps heat? Have you *seen* it trap heat, as measured by Fourier devices or simple home experiments? Have you seen the mathematics behind the Radiative Forcing Equation, and how it has concluded that extra CO2 is adding 4 Hiroshima bombs per second to the heat energy of earth?

If not, why not?

@ Aidan, Saturday, 14 November 2015 11:45:55 AM
(sorry Max and ant, I was meaning reference asked for by Aidan, all good)

Re 1.
I think there would be a difference in the heat absorbing rate between distilled water and water containing dissolved CO2.
Multiply that rate by the volume of algae in oceans and I think the difference will be NOTICED.

Solar heat travels deeper into the ocean surface than the land surface. There is vastly more ocean surface that land surface. That’s all for science to equate.

Cold air comes down from mountains at night, having a cooling effect at night.

Exposure of photographic film shows increase in water depth decreases radiation subject to water clarity subject to dissolved and/or suspended matter.

Re 2.
If adequate N&P and other nutrient was not present then algae would not be present, and it would be obvious neither solar warmth nor CO2 nor climate change are causing algae to bloom.
Historically, unprecedented algae and algae blooms are nor occurring, coinciding with unprecedented nutrient loading/s entering ocean ecosystems from an unprecedented high population of humans on this planet.
Manage the problem instead of ignoring it, begin at the 30 Nov 2015 Paris talks.

Re 3.
Think why algae might carry warmth into hours of darkness.
Algae surely insulates water within the algae.
If algae was not present then warmth in water would rise upward more easily at sundown and dissipate more quickly as usual, without impact of human activity.

Globally? I notice cooling beneath algae associated rain cloud on one side of the world while drought and dryness occurs on the other side. One likely cancels temperature impact of the other.
There is a limit to the distance noticeable heat from a heated element can travel.
Warm water in the ocean has vertical and horizontal ability to cling together without quickly mixing with cold water.
Winds travel quickly, water very slowly in comparison.

@ Max Green, Sunday, 15 November 2015 4:22:56 PM
No, I have not.
Why?
My focus is on algae causing malnutrition among seafood dependent people, and possible solutions.

Why? Why bother reading about CO2? Because you seem to be dismissing climate science and suggesting it is algae that causes climate change, and you haven't even analysed the evidence for what peer-reviewed science has already concluded long ago!? After all, what is this thread even about?

@Max Green, Sunday, 15 November 2015 6:14:38 PM

Relax, Max.
It was you who asked me why.
Look back at your post at about 4pm. You asked if I had "studied" those subjects. I said no.

I have read considerable news about CO2 but I don't have enough understanding or time to study CO2 in order to say CO2 is definitely not contributing at all.
But I think algae is.

Have you studied algae, or have you read considerable news about algae?

I think science is being damaged because the door to debate about CO2 seems shut.
CO2ists seem to have made up their mind CO2 is the cause and that's it, finish, no more science about the subject.
Consequently respect for science seems to have decreased, a greater number of would be students are reportedly not going into science.

I don't even know what one tonne of CO2 looks like. Do you?
How is it packaged in order to be weighed? What size is the package?

However I think science is the solution to algae and most problems, especially to very urgently engage in harnessing nutrient waste to produce algae for biofuel, thus reducing the nutrient over-loading dumped in oceans.
The seemingly incomplete science argument causing the "climate war" may then decrease and even cease.

Meanwhile I suggest watch out for worsening of already worse consequences of nutrient pollution, such as unnecessary mortality of marine animals and seafood dependent island people.

Remember, the algae could not exist if nutrient was not there, even if excess CO2 was there.
Absolutely it is not CO2-linked warmth alone causing algae to increase and bloom like it is.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/11/14/toxic-ocean-algae-events-conservation-group-warns

JF Aus, the reference you provided does not support your opinion on two accounts; acidification, and CO2 capturing warmth.

Your reference states ..."According to the centre, studies show that harmful algae like the one that produces domain acid can be five times more toxic at levels of ocean acidification that are already occurring off the state’s coast."

Also..."We must cut carbon emissions to decrease warming waters,” Valdivia said. “The science is clear. Now we, as a human society, just need the political will to act on that knowledge.”

Science very clearly shows through experimentation that CO2 captures warmth.
You need to provide very clear references.

@ ant, Monday, 16 November 2015 5:52:19 AM
ant,
The reference I provided yesterday was intended by me to show concern about the amount of algae these days and some of the impact it is having.
Dialogue by author of the piece is really about claiming CO2 is causing the warmth and the algae and animal death.

Valdivia is wrong because the science is not clear, climate science is incomplete especially because it does not include measurement and assessment of all ocean algae on this planet and the impact it is now causing compared to natural impact.

What is science doing to decrease sewage and land use nutrient proliferating historically unprecedented now over abundant common algae and algae blooms?

Warmth in ocean algae plant matter has not been shown by science, has it, or can anyone provide scientific reference to the contrary?

A basic science experiment using say 3 beakers of water side by side in the same sunlit situation for a month, one with distilled water, one with tap water, one with moderate nutrient loaded water, will show difference in temperature hour by hour from say 9am until 11pm on fine sunlit days.
The moderate nutrient loaded water with algae will carry warmth into night, say until about 11pm
The tap water will have similar outcome.
The distilled water virtually without algae will cool much earlier, soon after sundown.

Algae carries warmth longer than if no algae.

JF Aus,

>>I have read considerable news about CO2 but I don't have enough understanding or time to study CO2 in order to say CO2 is definitely not contributing at all. But I think algae is.<<
So you don't have time to watch a few videos?
Here's mythbusters testing CO2's heat trapping ability: 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

This 10 minute video shows some of the physical laws operating in climate models, including a demonstration of CO2's heat trapping properties at 90 seconds in. Watch the candle! The candle-heat test only goes for a minute, if time is rushed.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

>>I think science is being damaged because the door to debate about CO2 seems shut.<<
That's because it *is shut*, and denying CO2's heat trapping properties is equivalent to denying electricity and instead believing fairies power your fan or fridge!

This is a short history of climate science, and shows that any 'conspiracy' you believe in must span nearly 2 centuries. Just *think* about what you are suggesting! Some world-wide scientific conspiracy started just after the Napoleonic wars, and continued through WW1, WW2, the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union, etc.

Wow. Just Wow. You must live in a very scary world, and believe in an organisation that dwarfs James Bond's "Spectre". From wikipedia:

>>The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859.[12] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[13] However, the term "greenhouse" wasn't used to describe the effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.[14][15]
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote "[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect", and "The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house."[16][17] Bell went on to also advocate the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[18]<<

@Max Green, Monday, 16 November 2015 10:51:58 AM

Well Max, that salvo from the warmisters sure is a big one but the ammunition is a bit old don't you think?

How was the increase of the world's motor vehicles and energy generation and ruminant animal emissions of the 1900's measured in the 1800's?

In any case I am not claiming CO2 is not causing warming but I am saying there is evidence warmth in ocean and lake algae has not been measured and assessed in AGW - Kyoto associated science, and such algae is warming ocean and lake water and changing climate but not globally at the same time.

Can anyone prove CO2 is the only cause of climate change?
What evidence do you have to prove CO2 is the only cause?

>>How was the increase of the world's motor vehicles and energy generation and ruminant animal emissions of the 1900's measured in the 1800's?<<
What are you talking about? Fourier was measuring CO2 as a gas in our atmosphere. You do know there is natural CO2 as well as man-made, don't you?

>>In any case I am not claiming CO2 is not causing warming<<
Who knows what you're claiming? You appear to keep changing your mind.

"but I am saying there is evidence warmth in ocean and lake algae has not been measured and assessed in AGW"
The only measures it could effect are albedo, and as I have already shown, albedo was a cooling factor in the 90's and is neutral now. It does not account for the warming, period.

The 4 Hiroshima bombs per second of CO2 certainly does!

>>Can anyone prove CO2 is the only cause of climate change?<<
It sounds like you're completely ignorant of the IPCC papers that you apparently feel free to criticise. Climate science does not assert this, but has studied and reported on a number of different climate forcings at work in paleoclimate and now. But the natural forcings are fairly neutral now. CO2 is dominant, and will be for millennia.

The IPCC even mentions algae, but it is as a feedback of CO2 and other effluent and land use changes. It poisons people and fisheries and is quite serious, but it is *not* causing global warming, but instead is *partly caused* by warming!
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=367

@ Max Green, Monday, 16 November 2015 4:47:08 PM

Max, there is absolutely nothing in that Coastal Water issues link, about warmth in ocean and lake phytoplankton algae.
Warmth is not even mentioned.
I think it obvious warmth in ocean and lake algae plant matter and impact on climate has been missed in AGW associated science.

However, science has recently found warmth in algae and is looking further right now.

Warmth in algae is not going to equal 4 Hiroshima bombs PER SECOND!

Enjoy proving your worldwide conspiracy of misinformation, nearly 200 years and going strong!

This is pointless.

I'm done.

JF Aus, having a hypothesis in science is an early step; experimentation and controlled experimentation needs to follow. The hypothesis about CO2 and infrared radiation have been shown to be true. Max has provided an example of a controlled experiment showing it to happen.

You have provided an opinion without any scientific backing.

There is no doubt that algal blooms are a cause for concern.

@ ant, Monday, 16 November 2015 8:05:39 PM

ant, thank you so much for reply, and thank you to Max and Aidan, and OLO.

When a convicted criminal is sentenced to death following eyewitness account without any scientific evidence, surely it can be agreed eyewitness evidence is not hypothetical evidence.

I am coming forward here on OLO with eyewitness account of what I have personally observed with my own eyes and/or heard with my own ears.
For example I observe algae damaging and killing seagrass and coral and have photo/data evidence.
I hear actual experts, I read scientific literature, I examine NASA images that also provide evidence of substance.

I have a problem with demand for scientific evidence or controlled scientific experimentation.
It is impossible for science to control experiment creating gravity because even in this day and age, science does not know what gravity it, yet gravity exists.
Scientific experiment did not establish Iraq had WMD yet Australia attacked.
Sun rises every day but science cannot replicate sun in controlled experiment.

If I have not seen or heard first hand then I will state that “I think” so and so is the situation, my opinion.
I do not need scientific backing to report crime to police.

How can I say I think there is warmth in algae when I have felt warmth in algae, and have measured warmth in vegetable matter in water and that warmth carried into hours of night?

Surely hands on experience and eyewitness evidence and supporting evidence of serious matters should be fully examined and not dismissed due to lack of complete scientific evidence.

It’s not just algae blooms, it’s common algae too.

Prove me incorrect if possible

@JF Aus

Aerosols ( pollution) cause cooling; but we do not say that because there are aerosols in the atmosphere that the climate is cooling.

Near the Poles is showing the highest degree of climate change which had been predicted a long time ago.

Here is a recent example ... "Sea surface temperatures were as high as 15.8°C or 60.4°F near Svalbard on November 7, 2015, a 13.7°C or 24.7°F anomaly. Let this sink in for a moment. The water used to be close to freezing point near Svalbard around this time of year, and the water now is warmer by as much as 13.7°C or 24.7°F."

Svalbard is within the Arctic Circle, is hardly an area to view extensive algal blooms, especially when approaching winter.

You have provided interesting observations; but, no science. You need to prove a hypothesis before it can be seen as a valid point.

@ ant, Tuesday, 17 November 2015 8:52:20 AM

Extensive algae blooms in Arctic Circle waters can be seen easily thanks to NASA..
What is not being seen is warmth in the algae.

Algae in the Arctic - Barents Sea is now described as common, but was it common prior to human population increase and associated land use and sewage nutrient overload - pollution?

It can be said algae is natural, it’s not off a space ship, but is the amount natural according to baseline data and other scientific evidence?
Svalbard is in the Barents Sea.
A paper provides scientific evidence, here:
http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/BarentsSea2011_2012.pdf

Algae is even visible while samples are collected in Svalbard waters, second photo down,here:
http://lauraschetter.com/2015/07/18/from-the-arctic-ocean-to-india-linking-water-issues/

Is there any scientific evidence climate change is proliferating algae in waters of Greenland?
Or is proliferation of algae linked to nutrient pollution and prevailing winds from the SSW in North Atlantic Ocean and Barents Sea waters?

No wonder ice is sometimes melting faster and more than usual in Arctic waters.

But is there warmth in ocean algae plant matter or no

Hi Matt,
You are a little late in presenting your views.
Basics of Climate Change science settled in the 1800s. It was during that century that scientists worked out that with no CO2 in the atmosphere, our earth would have an average temperature aound -17C. With quite simple experiments, that you could repeat, they showed the CO2 absorbs infra red radiation (the stuff of hot spots on cricket bats). A Nobel Laureate at the end of the 1800s calculated that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere could increase average temperature by 4C or so. The phrase "greenhouse gas" was coined in the mid 1800s. You can find all of this with simple Google search.

A short while ago, the Russians drilled a 3km vertical core of ice in the Antarctic. As you would know, air is trapped with the snow that falls. They managed to plot temperature and CO2 concentration going back 800,000 years. Shows a number of iceages. At the coolest time during ice ages, CO2 concentration about 120ppm. During warmest periods, not higher than 280 ppm. Now 400 ppm. It is our earths blanket. Go figure why earth is warming.

The issue about standing of scientists is soley created by authors like yourselk who just dont understand - but think they do, which is often quite funny - and sad. They are like the anti floridation, and anti vaccination groups.

Where does the author of the article state he does not agree with climate science of 200 years ago and climate science in general?

Author Matt Ridley says he is a "lukewarmer".
I think I am the same.
I respect science, in fact I admire genuine science.
I believe CO2 is natural and part of natural change in climate.

The problem is that science is being used to promote questionable circumstances and if someone asks relevant questions or probes, they are made outcasts even from Australia's CSIRO.

Some people are not total skeptics, for example I do not in any way argue against climate science of 200 years ago or against genuine climate science of today.
But I do argue with the CO2 emissions lobby that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not proven as the only source of warmth heating the planet.

What might happen if human causes of nutrient pollution proliferating historically unprecedented proliferation of ocean and lake algae plant matter, and increase in associated warmth affecting climate, is ignored?

Science of 200 years ago showed chemistry and physics of atmosphere but it did not show impact of 7 billion humans, including impact of algae.

I think government is duty bound to engage modern science in proving or disproving all possible causes of modern
impact on climate possibly causing climate to change more that would be changed naturally.

And do real science, without spin to trade in emissions to make profit, or to unjustifiably increase tax.
Tax revenue and vast business and employment could be generated from solutions to manage algae, including via nutrient trading.

Hi JF Aus,

It hit forty degrees yesterday in Adelaide. I'm sure that many people would have said, 'Surely this is the hottest ever ?!' and indeed it was the hottest November day since 2009 - today (19/11) in 2009, in fact. And in fact, the hottest November 18 was three degrees hotter still even with CSIRO adjustments, back in 1921.

As a fellow-lukewarm sceptic, I do take much of the doom-speak with a grain of salt. I have a lot of faith that, sooner or later, as Lomborg suggests, technology will develop by which renewable energy production is cheaper than that by fossil fuels.

One of things which bugs me now is that, presumably, solar panels and wind towers are being manufactured using fossil fuels, it is immeasurably cheaper to do so, than to use renewables to produce renewables. Isn't that so ?

As well, the scare talk of flooded atolls and river deltas defies what I learnt in Geography I. As the late, wonderful Ron Crocombe wrote in 1971 (Land Tenure in the Pacific, p. x):

"The population of the Pacific islands is increasing so rapidly that before the end of the century there may be only half as much land per person as there is today. And before today's children reach middle age, there may be only one-quarter as much. At the same time people have come to hope for higher incomes and better services."

Suck water out of the ground and it sinks. More people: more water. Atolls are always sinking anyway: it would be great to measure the subsidence of unoccupied atolls near, say, Kiribati or Tuvalu, to see if it matches populated atolls.

Cheers,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Joe,
Sea level measurements are now done by satellites. Irrespective of islands growing or shrinking, sea levels are absolutely rising.

And, 40% of the measured rise is due to ocean warming. Most things get larger as they warm. And the oceans are getting warmer because the winds blowing acoss the sea surface are warming. And the air is warming because additional CO2 is reducing the amount of heat energy exiting the earth.

So an energy imbalance occurs because energy leaving the earth each day is less than the daily input if energy from the sun.

Satllites have measured this difference to be about 1 watt per square metre.

This is equivalent to a one thousand watt heater, running 24 hours a day, every day, in a square area approximately 33m by 33m. All over the earth.

Imagine walking around the earth, and feeling the warmth of such heaters, every 33 meters walked.

This heating fully explained in the 1800's.

Unfortunately, even if we stopped creating CO2 by burning fossil fuel tomorrow, earths temperature would continue rising for many, many decades.

And the frequency and strength of extreme events have been increasing over past decades. And farmers suiciding because of lengthy drought in NSW and Qld.

John Hewson understood ramifications of Climate Change decades ago - he took a policy of a full Emissions Trading Scheme to the election he lost. He would have fully implemented it in 2000.

It is real, it is bad, it is getting worse,
and too many politicians and others fiddling their Nero violins.

Thanks, Tony, for trying to teach me how to suck eggs.

"Most things get larger as they warm" ? Except water, between 0 and about 3 degrees Celsius: in that range, it gets 'larger' as it cools. That's why the ice used to pop the top of our milk bottles on a winter's morning when I was a kid.

Conversely, as water near freezing point - as I assume deep-water is - warms, up to about 3 degrees it gets 'littler', that is, it takes up less space, i.e. volume. I suppose that, if they had bottled milk in the old days at just above freezing point, say one degree, the bottle tops might have been sucked in by the time we picked them up.

Have I got that right ?

Joe

Reasonable,
But most of the warming occurs in top 700m ( or thereabouts) and that water expands as it warms.
I needed to get down to sucking eggs as another post queried sea level rising.
Tony.

Hi JF,
You may not know Professor Muller. Hi is very well credentialed physicist who was the poster person for many who denied anthropogenic climate change. But many other physicists agreed with the global warming science.

So he decided to collect his own database of temperature records. With funding from Koch brothers, he assembled his own team of researchers and top statisticians.

You can see/hear the results of his research in this 5 minute video.

http://youtu.be/Sme8WQ4Wb5w

Cheers Tony

We have been told sea level is rising because polar and glacier ice is melting. What happened to that story?

A puzzle to me is where CO2 is situated.
Ozone is at the poles.
Oxygen is everywhere.
Where is CO2 located, is it everywhere?

@ Loudmouth, Thursday, 19 November 2015 9:07:39 AM
Hi Joe,
I think presently hot winds are linked to warmer than normal water linked to sewage and land use nutrient pollution proliferating algae in the Indian Ocean.
India alone has over a billion people and all waterways run into the Indian Ocean.
I have a sea surface temperature chart showing warmth from the coast of India meanders south and then south west to Indian Ocean waters off southern Western Australia.
Scientists in India know there and many algae blooms in the Indian Ocean, many, I heard reiterated.

If you feed very cold water into a gas heater for a shower the water coming out is not so warm but if you feed warm water into the same heater then water coming out is much warmer, or even too hot for a shower.
The beginning of summer south of the equator is a time when I expect algae to be thriving and retaining warmth.
I think summer onset algae thrives , especially because the N&P nutrient loading has built up during cold winter months, so when warmth arrives there is plenty of nutrient to proliferate algae and thus warm surface waters.
I also think algae would act like a blanket and retain warmth in surface waters, not forever but long enough to sometimes impact climate..

I think when water warms and lifts sea level in the northern Indian Ocean, that higher water has to go somewhere so it spills virtually downhill southward toward the pole.
It’s off SW Western Australia where such warmth can meet cold winds coming up from Antarctica.
Cloud then forms and spills and prevails eastward across the Great Australian Bight, and sometimes hot wind off the Indian Ocean is dragged eastward over the Australian mainland.
I think those winds over the mainland bring the very hot days, they are winds warmed by the Indian Ocean PLUS by hot desert land.
If it was cold wind coming from the Indian Ocean then it would not get so hot while crossing that desert.

Continued………….

Cont’d………..

Nutrient is there, so is the heat and so is algae.
There is a mass of algae involved when you consider the blooms plus common green micro algae in the Indian Ocean, PLUS warmth that also comes southward with the Leeuwin Current. You can read and see more here:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1071046.htm

Why is the Leeuwin hot?
Is there any evidence warmth in algae plant matter is definitely not involved in warming the Leeuwin and oceans, changing climate?

There is a lot of money being made from manufacturing and sale and installation of alternative energy equipment.
It is good to reduce air pollution but ocean ecosystems are in dire need of attention too.

Re atolls, they are formed by coral rubble and coral sand but now there is dead coral almost everywhere and the usual supply of rubble and sand is no longer arriving as much to maintain atoll formation.

You are spot on about the Pacific Islands, but add to that the protein deficiency malnutrition and disease and major organ failure among seafood dependent people.
There is still some good sport fishing around Pacific islands if you have money for an engine and fuel.

ABC Radio Australia really pumps out CO2 ‘news’ to Pacific islanders.
They say nothing about dead coral and less coral rubble for atolls, just sea level rising due world CO2 emissions.
Nothing about tectonic plate movement causing islands to sink.
Just sea level rise. Best leave you island paradise, if you listen to ABC news.
Someone will pick up cheap land for resorts of the future.

JF,
CO2, carbon dioxide is a gas. Like oxygen, it is distributed throughout the atmosphere.

Question - why do you breath?

You breath in so that your body gets oxygen. In your body, energy is generated whenever that oxygen combines with carbon, making carbon dioxide (one carbon and two oxygens combining to make CO2).

And all of your food is made from carbon. You breath out to release your now unwanted CO2. All people and animals create their energy by making CO2.

All fossil fuels are primarily carbon. You cars energy, energy powering planes, trucks and so on, is created by making CO2.

Consider all the people on this earth, all that is burnt, petrol burnt - all creating CO2. Is it any wonder that our atmosphere now has more carbon dioxide than it has ever had over the last 800,000 years.

So our CO2 blanket is "thicker" than it has been for much more than 800,000 years.

No wonder our planet is getting warmer.
Tony

@ Tony153, Thursday, 19 November 2015 10:07:56 PM

Hi Tony,

Thank you for explaining. You must be a teacher, have been, or should be.

I asked where CO2 is distributed so as to be sure it is distributed globally like oxygen.

I have been wondering.
If CO2 is distributed globally and is the cause of increase in AGW and climate change, why is CO2 linked temperature increase not causing extreme weather events globally at the same time?

I think ocean and lake algae in different regions at different times of the year is causing the extreme weather events at different in different regions at different times.

Compare distribution of algae compared to distribution of CO2.

Warmth in increased ocean and lake algae plant matter in various regions, seems to provide a more logical explanation at least.

What do you think?

JF Aus you wrote:

"If CO2 is distributed globally and is the cause of increase in AGW and climate change, why is CO2 linked temperature increase not causing extreme weather events globally at the same time?"

Climate varies from region to region depending on topography, closeness to large bodies of water, or the amount of forestry close by. We live about 15 ks from the local weather station; yet, the weather we receive is different to what it is like at the weather station.
Where the height above sea level 20 ks from us is higher, the weather tends to be relatively more extreme. There is very little algae 20 ks from home, or near home.

You either live a very cloistered life in a city, or you are playing a troll like game.

You need to provide scientific evidence.

@ ant, Friday, 20 November 2015 10:58:51 AM

ant,
If the level of CO2 is the same everywhere, that level should have impact everywhere globally?
Why is sea level rise not uniform worldwide ?

Non tidal sea level rise occurs where there is algae or in water where algae has recently been.
Can you prove there is no warmth associated with algae?

Cloistered life in a city or playing troll you say.
Presently I am based on waterfront of The Pittwater, sometimes on a vessel in Moreton Bay, and I spend 6 months a year in Solomon Islands out of town.

Get up to date, ant.
The Precautionary Principle declares full scientific certainty is no longer essential to take action to prevent further damage to the environment.
Meanwhile scientists seem to let damage continue while they reiterate mantra calling for scientific evidence.
Since when does scientific evidence already exist for newly found phenomena not yet studied and described?
I don’t know of any peer reviewed evidence of photosynthesis- linked warmth in ocean and lake algae.
I may be the person bringing attention to that and associated phenomena.
Repeated demand for scientific evidence is nonsense, non-sense, no sense in that ‘need’ at all, a waste of crucial time.

Take time to see 2014 scientific based research involving significantly increased distribution and retention of algae in RECENT years in waters off India. Especially note, there is a warming condition associated with sea surface height. Also note enhanced precipitation.
But no measurement or mention of increase in CO2, there or elsewhere .

Algae blooms have also been seen in clear ocean waters southeast and northeast of Sri Lanka. Southeast is toward Western Australia and where prevailing winds blow eastward over Australia.
I think that clear Indian Ocean water would be warm due to algae that has since died and fallen way, as with the warm clear East Australian Current that flows all the way to Victoria.

Note well what is said about Indian Ocean surface algal blooms and important bearing on studies and climate change “scenarios”. Here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24554022

Any comment

Tol, an economist, described as a contrarian, has just come out and warned people of the dangers of climate change. Tol had been involved with the IPCC previously.

First sentence from reference:

"In the academic world of climate change, Richard Tol has been labeled a “lukewarmer.” While he believes in man-made climate change, the economist is known for highlighting what he believes to be the positive effects of global warming. Now, the so-called climate contrarian warns human societies will soon feel the brunt of global warming."

http://qz.com/552205/even-this-climate-skeptic-is-now-worried-about-the-potentially-devastating-impact-of-climate-change/

JF,
CO2 does not cause extreme events. But the increasing levels of CO2 means more of the suns energy stays in our environment than used to be the case. It is this additional energy in our atmosphere and oceans that cause many atmospheric events to become more energetic. Thus extreme events become more extreme. Droughts become longer and more extreme. Heat waves last longer and reach higher temperatures, glaciers melt, ice caps melt.

The heat coming from the sun has caused the worlds average ground level temperature to be about 15C (from memory). About 341watts of solar energy bathes every square meter on the earths surface. NASA has measured heat mismatch to be about 1 watt per sq m. It is this additional heat that is strengthening extreme events, warming the ocean and much more. Prof Muller (earlier post) compared temp trend with numerous natural events - solar output, sunspots, vulcanism, and more. None had trends matching observed heating. But, CO2 concentration does.

Massive slowly moving ocean currents, deep and surface, the earths rotation, the moons rotation all combine to create different sea levels at different locations. Satellites measure differences between what is and what was.

It is well known that much of the earth's oxygen is created by photosynthesis neat the oceans surface. I think that concern has been expressed that ocean acidification (increased CO2 caused) may disrupt this process.

Indian algal problems probably due to water shortages and additional heat - because of CO2 caused warming.

I understand that many coastal algal blooms might result from excessive fertiser in streams.

JF,
I understand you have thought much about algal matters, and icean photosynthesis. To get so involved in a branch of ecology is excellent. I am not an ecologisist or biologist or - not many other things as well.

I am just very concerned that the world is heading towards a disaster of epic precautions. Hence I have a great dislike of people who deliberately peddle myths and other scientific distortions.

However, I do not put you in that category. Your interest in that branch of science should be applauded.
Tony

ant

So your argument is, "I believe something, so you should believe it too, and as proof of my opinion, I cite the authority of an absent person who also believes what I believe."

Why do you care whether other people believe what you believe?

Do you support voluntary, or violence-based responses to climate change?

Interesting to read one's previous posts to see the glaringly obvious mis-corrections provided by Siri's alter ego

JKJ, you excel yourself when you ask..."Do you support voluntary, or violence-based responses to climate change?"

Violence only creates more violence ... it is the solution of a fool.

It is science I believe in; not the semantic nonsense from deniers who provide no science references. Do you believe in gravity, JKJ? With every peak science body agreeing that anthropogenic climate change is happening it takes on the same status as our view towards gravity.
Climate change denying is a very recent phenomena designed to protect the interests of fossil fuel companies.

Controlled experiments show how CO2 reacts with radiated infrared. To disbelieve this displays a lack of knowledge of the very area you are critical of...science.

Ant,
There are multiple types of deniers. And it almost impossible to find any pair of denialists that have similar views. Each has their own set of personal myths. Many reasons for denying credentialed science. Many are funded to spruik their views. But, there is another subset who, I believe, are not capable of either understanding what is happening, nor comprehending what has to be done to keep our planet in a liveable condition. JKJ may fall into this latter category. It may be best to just post: "JKJ: I understand that you are not able to address climate change issues from a position of knowledge. But, thanks for your opinion"

Appeal to absent authority and begging the question are not science, and that's all you've ever done.

If a bunch of theologians call their activity "science", that doesn't mean it's science, does it? It goes by your intellectual methodology, not by what name you call it you fools.

Your intellectual methodology is
a) before entering the discussion, repose open-ended unquestioning credulity in an ideology-manufacturing monopoly corporation
b) enter the discusson having assumed all issues in your own favour
c) meet all challenges by repeating your assumptions, appeal to absent authority, active evasion, and ad hominem.

All you need to understand the whole debate is to know that the people the warmists keep referring off to are sharing the same methodology. That' what ant and tony are calling "science".

But notice they refuse to answer 1. How they know what the planet's temperature should be, 2. How they know what the ecology woild be in either case, and 3. How they know what people's values shoild be?

It's nonense to call this jumble of arbitrary moralising "science".

They people are not just fools but liars.

Notice how, when challenged, the warmist tony's ultimate argument is pseudo-psychologising? It's a psychological, not a climatological explanation. Completely fake.

Tony and ant, everything you say about climate is disproved in websites and authorities you refer to.

Therefore we have established by argreement, using the warmists' own methodology, that no climate policy whatsoever is justified.

JKJ: wait for a cloudless day.
Look at the sky.
If it is blue, shake your head in defiance.
You might not understand why it is blue, so therefore it is not blue.

Oxygen / nitrogen in the atmosphere captures blue light from the sun, and tosses it around.

Carbon Dioxide captures infra red, and tosses it aound, preventing some of that infra red from exiting planet earth, causing warming.

So, to be honest to your convictions, sky is not, and never has been, blue.

tony
wait for a cloudless day.
Look at the sky.
If it is blue, shake your head in defiance.
You might not understand why it is blue, so therefore it is not blue.

Oxygen / nitrogen in the atmosphere captures blue light from the sun, and tosses it around.

Carbon Dioxide captures infra red, and tosses it aound, preventing some of that infra red from exiting planet earth, causing warming.

So, to be honest to your convictions, thou fragment, the sky is not, and never has been, blue.

Now it's like this. The issue is whether there is any justification of climate policy.

I have shown three reasons categorically refuting all warmists including you:
1. your reliance on appeal to absent authority is logically fallacious and therefore not scientific; responding to this by repeating your appeals to authority proves my argument not yours, fool;
2. you do not know the distribution and abundance of species in both cases, and therefore your ecological prognostications have no scientific basis; you are talking hot air;
3. you do not know the human evaluations in both cases, and therefore your economic assertions are irrational.

And you have been COMPLETELY UNABLE to answer these arguments, except by merely repeating your liturgy, and the kind of irrelevant drivel that you posted above.

Therefore we have established that there is no justification of climate policy.

The observation that you are now debating need for policy indicates you accept the scuence.
A small step forward.
Keep moving.

The observation that you have again assumed what is in issue when you have completely and repeatedly failed to prove it when challenged, indicates that you don't understand what science is; and are therefore not intellectually qualified to participate in the discussion.

I have shown why your claims about climate have no scientific basis, and without answering my argument, you just give me another serve of snivelling question-begging. Do you think your facile dishonest evasion is not obvious? *Real* science actually proves by evidence and reason, not just endless arse-licking of those in power and circular tail-chasing.

Just answer the question: do you or do you not understand that a scientific proof cannot rely on any logical fallacy including appeal to absent authority?

Do you understand that, or not?