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.