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.