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