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."?