@ 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