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