Anyone can cherry pick data and have their particular selection say anything they want. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, that works as a fertilizer, that promotes growth and consequent more verdant growth, more moisture aspiration. Endlessly repeatable (the very cornerstone of good science) laboratory tests show that measured samples of air can have the Co2 extracted and record a temperature drop of just 0.03 degrees C. Whereas, removing the moisture sees a drop of around 30C.

And a anyone able to compare the difference between a clear and cloudless winter night or an overcast one, knows that moisture is a most effective heat trapping thermal blanket, and therefore the real greenhouse gas is likely to be moisture.

And given some recorded increased ocean temperatures and consequent evaporation, as more of it! And not down to increased solar thermal activity, given our sun (solar thermal furnace) has been in a waning(cooling) phase since the mid seventies.(NASA)

None of it or other recent recorded melting phenomena, increased ocean temps etc, down to it!

Take all the readings you like from wherever you want. Just don't try to claim it's all down to increased solar thermal activity! Or other, I believe, par for the course, inherently dishonest science based obfuscation. Do they give PHD's for that?
Rhrosty.

Oh, the pause has ended? Who'd a thunk it?

The fundamental "foundation stone" of the greenhouse conjecture is the assumption that the troposphere would have been isothermal in the absence of IR-active (GH) gases. This is based on the Clausius corollary of the Second Law which strictly only always applies in a horizontal plane because there is no term for gravitational potential energy in the simplified expression for entropy that is also only applicable in a horizontal plane. In a vertical plane we must also include gravitational potential energy. By definition we have thermodynamic equilibrium only when we have maximum entropy and that state requires that there be no unbalanced energy potentials. This means that the sum of mean molecular (kinetic energy + gravitational potential energy) must be homogeneous at all altitudes in an "ideal" column of a planet's troposphere. And so there is a temperature gradient. Every vortex tube exhibits such a radial temperature gradient formed by centrifugal force, just as gravity does so in every planetary troposphere. The IPCC assumed isothermal conditions would have more PE at the top and thus unbalanced energy potentials. They thought they needed back radiation from a cold atmosphere supposedly heating the warmer surface. But gravity had already produced the temperature gradient that explains the surface temperatures of Earth, Venus and other planets.

For more detail see http://climate-change-theory.com and the cited papers.

In my previous comment I pointed out that the IPCC authors assumed the troposphere would have equal temperatures in the absence of greenhouse gases. That is how they deduce that the surface temperature would be the same 255K (-18°C) that is found at the radiating altitude nearly half way up the troposphere. It goes back to when James Hansen realised that the mean solar radiation reaching the surface was nowhere near strong enough to explain the mean surface temperature. Hansen forgot (or never learned) what the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt (first to estimate the size of air molecules) had explained about how gravity forms the temperature gradient by acting on molecules in flight between collisions. So, because he could think of nothing else, Hansen assumed that the atmospheric radiation (from colder regions) was somehow heating the surface that was already warmer than the solar radiation could make it. Hansen's fictitious fiddles physics is outright false, in total violation of the laws of physics. But those in the infant science of climatology had less education in physics than did Hansen, so they thought he must be right, and ever afterwards they all pal-reviewed their own papers on this. In fact very few papers even discuss the basic physics. The "gold standard" textbook by Pierrehumbert includes the same basic mistakes. In fact, in determining that 255K figure Pierrehumbert overlooked the fact that an Earth without water would have no clouds shading much of it as they increase the albedo and reflect about 20% of the solar radiation back to Space. The whole conjecture is an absolute travesty of physics. See my blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com and my website mentioned in the first comment.

So the pause is officially over now?

Really this is all just so much ignorance over how to determine trends in noisy data. There have been two strong El Ninos in the past 2 decades ending in 1998 and 2016. The 'pause' supporters were insisting on using the El Nino of 1998 as their starting point, so of course the years around looked cooler - it is a bit like standing on top of Mt Everest and claiming the Earth has no mountains, but only valleys as there is no point higher.

Jennifer Marohasy claims that the start of the new pause in global temperatures has nothing to do with CO2, because it is of course an El Nino. Perhaps she should consider what forces are making the 2016 El Nino hotter than the 1998 one.

However, all is not lost. Jennifer Marohasy conveniently points out that the hottest year in Darwin was in 1907. This presumably means the global temperatures were warmer back then than they are now, or something. I leave it an exercise for the reader to work out the fail in logic there.

lol The substance of the title of this article is not addressed in the body of it.

Yes, CO2 did not cause the pause in [gradually rising mean] global temperatures.

Yes, CO2 per se is not the cause of gradually rising global temperatures.

There is more than one green-house gas: water vapour is a significant green-house gas, but is not as uniformly dispersed as CO2 (so harder to measure as a measure of greenhouse gases in toto) - we can see that by it's visual representations ie. clouds.

Besides CO2 and water vapour (H2O) there is methane CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) (and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)).

Marahosy is one of the people the climate swindlers have to abuse because she is right, and they are wrong. There is BA that can be done by blaming CO2 and people for climate change. There is BA point in handing out money to climate crooks and rent-seekers to build ugly, inefficent windmills. The climate will change again when it is good and ready. There is already a very cold period on the way. The the AGW swindlers, their enablers and loudmouth supporters should be jailed, after they have repaid all the money they have extorted from us.

Doug Cotton, you're falsely accusing scientists of all making an idiotic assumption that I've not seen anyone other than a blogger actually make.

Every atmospheric scientist is aware of that temperature gradient and the reasons for it; none of them make the ridiculous claim that it's all due to back radiation from a cold atmosphere. But infrared reradiated by the atmosphere is an observed phenomenon, so if you think it contravenes the laws of physics then you clearly don't understand the laws of physics.

Notorious serial climate change denier and shill for the fossil fuel industry spews her usual tedious thousand times falsified garbage.
End of story.

Agronomist, and others,

If you would like to read more about the historical temperature records for Darwin, including back in 1907, there are some simple charts here... http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/02/12910/

Time will pass. If this El Nino is followed by a strong La Nina, then the pause will be back. This time though it will have a strong El Nino at the supposedly warming end as well as 97/98. How many of the nasty abusive commenters here will be looking up Jennifer to appologise for the parranoid conspiracy theories and insults? Leslie Graham?
As entire civilisations have been destroyed by climate change in the distant past there is no reason to suspect that global cooling will not bring the next round of disasters. More CO2 to help combat desertification is our best hope. Who knows it may just act as a flame retardent during our next asteroid impact.

The increase in temperature is perennial topic discussed in relation to climate change. The beginnings of climate science go back almost two hundred years when fossil fuel companies were not in the process of trying to debunk climate science. The debunking of climate science has been a recent phenomena with Agencies such as Heartlands pushing against science.
In Australia the extremely conservative IPA has been trying to debunk climate science.

The animation in reference displays what happens between IR and CO2.

"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating."

From:

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

A simple experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY

A more sophisticated experiment:

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/1906/how-co2-traps-sun39s-warmth

The eleven year ARM research program was conducted in the natural environment:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

Quote:

"Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires."

" If this El Nino is followed by a strong La Nina, then the pause will be back. This time though it will have a strong El Nino at the supposedly warming end as well as 97/98."
Posted by Siliggy, Tuesday, 22 March 2016 1:42 am

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there Siliggy, but do you realise the El Nino / La Nina phenomena are trans-Pacific ones and only drive changes in weather patterns either side of the Pacific? - ie. Australia, western Oceania & S/E Asia in the west and the western Americas in the east?

Do you realise that global warming only makes El Nino and La Nina slightly more extreme? and they do not drive global warming?

"If you would like to read more about the historical temperature records for Darwin"

Jennifer, sorry I am not that interested in reading about historical weather in Darwin. Mostly because it is not relevant to a discussion of global temperature changes and is being used to muddy the waters.

"There is more than one green-house gas: water vapour is a significant green-house gas, but is not as uniformly dispersed as CO2 (so harder to measure as a measure of greenhouse gases in toto) - we can see that by it's visual representations ie. clouds."

McReal, water vapour is indeed a greenhouse gas, but unlike carbon dioxide its residence time in the atmosphere is short (due to a phenomenon known as rain). Its concentration has risen little, meaning its effect on increasing temperature is very small. Unlike carbon dioxide.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-2.html

"Time will pass. If this El Nino is followed by a strong La Nina, then the pause will be back. This time though it will have a strong El Nino at the supposedly warming end as well as 97/98. How many of the nasty abusive commenters here will be looking up Jennifer to appologise for the parranoid conspiracy theories and insults?"

Siliggy, you do realise that El Nino and La Nina are transient phenomenon driven by changes in the trade winds over the Pacific Ocean? El Nino years are always warmer than the surrounding years and La Nina years are always cooler. So yes the next La Nina will be cooler than 2015/6. But that doesn't mean global warming will have paused and global cooling begun. What is happening is that El Nino years are getting hotter and La Nina years are getting less cool due to the underlying warming trend.

http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/files/2013/03/201213-noaa.png

Ant. The Carbon dioxide global warming end of the world myth is one of the oldest hoax jokes ever played on humankind.
Here long before the 1896 world wide heatwave gave the evil Swedish eugenicist, Svante Arrhenius his chance.
Here are echos of the predictions that no living thing would be left alive by the year 1900 from an 1883 newspaper that also mentions many other greenhouse gases.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/124795324

McReal
Global is only so big. Your "changes in weather patterns either side of the Pacific" is a very very large area of it.
As for CO2 back radiation making weather more extreme that is just not logical. Vertical radiation from CO2 can only go two ways (mainly up due to the atmosphere being a sphere). Horizontal radiation from CO2 can go in all four compass directions thus bypassing convection and reducing extreme weather.

Agronomist
El Nino and La Nina are driven like the tides not driven by winds. The wind is too feeble to drive that much water. Do the math or try to blow the water out of your bath tub. Just like the tides they are cyclic and driven by the motions of the moon, planets and the sun.
A quick fact check shows your claim that "that El Nino years are getting hotter and La Nina years are getting less cool due to the underlying warming trend." is just not true. Why don't you people check these things before regurgitating them?
Here is a link to a chart showing them since 1950. It is easy to see the cyclic nature of it all as the 70s and 80s have more extremes than recent and also more than the 50s and 60s.
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
From this old newspaper back when our meteorological records were better kept is a good take on the timings of these influences.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/141717877

"El Nino and La Nina are driven like the tides not driven by winds. The wind is too feeble to drive that much water. Do the math or try to blow the water out of your bath tub."

That is not how it works. This is:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/about/australian-climate-influences.shtml?bookmark=enso

"A quick fact check shows your claim that "that El Nino years are getting hotter and La Nina years are getting less cool due to the underlying warming trend." is just not true. Why don't you people check these things before regurgitating them?
Here is a link to a chart showing them since 1950. It is easy to see the cyclic nature of it all as the 70s and 80s have more extremes than recent and also more than the 50s and 60s.
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm"

That page has no global temperature data on it at all (for noting, I linked to a plot of global temperature data in relation to El Nino and La Nina years in my previous post). It is a comparison of Oceanic Nino Index. In any case, it does show sea surface temperatures in the Pacific increasingly departing from the mean in strong El Nino years over the period. And indeed sea surface temperatures in the Pacific getting closer to the mean in strong La Nina years.

I prefer to rely on climate experts rather than bank managers for my understanding of how the climate operates. YMMV.

Siliggy,
the green-house effect is not just due to CO2.

I don't understand your points about vertical vs horizontal radiation and convection. I doubt they're valid.

Silggy

You stated:
"Here long before the 1896 world wide heatwave gave the evil Swedish eugenicist, Svante Arrhenius his chance."

Fourier, decades before Arrenhius was beginning to show interest in climate. Tyndall later, though before Arrenhius, was experimenting with various gases.Climate change science has a 180 +- history. Denying climate change science for political and economic reasons has a history of 20 +- years.

Where are the experiments to show there is no reaction between IR and CO2. As stated elsewhere CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas.

Previously references were given in relation to experiments from the quite simple to extremely sophisticated showing the IR relationshion with CO2. Words alone do not undermine experiments, data is required to explain away experimentation.

Jennifer,

If you're still watching, can I ask a technical question?

You, and many other so-called skeptics, say that the pause ran for 18 years between the El Ninos. It is of coarse an article of faith among the alarmists that this is cherry-picking by starting at the high 1998 numbers.

Yet, using UAH as you (correctly) do, it can be seen that a hiatus of some 20 years can be seen between, for example, 1/1995 and 1/2015 - Trend: 0.124 ±0.154 °C/decade.

I wonder why the point is conceded to the alarmists by starting in 1997/8 when a hiatus can be seen from 1995.

I know that not all datasets yield this result for these periods but if you're going to argue that UAH is to be prefered then why not base the start-end dates for the hiatus on UAH data?

Just wondering.

Jennifer Marohasy,

Surely you are watching comments called for within the heading of your own article.

Do you have any idea why photosynthesis-linked solar warmth in ocean algae plant matter has been excluded from AGW, IPCC and associated climate science?

Plant matter has warmth retaining properties, waterlogged algae plant matter included.

Algae is definitely linked to El Nino 'phenomena'as the following evidence shows:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ElNinoColor/el_nino_color_3.php

Can El Nino events be considered natural when human sewage and land use nutrient overload pollution is proliferating and causing increase in ocean algae, including algae linked to El Nino events?

There is considerable empirical evidence indicating sea surface temperature anomaly in greenhouse CO2 science is not an anomaly in marine biological study involving algae and sewage nutrient distribution.

Do you think subject of ocean and waterway algae is being homogenized?

Toward solutions, there is dire urgent need for whole-of-water-ecosystem care and management, including opportunities I have been discussing. e.g. see here and previous pages;
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18107&page=7

I actually thought that with what is happening in Europe that resources would be directed to real problems.

ant asks "Where are the experiments to show there is no reaction between IR and CO2."

There aren't any. That's because no one doubts that there is such a reaction.

I've explained this to you before but clearly its too hard or just doesn't fit with what you want to be true, but no reputable scientist , including those you so inaccurately describe as deniers, doubts that CO2 has some affect on atmospheric temperatures. That, despite your hopeless misunderstanding, isn't the issue. The issue is the quantum of that effect.

I'm loath to give you more homework given that you are obviously still struggling with your previous task ( to find science that agrees with your silly claim about Holocene temperatures), but let's see if you can find a prominent 'denier' scientist who disputes that CO2 has some temperature effect.

I actually thought that with what is happening in Europe that resources would be directed to real problems.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 23 March 2016 9:55:11 AM

That's a false dichotomy and a category error, runner.

We can multi-task, including hauling former political leaders who contributed to both these situations before the courts

mhaze

You might find this recent science paper interesting:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2681.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160321-climate-change-petm-global-warming-carbon-emission-rate/

http://wxshift.com/news/2015-one-for-the-climate-record-books

In relation to the energy created by green house gases; Skeptical Science says:

"An earthquake measuring 6.0 on the Richter Scale shakes the earth with the destructive energy of 6.3x1013 Joules. Since 1998, our climate has absorbed more than 2 billion such earthquakes (4.0 every second) in accumulated energy from the sun, due to greenhouse gases, and continues to absorb more energy as heat each and every day."

AGRONOMIST,

My father was an agronomist. I always thought that agronomists, having to be both practical and analytical, had a preference for data over the authority of experts.

In one of your first comments you claimed that it could not possibly have been hotter in Darwin in 1907, than it is now. On what basis did you make this claim? As an agronomist you should be interested in the evidence, the data, so please show some discipline and a preparedness to have your prejudices challenged and click across to http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/02/12910/

MHAZE

You make a good point.

JFAUS

The data that I've seen on nutrient levels in the oceans off Australia would suggest no impact from sewerage. N levels can be elevated in rivers and streams, but the Indian and Pacific oceans dilute runoff such that there is no increasing trend in nutrient levels in our Oceans.

I would have thought that the spike in algae associated with an El Nino is a response to temperature

Jennifer wrote:

"In one of your first comments you claimed that it could not possibly have been hotter in Darwin in 1907, than it is now."

I will make this easy for you Jennifer. I made no such claim.

This is what I actually wrote:

"However, all is not lost. Jennifer Marohasy conveniently points out that the hottest year in Darwin was in 1907. This presumably means the global temperatures were warmer back then than they are now, or something. I leave it an exercise for the reader to work out the fail in logic there."

Like your father, I think accuracy is important.

Jennifer Marohasy,

Nutrient loading in oceans depends on where you look and where samples are taken.
Deep open ocean water offshore in general is lacking in nutrient and algae.

It’s a matter of finding where and when the nutrient loaded currents run.
I suggest it’s a bit like finding clouds and then finding cloud with enough moisture to rain.

Toxic algae seems to get more attention than non-toxic algae but spread of either should be noticed and be of significant concern.
There are “ever-growing” reports of toxic algae spreading in the Indian Ocean and I submit such algae is dependent on spread of ever growing nutrient supply.
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/oct252004/1079.pdf

Increase in temperature alone cannot spike increase in algae if the nutrient is inadequate.

If there is specific warmth associated with El Nino, what could be the cause of that warmth?

Dissolved nutrient from sewage is bonded to fresh water.
Fresh water tends to the surface and does not dilute offshore on the east coast of Australia for example, because alongshore current driven by prevailing S and SE winds pushes the surface water against the coast and northwards, i.e Bass Strait to Cape York via the GBR lagoon.

Look for the green in coastal waves in surfing movies and news reports.
The same alongshore current transported sand that built Moreton Island and Frazer Island.

Look closely at the following photo like a doctor looks at an xray. See the green of algae sweeping northwards along the coast of Alaska.
The Bering Strait/Sea region is where sea ice is reported melting faster and more than usual.
Look closely mid-water between Alaska and Russia, see the huge area of lighter colour, this is another species of algae, coccolithaphore. Google that word.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Bering_Strait.jpeg

There has been a recent impossible discovery:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/arctic-algal-blooms-060712.html

Thanks to NASA I have various evidence of ocean algae linked to precipitation. E.g.
At the following link, pinpoints of cloud virtually parallel above an algae bloom can be seen forming into bigger cloud. Zoom to pinpoints.
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/40000/40716/bering_amo_2009281_lrg.jpg

And there is this (2 links):
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/algae-accelerate-arctic-warming-18929

Jennifer, I respect your integrity. What do you think?

Agronomist,
Those Trade wind diagrams show the opposite of the BOM theory. Just as the convection from a column heater with no fan is caused by the temperature, so the location of the sea surface temperature changing would cause the trade winds to change. Thus the change in current cause by the motion of the planets causes the change in trade winds.

"It is a comparison of Oceanic Nino Index. In any case, it does show sea surface temperatures in the Pacific increasingly departing from the mean in strong El Nino years over the period."
It shows an 23 year period between 1950 and 1973 with much warmer Pacific SSTs than the recent period.
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

As for the Global NOAA SSTs this current chart shows the equator (+20 to -20 latitude)to be the ONLY warm part of the planet. The pause obviously continues.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.3.21.2016.gif

Ant
"Where are the experiments to show there is no reaction between IR and CO2. As stated elsewhere CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas."
As I stated above "Horizontal radiation from CO2 can go in all four compass directions thus bypassing convection and reducing extreme weather." There is a CO2 re radiation of IR it goes up or out horizontaly
So I can now fire your question slightly adjusted back at you.
Where are the experiments to show there is no reaction between visible and Nitrogen? As stated elsewhere CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/atspect.html

Siliggy

CO2 reaction to IR has been shown in experiments. Methane is also a gas which has an impact on climate; it is voided from areas where permafrost is thawing, where open cut coal mining is happening, from open rubbish dumps, from fracking, and from livestock. Earlier in the year Los Angeles had a horrendous time when stored methane escaped causing people to be evacuated for weeks from their homes.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/11/socalgas-fixes-natural-gas-methane-leak-los-angeles-porter-ranch

There are numerous references in relation to the methane leakage in Los Angeles.

The Condamine River in Queensland can produce fire when a burning match is held above water igniting methane gas escaping. Origin Energy has been fracking in the vicinity of the River.

Methane is a serious greenhouse gas which in pre Industrial times had measured at around 780 ppb, now it is more like 1800 ppb with spikes over 3,000 ppb earlier this year.

Other greenhouse gases are water vapour, nitrous oxide and ozone.

mhaze

Did you register with AAAS to access the paper I had referred to which showed you were wrong. You accused me of creating quotations at the time. AAAS allows papers to be accessed which had been published after two years had elapsed, current science papers are hidden by a pay wall.

The Conversation has several articles about the measure of temperature from weather stations, and satellite suggested temperature. Deniers have preferred satellite inferred temperature; yet, to create temperature from satellites requires more computation than that required for weather stations.

The argument about temperature is somewhat semantic; nature shows how temperatures have been increasing; Greenland through the break down of glaciers and ice sheets being a prime example.

They talk about "fine day floods" in Miami, check out why. There are many references about sea level rise impacting on the SE coast of USA. King tides flood Miami regularly, water travels up storm water pipes and permeates up through the porous limestone strata even when there has been no flooding from high rainfall. Suburban Streets are flooded when this occurs.

ant,

Deniers of what?

For example I agree human activity is changing climate but I do not agree CO2 is the cause. I think a majority of people have a similar view. Are we 'deniers' in general?
And remembering oceans cover 72 percent of out planet, how do weather stations measure sea surface temperature globally?

Increase in algae in northern Atlantic Ocean waters and in waters off Greenland, coincides with increase in melting of ice in Greenland.
Temperature of seabreeze is linked to temperature of ocean surface waters.
Warmer wind would be causing increase in melting of Greenland ice.

Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean waters are inundated with algae. The worlds biggest dead zone is located there.

A basic home experiment can show water with algae retains warmth longer that water without algae.

Warm water rises higher than cooler water and that's why sea level rise in coastal waters at Miami is not the same as say Sydney, globally.

Ant, since you have somewhat long term insight to my view and evidence on OLO about warmth in algae, have you yet been able to find any evidence to the contrary?
I guess you will duck that question. A denier of reality comes to mind.

JFAus

You raise many interesting issues, issues that I didn't even know about, certainly haven't thought about.

I was unaware, for example, that there had been "an increase in algae in northern Atlantic Ocean waters and in waters off Greenland," and that this "coincides with the increase in melting of ice in Greenland."

Presumably there is data to support this... including salinity levels, N levels, and chlorophyll levels for waters off the coast of Greenland? I would be interested to see the charts, and the seasonal, as well as annual, trends?

I was interested in your Bhat and Matondkur reference suggesting an increase in toxic algal blooms off the Indian coast.
But this paper was largely descriptive. It didn't actually provide any real data to support the claim?

You make a good point stating that without an adequate supply of nutrients, an El Nino will not cause an algal bloom.

Thanks for sharing some of what you know on this topic.

Regarding the issue of ocean currents, and algal blooms, where is the best data on current direction, and changes in the direction and strength of the same... particularly for the equatorial Pacific?

I would be particularly interested in seeing this data.

Cheers, Jennifer

JF Aus

You have raised the matter of algae blooms constantly.
You place the cart before the horse.

An experiment with algae:

http://www.ecoliteracy.org/sites/default/files/uploads/CEL_Lesson_Algae_Boom_Bust.pdf

Quote:

"The term algae bloom refers to a rapid rise of the algae population in a body of water. Algae blooms are usually caused by moderate increases in water temperature and excess nutrients—primarily phosphorus and nitrogen from crop fertilizers, animal wastes, or sewage facilities. As such, they are unintended consequences of some of the methods we use for growing food or processing waste."

JF Aus you write:

"Warmer wind would be causing increase in melting of Greenland ice."

Where is the relationship with algae in your statement?

In relation to sea level rise, it has a counter intuitive impact; there are areas where sea level is lower and others where it is higher. Overall, sea level rise is around 3.41 mm per year, a huge volume of water.

You asked about how temperature of Oceans can be measured; there have been two studies fairly recently published. One used data from satellites, the other compared data from a British research vessel Challenger which measured temperature in the late nineteenth century and compared data with contemporary measures of Ocean temperature.

JK Aus, were the huge grass fires in Kentucky and Oklahoma; that are extremely early, caused by algae blooms? If so, where is your evidence? The fires occurred earlier this week and created a record fire front?
Temperature was said to be 25F degrees above average for the time of year.

You say... "A denier of reality comes to mind."
Yet, you have not presented a case, you provide an opinion, without any proof.

@ Jennifer, Thursday, 24 March 2016 10:36:11 PM

Jennifer Marohasy, thank you for reply. Unlike a lot of people you have the courage to investigate to learn.

There are 26 six years of satellite observations and temperature-driven melt models, indicating for example:
Atmospheric temperatures have been important in forcing runoff.
There has been a record trend of increasing runoff since the mid 1980’s and in situ marine temperatures followed equivalent trend.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/40/12/1095.abstract

I think dead algae can be a cause of dark snow and decrease in reflectivity, impacting albedo measurement and solar heated melt of polar ice.
I think winds blow sea surface nutrient matter and dried matter on coastlines, including dead algae matter, up onto Arctic ice. Wind blows up heavy sand that builds islands (e.g. Moreton Island).
http://darksnow.org/

Snow algae also requires more nutrient than from sunlight alone.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965210000101

f.y.i.
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/about-the-data/

Nutrient including in far north Atlantic waters is not just due to runoff.
It is the total nutrient loading from all sources, natural and human.
It is nutrient overload-pollution that should be focus of great concern especially because it is linked to increase in ocean dead zones.
http://robertscribbler.com/2015/07/06/freaky-algae-bloom-in-north-atlantic-looks-like-dead-zone-eddy/

Blooming algae mirrors the springtime thaw:
(Copied and pasted) Credit: European Space Agency.
Each spring, huge patches of phytoplankton bloom in the oceans, turning cold, blue waters into teeming green pools of microbial life. This ocean “greening,” which can be seen from space, mirrors the springtime thaw on land. But while spring arrives gradually on land, with a few blades here and some buds there, the oceans bloom seemingly overnight.
http://eaps-www-old.mit.edu/spotlight/oceanography

Marine ecosystems govern the way the marine environment works.
https://odnature.naturalsciences.be/remsem/ecosystem-modelling

Algae is increasing at unprecedented rates.
If it was sunlight alone proliferating algae then the entire sunlit Pacific Ocean would be inundated with algae, but it is not.
In general Pacific Ocean open offshore waters are a clear blue with very good visibility underwater.
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-diatom-algae-populations-story-climate.html

continued…………..

cont’d……….

Northern Atlantic and Arctic waters. Windfinder. Note dominant wind direction for the year is northwards.
http://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/norwegian_sea_south

Seaweed is a colloquial name for algae and phytoplankton. Sargassum seaweed/algae is increasing in mass and distribution from the north Atlantic to Barbados and across the massive Atlantic Ocean to Sierra Leone.

Northerly predominant seabreeze and stronger winds in the Atlantic north of the equator blow over solar-warmed surface-floating sargassum algae and must pick up available warmth and have a warming effect in the Arctic region.
Increase in sargassum coincides with increase in temperature at Greenland and Iceland.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3277720/Stinking-sargassum-seaweed-smells-rotten-eggs-terrorizes-beaches-Caribbean-Florida-Texas-shores-experiencing-piles-kelp-10-feet-high.html

Sargassum is an emerging issue. Massive quantities. Impacting resources.
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat_conservation/documents/pdfs/hcd_pdf/gcfisargassumfactsheet_2015.pdf

Sargassum is a macro algae, the green of Caribbean waters is chlorophyll in common micro algae.

I think sewage and land use nutrient overload is causing increase in sargassum and other algae and the increase is causing increase in intensity of weather and melt of Arctic ice.

Water warmed in algae inundated waters sits higher than colder water sea level. N.B the centre of the southerly streaming warm East Australian Current.

Pacific Ocean ecosystems where human sewage and land use nutrient overload has to be expected includes coastal waters of Mexico, Panama, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru where El Nino phenomena begins.
There is historically unprecedented algae and impact and damage causing ‘canary in the coal mine’ evidence of potential to lose world food supply security. Even aquaculture is being impacted.
http://undark.org/2016/03/08/chiles-salmon-industry-strangled-algae/

Wind drives surface ocean surface water including fresher water with bonded nutrient.
Dominant wind direction near the coast of Peru is northwards – toward the equator where El Nino phenomena occurs before moving westward.
http://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/mancora_talara?fspot=talara

If complete data relevant to any of the above is required before action is taken to prevent further damage to the environment and economies then science should collect that data. N.B The Precautionary Principle.
There is no data to prove formation of gravity. That does not mean gravity does not exist.

Solutions include multi-billion dollar water management infrastructure for the Murray Darling Basin - Coorong ecosystems.

John C Fairfax

@ ant, Friday, 25 March 2016 6:59:04 AM

I rarely talk about algae blooms.
However I talk often about algae. That's because over-abundance of common green algae and destructive epiphyte growth on seagrass is different to a bloom.
So I talk about algae in general.
I don't post on every thread and every subject as you do, ant. And good luck to you, I am not objecting.

What do you know about horses and carts?
Think more about hitching the horse before the cart.
I suggest leave selection of the horse and the cart until the load and incline and distance to be travelled is measured and assessed and known.
e.g. begin to comprehend by assessing my post in reply to JM.

The lesson at the link you posted is quite full of holes. Where is the evidence?
Where is evidence warming is caused by CO2 prior to any algae occurring?

And where is your evidence, ant, that algae has no relationship with warmth and melt of ice as you seem to believe?

I think being a CO2 believer can be a handicap in honest non-biased thinking about climate change.

Yes there are areas where sea level is lower and others where it is higher. Tides come to mind.
Why is such a huge volume of melted ice water not spreading out globally with equal sea level rise globally?

Science has been using vessel engine water intakes to measure ocean temperature. Genuine science is now aware engine intakes are positioned as low as possible in hulls to take up the coldest water available to cool engines.
I think satellites provide the best and most reliable ocean surface temperature data.

I cannot comment about cause of grass fires you refer to, ant.

Yes I state my opinion on this site called Online Opinion.

I do not claim to be providing proof but I do provide evidence of substance, such as to JM, and you ant have never been able to provide any evidence whatsoever to disprove it

Jennifer Marohasy,

I find it interesting to understand how much meteorology knows about algae and warmth in algae and influence of ocean and lake algae on weather.

The link below should help with some of the scientific evidence you seek.

Note, algae from the sea can become airborne, as I suggested a few days ago in my post re dark snow in Greenland.
And:
A good correlation has been found between algae and prevailing weather conditions, season and time of day.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01084602#page-

Jennifer,

f.y.i.
N.B. Nutrient pollution and algae - example of extent of it.

The perfect storm they say, but no city or town sewage dumping mentioned, just private septic tanks, farmers costly fertilizer, and stormwater with innocent pet owner's dog droppings. LOL

It's the total nutrient loading feeding algae and warming areas of ocean and seas and lakes. The total loading.
Government and the UN re oceans must shoulder responsibility.

http://www.examiner.com/article/florida-fish-kill-seen-for-miles-scores-of-fish-are-belly-up-polluted-waters

Jennifer Marohasy,

Nutrient pollution, a key to the jigsaw.
http://www.environment.no/topics/marine-and-coastal-waters/eutrophication/

I consider this report from the Norwegian Environment Agency to be very fair and honest.
Most other reports only point to farmers and stormwater for nutrient runoff.

The Greenhouse hypothesis does NOT correctly explain Earth's mean surface temperature with radiation calculations, nor that of Venus. Hence there is NO evidence that radiation reaching a planet's surface is the primary determinant of its temperature. Real world data (over 30 years) indicates more moist regions are cooler. Water vapor varies between 1% and 4% whilst CO2 is 0.04%. Hence, we can get a rough idea as to what might happen if CO2 levels were 100 times as great (4%) by looking at regions that have 4% water vapor. These are COOLER than similar but drier regions at about the same latitude and altitude. The study is published in the Appendix of my 2013 paper and my book, both linked at http://climate-change-theory.com - where is there any counter study?

Ant
I have stated that Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation in ALL directions not just down.
Why do you keep on arguing with something no-one here at all has said? Do you have a reading comprehension problem or do you mean something else by "reaction" than re-radiation?

Siliggy

Did you not see this comment:

In relation to the energy created by green house gases; Skeptical Science says:

"An earthquake measuring 6.0 on the Richter Scale shakes the earth with the destructive energy of 6.3x1013 Joules. Since 1998, our climate has absorbed more than 2 billion such earthquakes (4.0 every second) in accumulated energy from the sun, due to greenhouse gases, and continues to absorb more energy as heat each and every day."

In 2006 Time stated climate change was a serious matter:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/29/3764068/time-global-warming-worried/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3&utm_term=1&utm_content=23&elqTrackId=b0abab3b9f484baea46c8a6758b5eba8&elq=ceace1f7d51e49ab871d8bb5a45384fd&elqaid=29616&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=5320

At that time the instability of the West Antarctic ice sheets was not known.

James Hansen et al, have also published a recent paper in relation to the breakdown of Antarctic ice sheets.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/22/james_hansen_sea_level_rise_climate_warning_passes_peer_review.html

A further new new paper in relation to Antarctica:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature17145.html

The Arctic is also not in good shape.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/28/arctic-sea-ice-record-low-winter

The pause has not ended. It will continue until at least 2027 for reasons here: http://climate-change-theory.com

Doug, last year was the hottest on record, and so far this year is on track to be even hotter. The pause, if it was ever anything more than statistical noise, is certainly over now.

How much hotter do you think it's going to get after 2027?

Richard Muller was a skeptic until he studied what was happening with temperature in relation to climate change. He had been partially funded by the Koch Bros.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTk8Dhr15Kw

Here is Richard Muller looking for "The Suns Evil Twin Red Dwarf" "Nemesis" "Plant X" "Nibiru".
https://youtu.be/3YxFtLFybeA?t=1h11s

Jennifer Marohasy,

Discovery of the largest ever under-ice algae bloom in 2012 was likened to "finding the Amazon rainforest in the middle of the Mojave Desert."
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/10/world/phytoplankton-mega-bloom-eco-solutions/

The ICESCAPE mission leader previously thought under-ice blooms were impossible. The discovery was a complete surprise.

I think it obvious AGW, IPCC and Kyoto associated science has not measured and assessed such under-ice algae, or heat retaining capabilities of ocean algae plant matter.

N.B.
In the Executive Summary at the following link, "..... algal species and because of their heat retaining capabilities, ....."
http://www.fao.org/uploads/media/0901_Seed_Science_-_Microalgae_technologies_and_processes_for_biofuelsbioenergy_production_in_British_Columbia.pdf

In my opinion based on evidence of substance, increase in sewage and land use nutrient reaching ocean ecosystems is causing increase in algae and increase in algae and heat sometimes retained in algae is resulting in change to weather and climate.

Can anyone prove otherwise?

Some aspects of algae indicate why sea surface temperature sometimes increases, decreases or pauses.

The flea is promoting the tired old Richard Muller story. How many times has this clown “converted” to support of the climate fraud?
Judith Curry made an appropriate comment:
“ scientists are usually very respectful of disciplinary boundaries and don’t assume that they have the authority to challenge the expertise of scientists in other areas. However Muller freely assumes that authority despite his lack of any expertise in climatology or atmospheric physics.”.
https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/04/the-irresistable-story-of-richard-muller/

The flea supports the climate fraud purely on his dishonesty, but he tries to produce dishonesty from others to support his baseless assertion of a human effect on climate.
There is no science to show a measurable human effect on climate.

Leo

Still the same aggressive comments; the technique used when people have no real arguments.
Your quotation is very amusing on the basis you off handedly are critical of climate scientists. Yet, you have no real background in science.

A couple of articles you might enjoy, Leo.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/31/3765312/canadian-business-support-carbon-tax-increase/

British Columbia is doing well out of having a carbon tax.

Antarctic ice sheets in West Antarctica are receiving much study:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html?_r=1

And:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160401-climate-change-sea-level-antarctica-ice-melt-physics/

The paper discussing this matter was published in Nature very recently and has open access:

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145.epdf?referrer_access_token=px-zRubs4M6aBBPl42_1GdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M-pvJMg7VLINRa2mnTNsvXfjbAFNU4M9sSVFBNmnefzinIWT5DIW6fVmmjzqPkWPG0EWAexculA_Dh1H0gVAzIYAUjdsj8uznmBvFk8_blNOM5-opyiSaKMyaJis4af48A0kgec2kZ8QcJLEQ0CKHzo1BxzQZ7aHlC6ggm5qLKPX8C4yz0OZ4SKpsmFZlbgUA%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

Peter Sinclair discusses ExxonMobil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgwg0JjuO40

A number of jurisdictions apart from New York State are now investigating ExxonMobil for fraud.

Factual comments which demolish your nonsense are “aggressive”, are they, flea?
You have again failed to refer us to any science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
You have nothing to support your position except your dishonesty, and your tactic of listing a pile of irrelevant sites, on which you hope people will waste their time, simply underlines the fact that besides having no qualification, you are ignorant of how to conduct yourself in an acceptable manner on this forum.

Leo

Experimentation and observation are a part of science.

From a previous post in relation to this article:

"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating."

From:

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

A simple experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY

A more sophisticated experiment:

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/1906/how-co2-traps-sun39s-warmth

The eleven year ARM research program was conducted in the natural environment:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

Quote:

"Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires."

The only type of argument against the comments have been aggression and semantics, nothing of a science nature has been used to debunk what happens between IR and CO2.

ant,

You post some interesting links there, excellent evidence maybe.

Do you think that when algae takes up CO2 the warmth in that CO2 is also taken up in the algae, albeit remaining there for a few minutes or hours?

I mean warmth in algae apart from warmth absorbed directly from sunlight during photosynthesis.

The flea asserts that I should not comment on science because my qualification is in law, and not science
He inconsistently considers comments from an unqualified ignoramus like himself are acceptable.
He also refers us to the deceptively named Skeptical Science, run by an ex-cartoonist, John Cook, which posts nothing but rubbish.
To confirm the unscientific nonsense to which he supplies links, he gives an extract:” "An earthquake measuring 6.0 on the Richter Scale shakes the earth with the destructive energy of 6.3x1013 Joules. Since 1998, our climate has absorbed more than 2 billion such earthquakes (4.0 every second) in accumulated energy from the sun, due to greenhouse gases, and continues to absorb more energy as heat each and every day."
Only an unqualified ignoramus like the flea, could mistake that for science.
The flea’s support for the baseless assertion of human caused climate change, has no basis in science.
He has been requested dozens of times to refer us to any science which sows a human caused, measurable effect on climate. In his uncivil way, he ignores the question. What else can an unqualified, fraud supporting ignoramus do. His friend, Max Puce, became tired of being shown up as a liar, and fraud supporter, and went away.The flea never tires of it.

Leo Lane,

No need to worry about ant.
ant is grasping at straws.
At present he is likely very busy trying to find excuses to dodge answering reality of whether there is warmth in ocean algae or not.

Leo

Just more abuse and semantics again.

The reference to the number of metaphoric earthquakes refers to what happens between IR and CO2.

The reference below discusses the forcing between IR and CO2.

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html

The forcing is described in Watts per square meter, for CO2 the table near the end of the article shows 1.532W/square meter (2.33W/square meter when other greenhouse gases are included. There are billions of square meters involved.

Another way of explaining the forcing is:

https://vimeo.com/128141163

The vacuous response of the flea, when asked for a scientific justification for his support of the baseless assertion of a measurable human effect on climate:
“The reference to the number of metaphoric earthquakes refers to what happens between IR and CO2.”
His insolent incivility means that he will never give a relevant response, such as an acknowledgement that there is no science to support the assertion of a measurable human effect on climate.
Instead, he endlessly posts material which bears no relation to his assertion..

All this talk about Algae spikes is forgetting a few important things.
A few turds in the ocean will have little fertilisation effect compared to a widespread flood event. Humans turd about the same amount each day so there will not be any spikes but what comes from space is a different story.
"The invisible rain of comet dust, if it occurs, would be very slow. It can take months or even years for fine dust to settle out of the high atmosphere."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/19apr_isonids/
Then there are volcanoes both under and above the sea. Changes in the tides from planetary movements will cause different erosion and mixing of nutrients.

Siliggy,

It's the big particles from space you need to worry about. LOL
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/technology/108474-160404-ashes-to-algae-how-the-asteroid-that-wiped-out-life-could-have-helped-revive-it

As for the brown stuff, add nutrient from all the urine and kitchen grey water dumped daily from 7 billion people into the same locations in the water biological ecosystem of this planet. Every day.

It's just like too much fertilizer on a garden, damage occurs instead of prime growth.

That the algae blooms are NOT caused by sewage can also be seen from location and timing.
A quick look at world algae bloom maps would lead you to think sewage is related but look again and notice the effect of observer density on a tectonic earthquake map.
"The authors claim that you can detect a rise in sea surface temperature just before large coastal earthquakes. The blooms observed in this study are, they say, result from an increased flow of heat energy from the ocean to the atmosphere, enhancing the upwelling of cold, nutrient rich water and fuelling a boom in the growth of photosynthetic algae."
http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2007/05/algae-and-earthquake-precursors/
Earthquakes on this planet have mainly extra-terrestrial origins. This recent chart below explains a solar magnetic cause so well a child can see it.
http://spaceweathernews.com/spf
That link and this connection between the cosmic ray cloul albedo effect thanks to SO news.
"Effect of near-earth thunderstorms electric field on the intensity of ground
cosmic ray positrons/electrons in Tibet"
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1604/1604.00128.pdf
Planckton react to Ultraviolet light to produce DMS this inturn creates cloulds so a clear relatioship between the solar cycles UV changes and clouds can be seen without the cosmic ray cloud albedo effect. It is the sun either way!
NASA "When Sun's Too Strong, Plankton Make Clouds"
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html
Finaly the earths magnetic field guides cosmic dust to spiral down at the poles. This dust would provide nutrients for algae if it did not get stuck in ice. As soon as the annual ice melt comes though it happens. Thus the natural and normal algae under the Arctic.

JF AUS
See my above but also the proof you are wrong is within your own text.
"As for the brown stuff, add nutrient from all the urine and kitchen grey water dumped daily from 7 billion people into the same locations in the water biological ecosystem of this planet. Every day."
It is that every day part. Every day is not a spike is it?
A lot can be seen from frequency response. Planckton can double in population in just one day. Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction that removes heat by storing energy as glucose. If there were the possibility of sewage spike this rapid change in population would negate it quickly. We need to urgently get our atmospheric CO2 up to a safer 3 to 7000PPM because an extra terestrial fertilisation event could bring enough nutrients to alow this rate of growth (doubling every day) to use up all avalable CO2. Without this lovely life giving gas every thing on the surface would die. and due to the endothermic reaction it would bring on a sudden ice age as all the oceans heat turns to glucose and sinks to the bottom. One day1 normal CO2 draw down then,2 times then, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024. After just ten days the CO2 draw down rate would be over a thousand time normal.

JF Aus
You are certainly right that our poop would change the type of algae though. All the junk we eat and prescription drugs we take etc must alter the type of algae that would survive best.
In this animation of recent sea surface temperatures watch at 15.3767° S, 166.9592° E.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/anim_2mfull.html
This is Vanuatu. A 6.9 Earthquake hits April 3.
Is Peru, Ecuador or Chile next? Is that another El Nino on the way or a last gasp. What about that red line on the North American west coast?

Leo

As stated before you should do comedy routines.

The technique you use is to attack the individual and not the content.

"The source of this material is Windows to the Universe, at http://windows2universe.org/ from the National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA). The Website was developed in part with the support of UCAR and NCAR, where it resided from 2000 - 2010. © 2012 National Earth Science Teachers Association. Windows to the Universe® is a registered trademark of NESTA. All Rights Reserved. See our copyright and licenses page for information about how you can use our materials.Site policies and disclaimer." From a previous reference.

Twice references have been given to experimentation observing CO2 and IR.

Experimentation is part of science.

Also, the ARM 11 year study in the environment at two locations showed the reaction between IR and CO2. A reference provided on numerous occasions in relation to other articles you have responded too.

You display a text book case of psychological projection. The couple of examples display discussion of science.

Your problem is that climate science does not agree with your opinions. Opinion is different to objectifying data in a scientific way.

Your other problem is that very few peer reviewed papers are published by skeptical scientists in Science journals.

In the US a number of Attorney Generals are planning on investigating ExxonMobil in relation to providing mixed messages about climate change and funding denier groups.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/attorneys-exxon-probe_us_56fab959e4b0a372181b113d?section=australia

Siliggy,

I expect tectonic movement would resuspend considerable nutrient matter likely to feed common algae and trigger algae blooms, but the nutrient loading involved would add to the total loading that includes nutrient from sewage and land/sea use.

Some authors see one thing while others see another. There is need for scientific research resources to establish reality.

Algae grows in surface water, not in deep water.
It's warmth from surface water that rises into atmosphere somewhere every day.

The spike occurs sometimes, for example when tides and winds allow or cause a build up of nutrient and overload to occur. It's like cloud that has to become saturated with moisture before rain falls down. The moisture is not everywhere, neither is the nutrient overload.

I suggest you go back a few pages on this thread and look into links and photos I posted to Jennifer Marohasy. Can you then say increase in ocean and lake algae is not linked to human related nutrient waste sometimes amounting to pollution?

Do you mean the red line on the north American EAST coast?
If so, that is warmth amounting from algae in the south including sargassum algae including in the "Sargasso Sea".
The North Atlantic Drift (Gulf Stream) runs in the red line area.
That current is loaded with nutrient from Caribbean and even Amazon/Brazil nutrient overloaded waters.

A key to movement of nutrient is alongshore current, or longshore current. Rivers and sewage outfalls do not just run water and nutrient out to sea.
On the Australian east coast the alongshore current transports dissolved nutrient northwards to Cape York via the GBR lagoon.

Siliggy, I have a long term underwater ocean exploration and filmmaking background, the latter requiring good visibility not clouded by algae. Increase in algae spoils visibility and annoys me so obviously I am aware of change I have seen. That includes being in the Caribbean and North Atlantic in 1970.

Since 1982 I have researched and studied what I have seen.
In other words I am not talking off the top of my head or solely from reading literature.

That's all just hand waving nonsense regarding water vapor supposedly warming. See the study of real world data in the Appendix of my 2013 paper (and my book) linked at http://climate-change-theory.com and the correct physics which explains why it cools.

Nitrogen, oxygen and argon hold over 98% of the thermal energy in the atmosphere and yet cannot radiate it away themselves. They need to transfer it by thermal diffusion to IR-active (GH) gases that then can radiate the energy out of the atmosphere. These GH molecules also absorb a significant amount of incident solar radiation (20% in total as shown in energy diagrams) whilst the absorption by the atmosphere of upward radiation is only 15% of the original solar radiation. It's all there in those energy budget diagrams which do not explain the surface temperature by a long shot. It can't be explained with ANY radiation. What happens is at http://climate-change-theory.com and in my linked papers and book.

This is how an unqualified ignoramus responds to a request to supply science to support the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. These are the words posted by the flea, our unqualified ignoramus:” Twice references have been given to experimentation observing CO2 and IR.”.
He does not even know what the topic is, but it does not stop him from posting irrelevant nonsense

@ Doug Cotton, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 4:20:12 PM

I continue to be a student.

Doug, how can it be nonsense about "water vapour supposedly Warming"? Heated water gives off water vapour as steam and then super steam. Yes, no?

What is known about warmth in ocean algae plant matter? Anything?

Would living ocean algae take up warmth in oxygen during photosynthesis or during periods of dense cloud or at night?

To your knowledge, has photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant matter been measured and assessed in AGW, IPCC and Kyoto associated science?

JF Aus
Yes Oooops. I did mean east. Thankyou for your detailed reply. Your practical experience, eyewitness accounts and long term interest are all to be taken far more seriously than my casual reading of literature. Will go back and have another look at those links you posted.
Some things you may be curious about.
1972 (El Nino) "BOSTON, Monday
(AAP-Reuter). - Health
official* In Massachusetts
Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island have or
dered a halt to clam
digging all along the New
England coast as a poison
ous sea algae known as
the "red tide" appeared to
be spreading. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/102004888

1953 ( Not specific to that year) "Algae Were Long
A Puzzle
In the Southern Hemi-
sphere, perhaps the greatest
menace to an ordered marine
life for millions of small fish
is the "Red Tide," a pheno-
menon that occurs, fortu-
nately, more frequently in
South African waters than off
the Australian coast, though
it is not unknown here."
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/18514409

1914 with mention of 1891.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/114334055

1831/2 Charles Darwin Voyage of the Beagle with mention of it being seen by Captain Cook.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/67225326

"The spike occurs sometimes, for example when tides and winds allow" Tides are caused by the cycles of the Moon, Sun and planets. Some wind also.

Siliggy,

Thank you for understanding value of long term observation.
However the literature. is just or if not more important.
So put the pieces of each together and there can be significant outcome.

"Red tide/s" sure has a history. Red tide phenomena of the day is mentioned in Biblical literature as occurring in the vicinity of the Nile River estuary.
Reasons for a spike can vary.
For example early civilizations also polluted rivers and lakes for long periods during drought. Heavy rain then causes flood washing an overload of nutrient off land and river banks and downriver into the sea. The fresh water and bonded nutrient clings together within reason, similar to how moisture clings together in some clouds in some areas of the sky.

Streaks of nutrient bonded fresher water on the ocean surface sometimes come in contact with a single spore and the streak turns into a red streak bloom looking like what is called "red tide". Not long ago people thought red tide was coral spore.

Wind drives ocean surface currents including onshore waves that drive alongshore current in streaks and blobs transporting nutrient.

Tides linked to gravity and the moon sometimes draw blobs and streaks of nutrient loaded ocean water into estuaries and even somewhat upriver where wind and water temperature convection can move nutrient further upriver.
Deposits of nutrient occur including from wild animals and range-fed animals.
A flood can resuspend sediment and dung deposits and move nutrient en mass back into the sea, sometimes leading to a spike in proliferation of phytoplankton/algae and impact on weather.

It appears almost entire coastline can become impregnated with nutrient before a once in 7 or whatever year big cyclone causes surge on a high tide.
Wind causes the surge. Yes, spin of our planet is linked to wind.
The high rough water can expose and re-suspend nutrient loaded sediment causing what science may describe as a spike, in algae growth for example.
There is more to it.

What do you think after looking back at my previous input on this thread?

This is Marohasy creating more denialist click bate. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

Leo

Many scientists have spent time working on the relationship between IR and CO2, go back to your quote from Judith Curry; and then, contemplate your comments about science.

You do not have many current skeptical science papers that have been peer reviewed that you can use to highlight your points; as a result you use abuse.

The ARM research definitively showed the relationship between IR and CO2.

I understand that having argued an opinion for many years that it is difficult to cope when current science is undermining your opinion, take satellite inferred temperature measure as an example.

Rising temperature has been an issue in the Arctic for a number of years, it poses difficulties for isolated communities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/16/in-this-tiny-arctic-town-dramatic-warmth-threatens-everything/

There is certainly a lot to see here. Scroll down.

See the NASA image dated Dec 11, 2015, and especially the first paragraph underneath.
N.B. phytoplankton could influence clouds and climate.

http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/phytoplankton-bloom-in-the-north-atlantic

These NASA feature images and text were received by me today.
This is evidence of new discovery involving phytoplankton/algae and clouds and climate.
The new discovery aspect is why test book reference is not yet available. (N.B ant).

Warmth in ocean algae plant matter and wind picking up ocean algae-linked surface warmth, melting even glaciers, will soon be realized in climate science.

JF Aus
"What do you think after looking back at my previous input on this thread?"
There are two types of Planckton Zoo and Phyto.
The specific type you mentioned "coccolithophore" is phyto and is Storing energy NOT PRODUCING HEAT.
While the relationship between planckton and clouds may be new to you, I have been onto it for a very long time see here from 2011.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/is-another-big-la-nina-on-the-way/#comment-499955
The two most significant recent ocean fertilisation events would have been the two big Tsunamis from the Indonesian and Japanese Quakes.
Did these cause blooms? If so they caused cooling!
http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/photosynthesis.html
The cooling does occur on the surface of the water. This helps to draw down CO2. The glucose and the CO2 from it enters the food chain and eventualy sinks to the then through the bottom to return as oil and gas (the perfect renewable energy).

Siliggy,

I focus on phytoplankton, algae, not zooplankton.
I speak from my point of view, not from the p.o.v of a science graduate.
I have stated that algae in water produces warmth or heat, because algae is there.
If algae was not present then solar heat absorbed by algae during photosynthesis would not be present and sea level for example would remain normal.
Sea level is higher in the world’s biggest algae inundated dead zone, but sea level is not so high in adjacent water that can be seen to have less algae and no dead zone

Yes I speak of coccolithaphore but it is common green algae almost everywhere that is of key interest to me, together with the total nutrient load from all sources.
Common green algae would also exist where the coccolithaphore is, but just the latter is visible from satellite.
There are apparently over 4,000 species of algae.
Toxic algae is often reported by news media, I read or hear nothing about common green algae.

A relationship between algae and cloud formation is not so new to me because it was warmth in algae that led me to find NASA images with evidence of clouds forming above algae.

I think science should be well aware of the fact but there is evidence otherwise.
The link I posted earlier on this thread is about the north Atlantic Phytoplankton Bloom is dated Dec. 11, 2015, with text Last Updated: March 22, 2016.
That updated text states phytoplankton "could influence clouds and climate".
Why does world science not yet know whether phytoplankton influences clouds and climate?
In any case, why the need for complete scientific evidence of that fact, especially when science of AGW and emissions is not complete?

Science does not have evidence of how gravity is formed yet gravity is fact.
Science cannot form cloud and storms in a test tube, yet cloud and storms are fact. Numerous NASA images show pinpoints of cloud forming above algae.

Continued…………

Cont’d………..

Why is science sometimes so fussy?
El Nino is often referred to, without scientific evidence of what causes it.
Why the fuss now about algae and cloud?

Obviously, photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant matter should have been be measured and assessed in AGW IPCC Kyoto associated science because ocean algae plant matter is linked to producing over 50 percent of world oxygen.

Re significant ocean fertilization events.

The oceans are over fertilized every day almost everywhere humans have settled on the water ecosystem of this planet.

For the past 10 years I have been based just a few miles from the active undersea Kavachi Volcano. However the nutrient loading I focus on is coming seasonally from Asian waters in the northwest, down into the Coral Sea and Solomon Sea. I think the nutrient load that arrives is significant and is adding seasonally to local rainforest and sewage and land use nutrient in waters of Solomon Islands.
During the NW wind season Kavachi is downstream from where I am based. But yes, nutrient from volcanic activity can form part of the total loading.

Siliggy, I think you are on the right track, noted in your posts at the link you provided.
For example it appears you think nutrient spikes are linked to build up of weather and change to climate followed by exhaustion of nutrient. I think the same, though I am very much aware of the mechanics of nutrient build up.
You are aware of chemistry involved in formation of cloud, whereas I am not.

I reiterate, my focus is on unprecedented unnatural nutrient proliferating historically unprecedented algae blooms and growth that is killing coral and seagrass nurseries that are supposed to supply ocean fish and animals and seafood dependent people with adequate essential protein food.

My learning a little about algae linked to cloud and weather and climate has been somewhat accidental.

I add two related links. Lots of homework for anyone interested:
Phytoplankton Bloom in the North Atlantic
Re: Updated Text of 22 March, 2016., "could influence clouds and climate".
http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/phytoplankton-bloom-in-the-north-atlantic
and
Monday, 29 June 2009 8:55 PM
Algae Killing and Heating Ocean
http://www.solomontimes.com/letter/1969

J F AUS
Imagine you are at a camp fire. The fire is warming you by giving off heat. This is an exothermic reaction.
Stored energy is released to produce heat. That energy came to be in the wood because of the opposite type of reaction, endothermic.
Photosynthesis absorbed sunlight and converted it to stored energy. The sunlight would have otherwise become heat. This did not make the tree hot when it happened.

Likewise photosynthesis does not make algae warm.
Now imagine you are at an endothermic reaction instead of a campfire. It will absorb your warmth.
Photosynthesis absorbs radiated energy from the sun thus PREVENTING that energy from becoming heat. Just like a refrigerator absorbs the warmth to make it cool. This energy is not lost to space it is just stored to make heat later like in your campfire.
All that being said heat may happen there for some other reason but I just cannot see it. Another reason could be mechanical absorbtion of ocean wave or tidal energy.

Here is a good little 2.4 min video of an endothermic reaction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQkJI-Nq3Os

The schoolchild Max Green said he was tired of being shown to be a liar and a fraud supporter, and decamped.He purported to leave the field to the unqualified, incompetent ignoramus, the flea, who has posted nothing relevant since.
Max could not resist a baseless, puerile criticism of Jennifer Marohasy. He has no science, so his post consisted of schoolyard insults. This is what the dunce had to say:” Marohasy creating more denialist click bate”.
He uses the scurrilous term “denial” after proving to us that he has no science to deny. He relied on the fraudulent assertion of the pseudo-science of the IPCC, which asserted that science would show a "hotspot" which would be the "signature" for human caused warming.
A good summary of the situation is:”The ultimate test for the IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis is the existence of the predicted "hotspot" that is a sign of a positive feedback loop for accelerating global warming - newest data show that even after record setting human CO2 emissions the "hotspot" failed to materialize
http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/02/ipccs-global-warming-hypothesis-fails-ultimate-test-no-tropical-hotspot-after-17-years-of-immense-co.html

Where is the science to show any measurable human effect on climate, Max?
You have none, but call a competent scientist puerile names, for stating the proven science.
Max, of course, is the school dunce.

Leo

I'm really pleased that you know more than, James Hansen.

Professor Hansen has proven to be right in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8&feature=youtu.be

Dr Hansen has just had the paper he speaks about in his video talk published and peer reviewed. Reference to the Hansen et al paper:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf

Permafrost breakdown clearly is related to temperature:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/17/207552/nsidc-thawing-permafrost-will-turn-from-carbon-sink-to-source-in-mid-2020s-releasing-100-billion-tons-of-carbon-by-2100/

Whats up in the clouds also has an impact:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/07/clouds-climate-change-analysis-liquid-ice-global-warming

The Pacific Ocean off the West Coast is not in good shape: there is discussion of acidification and hypoxia already beginning:

http://westcoastoah.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/OAH-Panel-Key-Findings-Recommendations-and-Actions-4.4.16-FINAL.pdf

The references relate to science, not semantics as mostly displayed by Leo.

• Why would I know more than Hansen, flea? He knows better than I do, and in more detail, what a charlatan he is.
• He has been an arrant promoter of climate fraud, and used his time at NASA to tamper with the temperature records.: A convenient summary is
“Dr. Hansen made to the historical US temperature record after the year 1999. He cooled the 1930s, and warmed the 1980s and 1990s. The year 1998 went from being more than half a degree cooler than 1934, to warmer than 1934.

Hansen’s recent temperature data tampering is not limited to the US. He has done the same thing all over the planet. Below is one recent example in Iceland, where he dramatically cooled the first half of the century, and warmed the present. He appears to be trying to erase evidence that there was a very warm period in much of the Arctic around 1940.”
• https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/
• Just the sort of reference that a dishonest fraud supporter, like the flea, needs.

Siliggy,

Consider I am alongside the pond where I am based.
It's a hot sunny day and I place the back of my hand on a wet soggy blob of algae floating on the pond surface in full sunlight.
I distinctly feel warmth coming off the blob onto my hand.
Then I lift the back of my hand off the blob and again use the back of the same hand to lightly touch the surface of the pond water alongside the blob, and I feel the water is obviously colder than the blob of algae.
How does science describe this particular type of temperature change?

Of course photosynthesis does not cause algae to warm, however fact that photosynthesis occurs in ocean algae is proof solar radiated warmth is reaching and entering that ocean algae plant matter.

It is fact solar radiated warmth can warm ocean surface water, and I think it is obvious there is evidence a slight degree of that warmth can be taken up particle to particle in ocean and waterway algae plant matter.
Yes, no or what do you call that warmth taken up?

Is anyone suggesting that on a hot sunny day the Amazon rainforest leaf matter does not take up warmth from the atmosphere/wind, and/or does not take up direct radiated heat from the sun?

If a sheet of compressed (dead) vegetable fibre wallboard is in sunlight all day the board warms and at sundown it takes minutes or a few hours for the board to cool down.

Is anyone suggesting leaf matter remains at the night time temperature and does not warm when exposed to sunlight such as during photosynthesis?

If density of such plant matter is natural then weather and climate would be natural.

If such plant matter did not exist there would be no carry-over of warmth after sundown.

If density of ocean and waterway algae plant matter is significantly increased due to proliferation by nutrient over-load linked to human sewage and land use, I think that overload could change weather and climate sometimes in some regions.

Where did CO2 emissions come from 10 million years ago. LOL

It's the algae.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3530009/Not-arctic-Algae-fossils-reveal-North-Pole-ice-free-summer-months-ten-million-years-ago.html

JF Aus

Your reference discusses how algae is a marker, not a cause.

There have been 5 major extinction events millions of years ago, did algae cause those?
During one of those events an asteroid hit earth plus something common to the other 4 extinction events.

What did the extinction events have in common?

Nutrients and temperature are ingredients for algal blooms.

http://www.cees.iupui.edu/research/algal-toxicology/bloomfactors

J F Aus
You say "Is anyone suggesting that on a hot sunny day the Amazon rainforest leaf matter does not take up warmth from the atmosphere/wind, and/or does not take up direct radiated heat from the sun?"
From the sun we get electro magnetic radiation not heat. It becomes heat if it is not reflected or absorbed as another form of energy.
So instead of "radiated heat" EMR comes from the sun. Lets call it light. Light comes from the sun. It is not heat while it is light. After reflection( a lot of green is reflected), the leaf will absorb light that is not reflected two different ways.
1) Absorbing it as energy or 2) Absorbing it as heat. The quantity absorbed as energy is NOT heat. So it does not warm the plant.
The quantity of light that becomes heat is the remainder from the total absorbed once the amount converted to energy is subtracted from the total.

J F Aus you say "I distinctly feel warmth coming off the blob onto my hand."
What is the temperature half a meter below this blob in it's shade?
It will be cooler with the blob there than it would be if there was no shade from the blob.
If there was no blob the light would penetrate deeper into the water. Water has a high thermal mass. Algae does not.
A lot of heat energy is required to change the temperature of water but the algae can warm quickly.
It will not warm the water around it much though. It does not hold much warmth and some of the light it absorbed did not become warmth but energy instead.
So the shading will have a large cooling effect later for night time surface temperature.


Convection and conduction will allow the now cooler water below to share heat/cool with the warmer surface water around the blob.
"...alongside the blob, and I feel the water is obviously colder than the blob of algae."
Would the the surface water beside the blob be warmer if the blob was not there?
If the blob is dried and burnt it will release energy as heat. Where would this energy be if there was no blob?
The answer is in the water.

You say "Yes, no or what do you call that warmth taken up?"
Just as a planet covered in icy water at zero degrees C has more heat than a burning match I call it fleeting.
Heat is a volume measure. Temperature makes a thermometer go up. Heat can be absorbed quickly if it has little mass. Algae has little mass.
If that full sun you are in is blocked by a cloud the algae looses it's feeble warmth to the water without warming the water much at all but the cooling effects it had remain as more significant.

Does water vapor really warm Earth's surface? All we ever see are hand-waving statements about cloudy nights and the like. In contrast, I carried out a study using 30 years of temperature data from 15 inland tropical regions, and the results clearly showed that more moist regions have both lower daily maximums and (slightly) lower daily minimums. The study is in the Appendix of my 2013 paper linked at http:/climate-change-theory.com and the correct physics which explains why water vapor cools is contained in that paper, which has been subjected to open review, but never correctly refuted in over three years now.

Water vapor cannot both raise the surface temperature whilst at the same time lower the magnitude of the temperature gradient in the troposphere. If it were to do so, then radiative balance with the insolation would be thrown way out, and there is no evidence of anywhere near such differences as would result if the IPCC conjecture were correct.

J F Aus
You say "If density of ocean and waterway algae plant matter is significantly increased due to proliferation by nutrient over-load linked to human sewage and land use, I think that overload could change weather and climate sometimes in some regions."

I agree!

Change is often for the better though. Cooling that phytoplankton would cause is bound to be bad as the planet cools and Henrys law as well as the plankton, suck up all the lovely life giving Co2.

You say "Where did CO2 emissions come from 10 million years ago. LOL

It's the algae."
Phytoplankton consumes CO2, water and sunlight energy.
https://msu.edu/user/morleyti/sun/Biology/photochem.html

J F Aus
Reality may be very different from my theories and I am not a relevantly trained person. Have just been interested in this for a while. There are so many possible complications and variations.
The plankton would vary the depth that light make it down into the water. They need the correct mix of nutrients. If some are present and the sewage provides others then the algae may clean and clear the water rather than obstruct it to light. They have a short life span (days). After this the things that eat them could cause warmth or sink to the bottom /swim away.
I wonder if dams and errosion control have lessened the fluctuations of Plankton as the daily human crap replaces kaotic fluctuation with stable supply. Humans causing climate stability.

@ Siliggy, Thursday, 14 April 2016 10:17:09 PM

Siliggy,

Thank you so much for your consideration and input about all of this. My apology for delay in reply, due to being on the road.

Generally, I consider we are looking for the cause of temperature increase of just a few degrees. And I think your explanation and this discussion indicates why only a few degrees are involved.

What some scientists call heat is different to heat on skin on skin that people feel from the sun. So how can it be generally said, “From the sun we get electro magnetic radiation not heat.”?
Anyway I appreciate science being so thorough.

In my opinion rainforest leaf cannot remain at the cooler temperature of night, after the sun rises and warms surrounding atmosphere.
However I take your point, vegetable leaf does not become burning hot from radiated heat like a sheet of tin does, or like human skin.
But I think plant leaf does warm to a very slight degree due to atmospheric warmth, and that slight warmth can sometimes take a few minutes or hours to cool down after sundown.

Importantly, it is possible to feel warmth on a blob of water-saturated-algae but not possible to feel warmth in the leaf of a tree or in dried algae on the ground.

Like waterlogged algae, the human body is almost totally waterlogged and human flesh does take up solar heat that can be felt by the back of a human hand.

Totally waterlogged algae plant matter is surely different to plant matter above water, because saturated algae plant matter definitely warms. Could that difference be a missing link in IPCC and Kyoto associated science?

I think algae closer to the surface would be warmest. Shaded water beneath algae could be warm but not cold, a warm current could be flowing beneath surface algae. Tropical waters are warmed by the sun and I think by presence of algae. Warm water in the streaming East Australian Current can reach waters off eastern Tasmania.

Continued………..

Cont’d………………

From my point of view it can take 3 to 4 hours for waterlogged vegetable matter to cool down after sunset, albeit living or dead vegetable matter.

If some solar “heat” passes through algae into water then surely the water is slightly warmed with some of that warmth passing particle to particle into the algae, akin to warm wind warming leaf of a tree. Yes or no?

How can it be said, “Water has a high thermal mass. Algae does not.”?

I think algae may have a higher thermal mass than water because aquatic algae is mostly saturated with water, plus, common green algae is comprised of a small amount of leaf solid matter.
Coccolithaphore algae is comprised of leaf solid and coralline solid matter.

Algae may well have little mass but that is likely enough to change sea surface temperature a little.

Feeble warmth, yes, but enough for temperature change somewhere sometimes to some slight degree.

I think a mass of algae covering a big area of sea surface could retain significant warmth, significant in regard to a little change in climate science SST.

Remember, climate science-measured warming of the sea surface involves only fractions of a few degrees.

Siliggy, It’s good to see you have courage to reply and agree as you did @ Thursday, 14 April 2016 10:56:20 PM

Yes, blooms of algae can be beneficial because they can reduce the nutrient loading, thus preventing more massive nutrient overload build-up and consequent impact elsewhere.

No worry about your training. You appear to have background in science. Enough to show flaw in warmth in ocean algae if that was possible.

I have not been able to find anybody trained in algae and climate change. In fact some CO2 emissions advocates are now training themselves. Note date at:
https://www.google.com.au/#q=australian+scientist+studying+the+link+between+ocean+algae+and+warmer+oceans+which+comes+first

Yes there are many variations and questions to be answered.

I think climate stability can only be achieved by teamwork, not academic separateness.

There are numerous very significant business and employment generating solutions to the nutrient pollution - algae problem.

@ ant, Thursday, 14 April 2016 9:37:59 PM

ant,

From my point of view that reference forms evidence algae is linked to climate change.
You may see a marker.

I think the major extinction events were associated with asteroid impact on this planet, causing massive suspension of nutrient in turn causing proliferation of algae that impacted biodiversity and water ecosystems worldwide.

I think excessive algae growth likely at the time would have similar impact to impact nutrient pollution fed algae is having right now, albeit now on a greatly lesser scale.

Which comes first, temperature or nutrient? LOL

Fact is algae cannot exist without nutrient.

Hansen is the flea’s new source of climate science.
Here is an informative comment on Hansen, and the paper that he published before it was peer reviewed:

“The new study by Hansen and 16 colleagues believes even averting the 2.0 degree temperature increase would still not be a safe “guardrail” that the media, and some politicians, would have the world believe. Hansen also thinks the IPCC is not estimating how quickly the ice sheets can melt, which would cause catastrophic sea level rise and would “render coastal cities such as New York, London and Shanghai uninhabitable.” Except current observations show that Antarctica, Greenland, and the Arctic are not melting at the alarming rates as predicted in his new study or the IPCC’s reports.
Is there no way to shut these criminals up, or at least get the press to stop parroting their lies?
”http://realclimatescience.com/2015/07/fraudster-james-hansen-recycling-his-30-year-old-lies/

J F Aus
You ask "How can it be said, “Water has a high thermal mass. Algae does not.”?"
Perhaps I should have used SPECIFIC HEAT instead of "thermal mass". It is not about weight! Thermal inertia and thermal momentum are also confusing.
So ... Water has a high specific heat. Algae does not.

1 Watt from the sun if absorbed for 1 second is 1 Joule of energy.
Using these tables you can see that 4.182 Watts for 1 second will cause 1 gram of water to get 1 degree warmer. Notice that the same gram of ice only needs 2.1 Watts for 1 second to get that much warmer. Wood only needs 1.7 Watts.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html

So hot wood has not absorbed as much energy as water the EXACT same temperature. The wood inturn can only warm water by this lesser amount of energy if it were to loose it's heat to the water.

What is the specific heat of water soaked algae?
Um er duno. This may help. Thermal properies of food.
http://pcfarina.eng.unipr.it/Public/Termofluidodinamica/Utility/Tabelle%20Alimenti.pdf

Regarding Earthquakes I said above (Tuesday, 5 April 2016 10:02:09 AM)
"This is Vanuatu. A 6.9 Earthquake hits April 3.
Is Peru, Ecuador or Chile next?"
Ecuador has just been hit by a series of nine large quakes including a 7.8!!

Chile has had 5 quakes over 4.5 during the last week (one nearby in Argentina and another in Bolivia). Columbia had a 4.9 on the 11th and a 4.5 on the 7th and Peru had a 4.6 on the 7th.

Leo

You really are a comedian.

http://lists.cryolist.org/pipermail/cryolist-cryolist.org/attachments/20160412/df4b427c/attachment-0001.pdf

http://www.ecoshock.info/2016/03/extreme-arctic-fear.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/arctic-warming-rapidly-increasing-temperatures-are-possibly-catastrophic-for-planet-climate-a6896671.html

http://westcoastoah.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/OAH-Panel-Key-Findings-Recommendations-and-Actions-4.4.16-FINAL.pdf

On David Attenborough's Great Barrier Reef film shown tonight he raised the issue of green turtles breeding on Raine Island. Scientists were finding that the birth rate was decreasing as sea water was impacting on some of the laid eggs. The sand level was built up and results were showing the birth rate increased. Sea level rise had been the issue.

You are not even funny, flea, just a time wasting dunce. The report to which you referred us is by Ruth Mottram:”On Twitter, Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist whose work focuses on Greenland and the Arctic, was skeptical of such enormous rates of near-term sea level rise”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html
Let me remind you of what you are attempting to answer:” Except current observations show that Antarctica, Greenland, and the Arctic are not melting at the alarming rates as predicted”.
No wonder you say, flea, that you should not comment on science unless you are qualified in science. It certainly applies to you, but besides being unqualified, you are a dunce, so it does not necessarily apply to others, who are not proven dunces like yourself..

@ ant, Sunday, 17 April 2016 10:03:14 PM

Green turtles are starving so no wonder their birth rate is decreasing.
Google: green turtles starving, or see:
http://www.wwf.org.au/news_resources/?2863/Turtle-crisis-looms-for-Great-Barrier-Reef

Turtles weakened by malnutrition or starvation would be less likely to climb higher onto a beach to lay and/or may not even dig their nest deep enough.

Also, sea water would always be impacting on laid turtle eggs especially following storm or cyclone linked beach erosion immediately or even months later depending on change to the water current regime.

Algae is linked to sea level rise.
The world's biggest algae inundated ocean dead zone (off Texas) has the highest recorded sea level rise and sea surface temperature in USA waters.

David Attenborough's Great Barrier Reef film was filled with beautiful images of the GBR and did not focus on the damage and dead coral inundated with algae.

Did the Attenborough film report anything about invasive algae as told here? NO. Why not? What motive exists to cover up reality?
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/6/11371960/coral-reefs-fish-recovery

There really is need for a Royal Commission into the cover up of the true state of the marine environment in Australian waters that are supposed to sustain biodiversity of the south western Pacific Ocean and world ocean on which many people depend for food and livelihood.

Green turtles depend on seagrass.

The 5,000 dead babies and 1,500 dead mothers involved in the malnutrition-linked maternal mortality among PNG SEAFOOD DEPENDENT people in one year provide further testimony to the real state of the marine environment in SW Pacific waters.

Blaming fishermen and farmers is wrong when evidence of substance indicates the cause of fish AND TURTLE depletion is all the sewage and land use nutrient overload/pollution proliferating algae that is killing seagrass and coral food-web nurseries worldwide.

Humans have a right to know the truth about their food sustainability including affordability of food. Look at the price of common fish and chips these days.

Why are the supposedly gallant media reporters and the government funded ABC not investigating and reporting the true likely state of the marine environment.

It's not the CO2, stupid!

@ Siliggy, Sunday, 17 April 2016 11:26:37 AM

Siliggy,

With reference to your post above.

1. Would a single cell of algae have any specific heat property or characteristic whatsoever?

2. Would a whole massive ocean bloom of algae have any specific heat property or characteristic?

3. On a hot sunny day after sundown, could a significant bloom of ocean algae plant matter warm adjacent water at all or not at all?

I am asking for clear straightforward answers, in your opinion based on your knowledge.

JF Aus

I wrote nothing about green turtles starving, my comments were about turtle eggs being damaged by salt water and becoming unviable. To make it even clearer the number of hatchlings dropped significantly. You either missed the point; or, tried to divert the issue of non-viable green turtle eggs being damaged by salt water.

The David Attenborough series finishes next week, he will then be discussing what is causing damage to the reef.

Leo

Quite amusing in relation to your last reference in relation to James Hansen; the author, Eric Holthause writes a lot about climate change.

Here is an example:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805

The first sentences say:

"Historians may look to 2015 as the year when ... really started hitting the fan. Some snapshots: In just the past few months, record-setting heat waves in Pakistan and India each killed more than 1,000 people. In Washington state's Olympic National Park, the rainforest caught fire for the first time in living memory."

In the reference I provided Ruth Mottram discusses Greenland where ice sheets have begun to melt very early.

First sentence from reference provided:

"An early melt event over the Greenland ice sheet occurred this week, smashing by a month the previous records of more than 10% of the ice sheet melting."

The climate is changing, whether mostly created by man; or, through natural causes. JF Aus pushes the growth of algae; but what is the plan to mitigate against it, Leo? Highways, sewage plants, storm waters; position of Hospitals, housing, farm land, and commercial centres become targets?
A photo of Miami is shown in the reference you provided, they already have fine day floods periodically in Miami when there are king tides.

In the future, I wonder who the criminals will be perceived to have been?

J F Aus
Those questions are a just what the doctor ordered for you.
The single cell will use a percentage of the solar energy it is exposed to in photosynthesis. This energy is not then available to become heat. Inefficiency in the process allows some solar energy to be converted to heat in that cell. This less the amount used by the above photosynthesis. As the sun goes down this heat may indeed warm the water around it but the total warmth in the water will be less than if the cell was not there that day. The cell has prevented some solar energy from becoming heat in the water while it warms the water a lesser amount.
2) As above multiplied by the number of cells. So a larger amount of cooling.
3) The plankton may act as a blanket/insulator between water and wind.

An example that may interest you has perhaps just recently happened in the Antarctic. Our planet grows by 55 tonnes of cosmic dust raining in each day.
http://www.popsci.com.au/space/55-tonnes-of-cosmic-dust-fall-to-earth-every-day,401674

Our ever fluctuating magnetic and electric fields guide this in more at the poles. The Antarctic sea ice catches it and holds it. The dust can fertilise plankton. As the sea ice melts the dust drops in to do the job. Due to the Antarctic sea ice extent anomaly having grown large during the years the warmists said it was shrinking there was a lot of dust caught up in it. As the warmists began to claim that they predicted it would grow, it began to rapidly melt. This then released a lot of nutrient into the water. Since then the Antarctic has bee very very cold.
https://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/mar-16b-sp.jpg
compared to(see 2011 to the end of 2015).
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

ant,

I did not miss your point, your point.
But it seems you missed mine because you are fixated on emissions causing warming and sea level rise.
You seem to have failed to comprehend my opinion that was in reply to your egg damage story.

Look, it is known green turtles in the GBR region are starving and most informed people know starving animals undergo behavioural changes.

Lets say a green turtle 2 weeks away from laying eggs is suddenly unable to find food and becomes weakened and lays her eggs nearer the water, not high on the beach as a strong turtle would.

Or, let's say a high tide coupled with storm surge reaches higher areas of the beach where eggs have been laid, inundating the eggs with sea water.

Let me inform you, ant, coral is dead almost everywhere and dead coral is not continuing to produce the rubble and coral sand that forms and maintains coral sand beaches.
Shortage of coral sand and subsequent beach erosion is occurring due to nutrient overload and algae that has killed the coral.

Grasp this aspect.
Healthy live coral used to form a virtual breakwater. Live coral used to slow down wave surge, but now dead coral is usually covered with slimy algae that allows wave surge to slip and slide easily up onto beaches and into islands.
Six month a year I live on such an island.

You see, ant, sea level rise is not coinciding worldwide at about the same time, as a prudent person would expect if polar ice melt was adding to the whole world ocean.

There is sea level rise in numerous areas where a high nutrient load and algae and warm water exist together.
There are also warm nutrient poor clear current waters warmed elsewhere where algae exists. Nutrient becomes exhausted, algae dies and falls away.

There are various possible reasons green turtle eggs become non-viable, not just the one you wrote about.

Why and how can I "divert" the issue when you can reply and prove your point if you can?

@ Siliggy, Monday, 18 April 2016 10:47:00 AM

Siliggy,
Re Q.1. So some solar energy is converted to heat in algae and as the sun goes down that heat may warm water around it.
Now, I am only looking for warmth at the surface where sea surface temperature is measured by satellite.
Apart from direct radiation penetrating algae during photosynthesis, solar radiation also warms surface water and I think some of that surface water warmth transfers particle to particle into the surface water algae. Is the latter correct or not?

Re Q.2. You say a “larger amount of cooling” in a larger amount of algae. Are you sure about that?
I agree there would be a larger amount of algae mass that would cause shade beneath the mass and so cause a larger amount of cooling. But where does the heat go, the heat than would otherwise travel down slightly more if the shade did not exist?

And remember, heat rises and I am only looking for the near surface increase in heat linked to algae.

Re Q.3. I think the insulation property of algae plant matter would help protect the surface water from the cold water beneath a dense algae bloom. I think such a protected bloom would likely be in a suitable state able to cause precipitation if above water conditions are also suitable.

I suggest think specifically about water surface warmth.
On a sunny day after sundown for a few minutes or a few hours, do you think algae could help slow down uplift-escape of some surface water warmth, or have no impact

Siliggy,

Cosmic dust you refer to “helps” to fertilize plankton as they say.
So cosmic dust would add to other natural nutrient that adds to nutrient from human sewage and land use.
It is the total of the loading that sometimes amounts to pollution causing imbalance, negative consequences and damage.
A lot of dust and soot also falls into the ocean and onto polar ice, dead algae too.

Siliggy, I think the very very cold in Antarctica you refer to, depends on where and when temperatures are measured.
Here on OLO we can look into algae in the Ross Sea.
Scientists know there is a link between polar ice and the El Nino but they have not known what the connections are.
However I think the connection is algae plant matter. See:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002_54.html

The Ross Sea is known for algae. Is Ross Sea algae very very cold? I think not.
Although the following link is headed about the Arctic, scroll down to the image of the Ross Sea, Antarctica. Here:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/algae-accelerate-arctic-warming-18929

In that image I can see harmony or association between algae and clouds.

I think a missing connection in climate science is nutrient and warmth associated with ocean and lake algae plant matter.

JK Aus
Climate change is happening; strategically something needs to be done to preserve infra-structure and assets. A number of times I have mentioned Miami as it is already bearing the impact of climate change.

A further article on how Miami is being impacted:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/18/florida-wakes-climate-change

Climate change is having an impact on Northern areas as well:

http://www.aces.su.se/news/severe-arctic-ocean-acidification-via-permafrost-thawing-and-river-runoff

In Australia coral bleaching is a major concern:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/sydneys-corals-now-bleaching-in-pretty-shocking-sign-of-warming-waters-20160418-go8qex.html#ixzz46BPoPuoI

Down pours are a feature of climate change:

http://wxshift.com/news/houston-underwater-from-torrential-rains?utm_content=bufferef185&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

What are the plans to try and adapt too, and mitigate against climate change?

To all:

The Earth's surface emits radiative flux with a mean of about 400W/m^2 because of its temperature. It also loses over 100W/m^2 due to evaporative cooling, conduction and convection. So we have about 500W/m^2 coming out of the surface globally, but only a (global) mean of about 168W/m^2 of direct solar radiation impinging on the surface, as per NASA diagrams. The difference - the extra INPUT energy - comes from the maximum entropy production process that is described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The full explanation is in my 2013 paper linked here: https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com

Doug

Discussion is going around in circles; meanwhile the climate is changing.
What is your suggestion about what should be done about climate change?

Ant,

Yes climate change is happening, that is, the natural change to climate plus human impact changing climate.

If you listen to your church preacher you will usually hear about belief of your church.
With climate change if you listen usually to the CO2 emissions theory you will believe sea level rise is due to CO2 emissions.

However if you maintain an open mind and look at various evidence you might see other indicators.
Example, evidence of substance from my point of view indicates sea level at Miami is sometimes slightly higher because Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean waters are warmer and higher due to nutrient pollution.
It is the same nutrient overload pollution that feeds the world’s biggest dead zone and sargassum and common green algae inundating that region.

Can anyone provide evidence nutrient overload and algae has nothing to do with warm water and associated higher water level? No.
Do you think water is not sometimes warmer and therefore higher at Miami. Scroll down to the third image at the following link, thanks to NASA.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003383/

The words “climate change” waste time and therefore should not be used in a general sense while discussing change to climate, because change in climate is natural, it even caused ancient people to move to find water elsewhere. You know that.

Yes change to climate is noticeable in areas, but not all over this planet at the same time, as could be expected if the gas in the atmosphere of this planet was spread evenly everywhere.
Nutrient and algae in oceans is concentrated and scattered about, CO2 quickly spreads everywhere.

Re coral bleaching in Australian waters, what is the scientific definition of “pretty shocking”, as per the SMH at:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/sydneys-corals-now-bleaching-in-pretty-shocking-sign-of-warming-waters-20160418-go8qex.html#ixzz46BPoPuoI

Look at the second photo down and see algae behind the coral and over the harbour floor, that algae was already there , it was not caused by the warm SURFACE water.
That type of algae is caused by nutrient overload over a period of time and finally that algae has impacted and stressed and killed that coral, leading to ‘bleaching'.

J F Aus and Ant
Sorry Been away for a while and will not have time for a few hours yet to go over your comments. A thought occured to me though. A friend ponted out that in or near the Morton national park at Kangaroo valley N.S.W., you can see an old coral reef full of sea shells up about a thousand feet above sea level. During both the recent quakes and the Tsunami, Japan has seen large vertical movements. So my question is how long at the random and sporadic rates of normal kaotic change is it before the Great Barrier reef becomes a mountain range with dry limestone caves under it?

Siliggy,
Good to hear from you.
Being AWOL though is a worry.
Cheers,
JF

JK Aus
You agree the climate changes, and that man has some impact.

The overriding question is what are we going to do about it?

We constantly view how storm water pipes are inadequate.
Sewage becomes mixed with flood water.
Roads are damaged.
Houses,shops, office buildings, and vehicles are damaged by storm waters.

A location on the Moon's surface can cool by over 200 degrees in about two weeks, getting down to around -150°C on the dark side. Now, Antarctica is on the dark side of Earth for over three months in winter, but its temperature remains fairly steady in the vicinity of -50°C to -60°C. But there must be at least some loss of energy via radiation through the atmospheric window to Space. So what replenishes that energy? Clearly the difference between the Moon and the Earth has something to do with the atmosphere. Hence the energy must come from the atmosphere, but wherever the atmosphere is colder than the Antarctic surface, there can be no heat transfer by radiation. There can however be a process which increases entropy in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and you can read about that process at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com because that is where this mystery energy does in fact come from. When you understand this process and note the overwhelming evidence supporting its existence then, and only then, will you have a correct understanding as to why the radiative greenhouse is nothing but fiction.

* Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.

J F Aus
You say "I am only looking for warmth at the surface " and " But where does the heat go, the heat than would otherwise travel down slightly more if the shade did not exist?". Up in an earlier comment you said "What some scientists call heat is different to heat on skin on skin that people feel from the sun."

Remember that what comes from the sun is not heat but energy in the form of EMR that may create heat in something it hits (like skin). It may instead be converted to another form.
If it hits a solar panel it will create some heat and some electricity. For example 18 percent of the energy may turn into DC current. The panel has a low albedo and not much is reflected. So a lot of the remainder turns to heat.

The sun emits EMR at frequencies lower than IR light too. For example if some hits an efficient antenna tuned to 10.7 GHz for example then the EMR at this passband will convert to AC power in coax or similar. The rest may turn to heat.

"Recently, algae are recognized as a promising biodiesel source due to its efficient absorption and conversion of solar energy into chemical energy."
http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0000322.html

So at the surface without the Algae we will see the part of the sun's EMR energy that is absorbed there. MOST ALREADY IS.
A friend discussing something else via email sent info which shows you are quiet correct to say " travel down slightly more". Turns out to be not far at all for most light.
http://book.bionumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/320-f1-SolarSpectrum-11.png
and
"Being very thin, the layer cools sufficiently rapidly to reestablish itself in less than 12 seconds after disruption by a breaking wave."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17841610
If the very thin surface layer water takes 12 seconds with a thermal mass of 4.182 then Algae may take less than half that time.

Doug Cotton
Re the Antarctic staying warmer than -200 all of the long night down there you say "Hence the energy must come from the atmosphere, but wherever the atmosphere is colder than the Antarctic surface, there can be no heat transfer by radiation."
While i think there are other uncounted sources of heat plenty of energy comes from the Enthalpy or latent heat of fusion. As the Antarctic ice grows it MUST give off the difference between the specific heat of water and the specific heat of ice. Also a lot of heat is stored in the water that remains water and the ice that stays ice. How much water and ice is on the moon again?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M41yEWNyvZk

Ant
You say "The overriding question is what are we going to do about it?

We constantly view how storm water pipes are inadequate.
Sewage becomes mixed with flood water.
Roads are damaged.
Houses,shops, office buildings, and vehicles are damaged by storm waters."
Sounds like you need a Plumber.
The best way to be able to pay for the plumber instead of a Qld flood levee is to not vote in anyone who would send the money to foreign bankers and countries that hate us for carbon trading.
In the mean time adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will help plants to sequester both the extra water and solar heat.
So simple CO2 + H20 = plants and oxygen for our grand children!
As the effect of Atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic, more is not much of a problem and produces stability but less is a disaster.
More CO2 will help to reverse the desertification made worse by national parks. Lack of human influence is causing many many problems.
CO2 will save the oceans too. That extra plankton means more fish can eat and fish poop makes the water go alkaline. Isnt it a lovely life giving gas!

looks like the people who said the pause only existed because people were including the temperature caused by the 1997/8 El Nino are now guilty of the exact same thing. However as the normal earthquake activity that accompanies the change to La Nina or El Nino shows, 800 years ago something now deep beneath the oceans in the global conveyor changed and is affecting the coral today. Also it is bringing on a rapid sea surface temperature drop as a huge amount of cold water rushes up from the deep near Ecuador.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/anim_2mw.html

This is from far to deep too be recent plankton or CO2 as the above depth stuff shows. Coming from the deep shows it is far to old to be any thing that happened in the industrial age. So what did cause it all those global conveyor years ago?
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2481.full

Siliggy,

I think your comments are written in a very understandable way therefore are very educational.

Let me verify what I mean in this discussion by "surface".
I am not referring to a literally thin layer on the very surface.

By surface waters I mean say the first 30 feet - 10 metres.
It is in that area where colour is lost.
That first 30m feet is the most productive biologically.
It is in that layer that I think the most algae and most algae associated heat is to be found
Below that depth it starts to get colder and darker very quickly.

It's all very well for you to feel Electromagnetic Radiation coming from the sun but on a hot day my body feels heat coming from the sun. LOL TIC

So what can you tell me about heat that may be trapped for a few minutes or a few hours within dense soggy wet algae growing in that first 10 metre depth area of ocean surface?

Again, Sliggy, thank you so much for continuing this discussion.

I will try to reply to ant tomorrow.
And Hi Doug Cotton.

Carbon dioxide is not the cause either, of algae causing the coral food chain to break.
"Fleshy" algae is a new term to me but a search reveals it is macro algae.
I think it will soon be discovered that micro algae has a similar or same effect breaking the coral food chain, as fleshy algae does.
Fleshy algae impact is further to damage caused by small or large dead zones linked to hypoxia caused by algae

The following was first posted on 27 April, 2016.

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/38845/20160427/increased-amount-of-fleshy-algae-break-coral-reefs-food-chain.htm

Over-abundance of algae is linked to over-abundance of nutrient.

J F Aus
You may enjoy the discussion here.
https://theconversation.com/great-barrier-reef-bleaching-would-be-almost-impossible-without-climate-change-58408
Lance Pidgeon

Siliggy,
That conversation website comes up at the link you posted above but it says "Page not found".

I don't enjoy that site anyway because they deleted comments of mine about algae associated warmth, on a thread involving an article linked to the then chief scientist and journalist Grattan.
I contacted the editor who said I was off topic, but I was not.

There is another thread there where my comment remains intact.
I suggest scroll down the 31 comments and find John Fairfax, my first comment, and note the comment above from respected scientist Jon Brodie who say's, (quote),
I even advise my more junior collegues who work for me or with me at the University not to comment on these matters for fear of losing research funding as a result. (end quote).
You will need to copy and paste the following entire link from it's very end:

https://theconversation.com/great-barrier-reef-facts-tv-ads-ignore-dredge-dumping-risks-25899?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+Weekend+Conversation&utm_content=The+Weekend+Conversation+CID_1f34531799fa19431a14334c4566e415&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Great%20Barrier%20Reef%20facts%20TV%20ads%20ignore%20dredge%20dumping%20risks

I think it is obvious conversation about these matters, is being stifled and gagged.
I note from Jennifer Marohasy's background page that she also appears gagged.

How stupid.
It is inevitable reality of climate change and fear among genuine scientists becomes known, involving even loss of livelihood as respected scientist Jon Brodie indicates.

it is also inevitable because damage being caused by sewage and land use nutrient overload pollution proliferating algae is continuing and worsening, and will continue until reality of nutrient overload in oceans is openly discussed to put solutions in place.

General understanding of reality of the situation is absolutely inevitable because evidence of substance indicates beyond reasonable doubt that warmth associated with algae is linked to change in weather and climate. A critically serious situation.

Siliggy,

I just looked into that conversation website you suggested.
I thought I was badly done by with my comments deleted.
Now there are dozens of comments deleted throughout the following thread. The one sided editing is extraordinary.

https://theconversation.com/sea-level-rise-has-claimed-five-whole-islands-in-the-pacific-first-scientific-evidence-58511

Yesterday I posted the following on my Facebook Timeline, together with two photos. You should be able to find and see them.

(copied and pasted)
The photo I post here shows erosion in Solomon Islands during World War II. It,s not from sea level rise. Some erosion is natural. Other shore erosion at present is due to dead coral killed by algae. Coral at present is no longer producing the usual supply of the coral sand and rubble that used to help build the islands.

I live 6 months a year at Rendova Island, Solomon Islands. During the 2007 Ranogga earthquake, Rendova sank down about 400 millimetres. Nearby New Georgia Island sank down about 800 millimetres at nearby Munda. None of this sinking down has been reported in major media. Major media appears on and on about CO2 emissions and sea level rising.
That's my canoe being floated over Kai Kia passage reef at New Georgia en route across the Blanche Channel to Rendova (in background), but prior to the Ranogga earthquake and this Kai Kia passage reef sinking down, all canoes has to use stick rollers to cross during lowest tides (winter tides). No climate change sea level rise has been noticed anywhere by me , it's islands and reefs sinking down plus lost coral sand and rubble.
(end copy)

Google: Kavachi.
Kavachi is near where I am based in Solomon Islands. Kavachi rises and disappears as Wiki indicates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavach

Climate Science in a Court setting:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost?CMP=share_btn_fb

Algae, this is about vast masses of algae plant matter on this planet that has not been measured and assessed in AGW or IPCC or Kyoto associated science.

“Regions of critical change”, they now say.

Now science is taking a look.
(we have been looking here on OLO for a couple of years at least)

The following is copied and pasted:

NASA’s view from space shows our planet is changing, but to really understand the nitty-gritty of these changes and what they mean for our future, scientists need a closer look. This year NASA takes you on a world tour as we kick off new field research campaigns to study regions of critical change from land, sea and air.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/earthexpeditions/2016/05/10/setting-a-course-for-the-worlds-largest-plankton-bloom/?linkId=24343979

N.B.
It is wrong that science shuns insight into ocean algae and the state of the world ocean including collapse of world ocean seafood sustainability.
Crucial time is being wasted.

There are consequences of impact from algae, including 5,000 babies and 1,500 mothers dead in one year in PNG, and that mortality, perhaps not every case, is linked to protein deficiency malnutrition and poverty linked to collapse of traditional staple seafood supply, supply that is in turn linked to algae killing seagrass food web nurseries.
Seagrass mass is devastated worldwide. Fish are not immune to starvation.

The fundamental problem is sewage and land use nutrient overload pollution proliferating the algae, the problem is not CO2 emissions.

The URL in my post above is not active so I suggest copy and paste it. It's about very worthwhile info from NASA.

I post that URL again here, in case it might activate.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/earthexpeditions/2016/05/10/setting-a-course-for-the-worlds-largest-plankton-bloom/?linkId=24343979

No. It's not even active on my Preview Comment.

Att: Graham.

Thank you.

http://blogs.nasa.gov/earthexpeditions/2016/05/10/setting-a-course-for-the-worlds-largest-plankton-bloom/?linkId=24343979

Thank you Graham. I just deleted the s off the https.

Cheers.

According to the following link report it was not warmth associated with the El Nino that killed salmon and other fish off Chile.

http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/27637/a-closer-look-at-sea-temperature-increase-and-loss-of-1billion-in-farmed-salmon/

At least NASA has started looking at common micro algae (March 2016).
http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-california-current-system

There is a wealth of insight about algae at the following URL, so much algae plant matter on this planet.
Yet this ocean algae was not measured and assessed in AGW, IPCC, Kyoto associated science.

http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/phytoplankton-bloom-in-the-north-atlantic