@ 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.