Notice how the statists keep discussing the issues as if the policy conclusion is to be decided by temperature data?

These fools actually believe that you can use a thermometer to read off what the rate of tax should be. The all-important issues of human evaluations are terra incognita, a complete blank on the map to them. Only where the State is, instead of "here be monsterrs", they have "here be God".

Don't laugh. This level of stupidity is being repeated all the way from the United Nations down to local government and if anything, it gets worse the higher you go.

JF Aus, you were suggesting algae had an impact on climate 18 months ago.
Please provide references.

At present, I'm thinking you are mixing up causal factors with associations. Eg, algal blooms seem to be more wide spread when there is warmth, an association rather than a causal factor.
In winter, in a temperature climate algal blooms are not present; or do not show as strong an appearance; yet, the weather can be quite warm for that time of year.
What percentage of waterways are covered by algal blooms?
How are algal blooms associated with wildfires, drought, extreme weather and glacial melting?

You really need to provide references.

@ ant, Friday, 13 November 2015 11:43:25 AM

Prince Charles has expressed concern about the environment for a long time and now I can understand importance of proper management of the environment. In 1982 I informed HRH Prince Phillip, then President of the World Wildlife Fund, that ocean fish stocks were becoming seriously depleted worldwide. I received reply dated two days later.

Later during 1982, mass starvation of Victoria's fairy penguins led me to algae.
In about 1987 Australia began developing aquaculture policy, while I have continued since then with focus on algae.

Quickening of pace of glaciers melting in vicinity of Greenland, is linked in my opinion according to evidence, to increase in seaweed/algae in the Sargasso Sea, and prevailing wind blowing warm ocean surface water and associated warmth in the air, northwards at least to Greenland.

I think historically there is now more sargassum seaweed/algae/phytoplankton occurring in the Atlantic Ocean than known before.
Sargassum has been causing havoc for tourism in Caribbean waters and also on the eastern Atlantic shore of Sierra Leone. Southward and trans Atlantic increase in sargassum coincides with increase in anthropogenic nutrient pollution.
Wind moving northwards from Atlantic equatorial waters must pass over waters inundated with sargassum, including mats of sargassum floating on the ocean surface.

Solar warmth in floating mats of algae can easily be felt by the back of a human hand (as I have previously indicated).
Prevailing wind drives ocean surface currents.

The rapidly melting Columbia Glacier in Prince William Sound Alaska is downwind from "the blob" of warm water situated in the north east Pacific, where prevailing wind blows northwards seven months of the year.

Scientists are puzzled by warmth in "the blob".
In my opinion warmth in "the blob" is coming from historically unprecedented algae in N/E Pacific waters, including from a major toxic algae bloom impacting from California to Alaska.

"Quickening of pace of glaciers melting in vicinity of Greenland, is linked in my opinion according to evidence, to increase in seaweed/algae in the Sargasso Sea, and prevailing wind blowing warm ocean surface water and associated warmth in the air, northwards at least to Greenland."
Nope. What heat do algae generate? How much per gram? How many grams are there in these seas? Or are you suggesting an albedo change? Again, what heat do they generate? Science papers please! Is that enough thermal energy to warm WINDS to melt the glaciers and ice sheets? (Remember a lot of the melting there actually comes from warmer oceans, underneath the ice sheets. Which is a real worry because it destabilises the ocean).

"I think historically there is now more sargassum seaweed/algae/phytoplankton occurring in the Atlantic Ocean than known before."
You think? There's a science reference right there! ;-) Seriously mate, when are you going to back up any of your wild flights of fantasy with references? Oh, you're not, that's right, because there *aren't* any.

"Sargassum has been causing havoc for tourism in Caribbean waters and also on the eastern Atlantic shore of Sierra Leone."
Irrelevant to climate change.

"Southward and trans Atlantic increase in sargassum coincides with increase in anthropogenic nutrient pollution."
Could be.

"Wind moving northwards from Atlantic equatorial waters must pass over waters inundated with sargassum, including mats of sargassum floating on the ocean surface."
Where? How much?

"Solar warmth in floating mats of algae can easily be felt by the back of a human hand (as I have previously indicated)."
I can feel heat of a candle, but it doesn't mean thousands of candles across poorer areas of the world are causing global warming. How much? What papers have analysed this?

"Scientists are puzzled by warmth in "the blob"."
Really? I thought they were puzzled by the cycles in the blob, not the warmth itself. They know perfectly well where that comes from. The CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere!

"In my opinion warmth"...
and there it is! Your *opinion*. Nothing more. Situation diagnosed.
NEXT!

Max,

Can you provide reference to how gravity is created?

No, because that's why we have CERN, as you well know.

But we DO know what CO2 does!

Mythbusters even tested it with their own greenhouses full of different atmospheres and lamps pouring exactly the same amount of energy onto each greenhouse box.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

The climate sciences are old, and the human race has poured immense time and effort and money into studying how it works. You're not earning any credibility points by sitting there as an internet desk-jockey just sneering at it. Your algae idea has about as much credibility as some deranged street kid yelling "It's actually the aliens! The aliens did it!"

>>The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning, of at least 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[2][3][4][5]<<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change