Poor JF Aus,
he's not interested in links like that!

https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms

Too sciencey! Not in on his conspiracy! What, are you trying to ask him to remove his tinfoil hat?

JF, again, if you want us to take this seriously, go submit it to NASA and CSIRO and stop trolling this forum.

ant asks "Where are your references" in response to my whimsical paragraph about what the people of 2100 will think of the people of 2016. References? Seriously? I was going to go the full mock on this piece of idiocy but then thought it would be just cruel.

Toni Lavis,

"They will only take my books out of my cold, dead hands."

And that's just the way they like it. Get rid of the message and the messenger. Be careful what you wish for.... :)

Hi mHaze,
in other words it's just like your 'quote' from the working group that 'apparently' shows discrepancy with the SPM? Just verbiage and bluster trying to hide that all you've got is one big sneer at modern science?

Yup. About what we expected.

ant,

I think it correct to say, ant, you are known on this OLO site as having a religious-type belief that AGW and climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.

What do you know about chickens and eggs and algae?
Are you a poultry farmer?
In any case, algae arrived on this planet before the egg and chicken.

Diversion you say, ant.

I think warmth associated with algae plant matter is a very inconvenient truth.

The Marohasy article here has led me to consider a rock star scientist has knowledge of chemistry and history of algae.
Perhaps music is diverting focus on study of chemistry and climate.

ant, have you read my page 17 post? Have you viewed the links and NASA satellite photographic data?
Prove me incorrect about algae, if you can. Go for it. I welcome it.

Google; cloud street images.
Consider precipitation and look closely at the very start of cloud forming into “cloud streets” above known nutrient overloaded and algae inundated waters.

Can anyone show scientific evidence “cloud streets” are not linked to ocean and/or algae plant matter?

Economists and scientists best urgently focus on solutions including nutrient trading to really harness algae to produce fertilizer, stockfeed and biofuel, to reduce the nutrient load and grow economies instead of dumping sewage nutrient in rivers and lakes and ocean ecosystems.

Thomas O’Reilly,

Thank you for reply.
You appear well educated and perhaps you have a background in science and/or education.
In any case I consider you as my peer on this OLO website and accordingly I ask you to review my page 17 post on this thread.

I am not asking you to accuse anybody or any organization but I do ask you not to skip over my page 17 post.

The Jennifer Marohasy view is of interest to me because AGW temperature measurements from my point of view fit more with heat associated with ocean algae than heat due to CO2 emissions as claimed.
For example there are the AGW sea surface temperature anomaly charts and I think that anomaly has to be questioned, not skipped over.

I also now question if there are actually 30,000 scientists who have cited scientific evidence proving the globe is warming globally all together all at the same time. Is it 30,000 or 3,000? I seem to remember it was just under 3,000.

Thomas, you have answered some of my earlier questions but did not answer the very direct questions, so I have updated and revised one question.
Accordingly I ask for a direct answer because of the seriousness of impacts and consequences (possibly) occurring already, such as increase in seafood depletion linked under-nutrition linked to anaemia, maternal mortality and NCD for example.

Q. Is there any evidence of substance establishing anthropogenic nutrient proliferated increase in ocean algae plant matter and has nothing to do with climate change or change in climate in some regions?

mhaze

As indicated in my last post; climate change is happening now and is costing billions of dollars.

Your usual comments are about down playing what is happening now, without providing any justification, you need references to show your premise is true.

I asked for references as I know you are not able to provide any. Your whimsical post was about how people in the future would comment on what's happening now. Whimsical does not fit into science discourse.

You need evidence not just sophistry to show not a lot is happening now, to labour the point.