The underwater world on this planet is being ignored by CO2ist's.

It was known at least 30 years ago that using windmill apparatus to capture energy from wind blowing over ocean water would reduce wind energy that naturally drives surface water current/s.

Dissolved nutrient bonded to fresh water travels in ocean surface current so reduction of surface current flow would likely slow or prevent natural dispersal of nutrient loading in an area or region.

Nutrient overload can can amount to pollution causing damage and consequences, albeit that now require urgent study and critically urgent proper solutions.

Now even lake water is being ignored.
On SBS tv news today the CO2 alternative energy lobby are covering lake water with solar panels, and nothing is being said about impact of loss of sunlight on plant and animal life underwater.

@ ant, Friday, 11 December 2015 7:32:41 AM
If warming caused by CO2 is greatest at the poles (as you claim without providing any scientific evidence, ant), would the North Pole and South Pole would be melting first and faster than elsewhere? If not, why not according to what scientific evidence?

As @ Alice Thermopolis indicates, all possible sources of warming should be scientifically measured and assessed in order to find solutions to human influenced climate change.

JF Aus

In your last comment you indicate that you really are another denier under a different guise.

Oceanographers have been studying whats happening in Oceans for many years.
It is not only Oceanographers who are keeping tabs on what is happening.

On the news in the recent past was a concern expressed about a lake forming just above Mount Everest base camp; the question is did it develop through a hot spot or melting ice?
It is seen to be dangerous due to the lakes bottom wall comprising of ice.

Here is an interesting article JF Aus about the Gulf Stream possibly slowing down and floods in Cumbria.

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/12/11/more-signs-of-gulf-stream-slowdown-as-floods-devastate-cumbria-england/

Climate scientists have been saying for years that a warmer atmosphere carries more water vapour; nature is truly showing us that.

Interesting isn't it;JK Aus, that ExxonMobil have stated that Republican Presidential candidates are completely wrong in anthropogenic denying climate change.

I see, Rusty, you are a science teacher, but ignore science.
The human effect on climate is trivial, and not measurable. That is why you cannot refer us to any science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, but, like the flea, you still support the fraud.
The flea gave the melting of Antarctic ice as proof of global warming when global warming had stopped. Alice has mentioned some volcanic activity that might explain the ice melt. Better than being as ignorant as the flea, and asserting that it is caused by the halted global warming.
Why not look into why the laboratory science does not give valid results in the computer models. A Royal Commission might disclose that it is the garbage fed into the computers by fraud supporting scientists. Warming always precedes the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere. It is not the increase in CO2 which causes the warming. The retaliation against Murry Salby when he showed that temperature governs the CO2 content was immediate. The fraud supporters made his life uncomfortable. A Royal Commission could disclose the actions and motivations of the participants.
The flea continues to use the term “denier”, while having no science to deny. Rusty has underlined the fact that there is no science in his ridiculous attempt to justify the failure of the flea.
We need a Royal Commission to expose the tactics of the fraud promoters

Whatever you reckon, Leo.

Like I said, lessons will cost you.

As I *also* said, I'm *fine* with a royal commission. I wonder though whether you or the article author have the integrity to abide by the findings.

I'd wish you luck, but frustration is the best you can hope for.

Cheers.

Rusty.

@ ant, Saturday, 12 December 2015 8:18:25 AM

Denial that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are warming the globe is a sensible view to have if you consider all possible causes of increase in storm intensity for example.

It was oceanographers that said windmills would slow water currents.
Oceanographers however tend to study the big ocean currents, not coastal estuary linked fresher water surface currents associated with biology.
For example ask an oceanographer what the biological value of seagrass is.

The link you provided makes not mention of algae.

From my point of view (since 1970), waters of the UK and areas of the north Atlantic Ocean are inundated with algae plant matter. I have seen and can describe the increase.

Drawing on evidence of substance I think it is the increase of micro and macro algae in north Atlantic/UK waters that is causing increase in weather severity in the UK and region.

As for warmer atmosphere carrying more water vapour as you say, ant, I have lived for 6 years in the Australian outback where the atmosphere is often 40c and dry as a bone.

I think ExonMobil would acknowledge anthropogenic climate change but not anthropogenic global warming.

As for warmth in ocean algae plant matter, recently it was put to me there is no chemical mechanism for warmth in algae to occur, but what about solar warmth taken up during photosynthesis and briefly retained?

A child can experiment.
Take 2 same size and brand cups, place two tablespoons of dried pea soup powder in ONE cup, place close to each other but not touching, and when the sun goes down fill both cups with boiling water, then measure temperature in each cup each hour for 5 hours.

The cup with the dead vegetable matter will retain warmth longer than the cup with water only.

Instead of trading emissions, think about trading plumbing contracts and employment worldwide to retrofit household waste and water treatment plant management, to reduce the nutrient loading dumped in ocean ecosystems, instead of denying algae is linked to precipitation.

I cannot decipher your ridiculous ramblings, flea, but am able to conclude from them that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
My comments on science make more sense than yours, flea, and have more validity. You describe mine as rubbish. How do we describe yours?
A typical sample of yours:” Hot spots are not mutually exclusive to ground lines of ice sheets being undermined by water eating into them. There are hot spots elsewhere, I've yet to see them having a major impact on climate change.” I can only guess at how it might read if translated into intelligible English, but at face value, it is clearly misleading, baseless dishonest sewage, which the flea is under the delusion sounds “scientific”.
Rusty has not made the admission that there is no science to support his position, but has gone as close to an admission as a fraud supporter can, and, at least, has gone away.