Hi all,
Just last night I finished a Netflix documentary about climate change and Antarctica that predicted a crash in the local food supply. It was something to do with the reduced ice cover not being conducive to a certain type of phitoplankton & krill interaction. Not exactly sure what it was.

But watching JF Aus rant about algae prompted me to investigate the climate impacts on Antarctica's phitoplankton further, and what I read rocked my understanding.

It's going to DOUBLE!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/microscopic-antarctic-food-source-predicted-to-double-in-size/6829060

(But only in the Southern Hemisphere). Could this stimulate the food chain, whale population, and number of enormous whale droppings that sequester carbon to the bottom of the sea floor naturally?

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

Rule #1 Critical Thinking - Can't Prove a Negative :-)

re: "that AGW and climate change is caused by CO2 emissions" = wrong.

Anyone who has read and understood the science would already know that's false because the AGW/CC Science does not say that.

People need to know that CO2 emissions ~50% effect, other GHGs ~15%, land/use changes incl forest removal ~20%, Cement ~5% - eg Electricity production via Fossil Fuels equals about 20% - disclaimer all figures from memory because it's not worth my time to provide accurate figures nor references to this place - 'God helps those who can help themselves.'

re Cox: "Perhaps music is diverting focus on study of chemistry and climate." and perhaps it's the voices inside his head making him doing it? :-)

JF Aus 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?"

Yes. I believe I provided a Google scholar search for 'papers' that addressed that Q. before JF. Not my area of interest which was been Energy use data, IPCC RCPs/ECS, Arctic Greenland Ice, and acidity/GBR.

Included in that were Papers that also addressed the increasing ocean temperature/acidity as further exacerbating all versions of algal blooms et al - this also had an impact in the Sydney Water supply in Warragamba Dam several years ago. Yes it is a problem. Scientists are not avoiding it. Politicians and anti-science websites like the IPA/OLO and other science denialists like Marohasy/Abbot/Nicol are as usual ignoring it too. Just as they ignore the current real world threats to the GBR and it's now rapid demise.

View science based info via Emeritus Professor Dr. Charly Veron 'Demise of the Great Barrier Reef' - 2016 Coral Bleaching Event -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY9p746teHE

For the benefit of others:
OCCAM'S NIGHTMARE the book about Conspiracy Theories and Vapid Lunacy some believe - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OeUINoYWsg

A Great Father's Day present
http://www.lulu.com/au/en/shop/s-peter-davis/occams-nightmare-ebook/ebook/product-21017102.html -

Max Green wrote with (sadly) all the eloquence he could muster "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?"

In some of the many parallel universes postulated by string theory, this makes sense. Alas, this isn't one of them.

Somehow quoting approvingly from the IPCC is sneering at science! Who'd a thunk it.

JF Aus

"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."

I believe in science. Various disciplines of science show how the climate is warming.
The question is what is causing the warming.
But, regardless of the cause, we need to mitigate impacts, Miami is spending millions to create infra structure to stave off sea rise for a few decades.

The ARM 11 year study clearly demonstrates the forcing happening in relation to CO2 and radiated infrared; referenced many times.

The EPA reference I provided invites people to be in contact with them to make comments, have you done so?

The first sentence from the reference says:

"Scientists predict that climate change will have many effects on freshwater and marine environments. These effects, along with nutrient pollution, might cause harmful algal blooms to occur more often, in more waterbodies and to be more intense. Algal blooms endanger human health, the environment and economies across the United States."

It says very clearly that climate change impacts on algal blooms.

mhaze says:

"Somehow quoting approvingly from the IPCC is sneering at science! Who'd a thunk it.

There was quite a discusion previously about this matter; mhaze has done some cherry picking.
The SPM clearly commented on how extreme weather conditions can be expected in a changing climate.

Several rain bombs have been occurring in 2016 alone; many others in a number of countries have happened since the IPCC Report; mhaze, you are completely wrong. If there were only a few examples of rain bombs; maybe, you could be seen to be right, there have been several examples. Rain bombs being just one facet of a multifaceted changing climate. Many references have been previously provided.

//And that's just the way they like it. Get rid of the message and the messenger.//

I am not the message or the messenger. I am the archivist, for somebody must remember what has come before.

For Educational Purposes

The UNFCCC and IPCC were created by Governments and by nature 'political'.

Government Reps do change the content/wording of IPCC Draft Reports prepared by Scientists. Therefore all IPCC Reports are coloured by some Political interference.

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a VOLUNTARY BASIS as authors, contributors and reviewers.
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml

None of them is PAID by the IPCC for time or travel, they still have to do their day job and get vacation time to do what they do.

The UNFCCC is also a 'political body' of Governments but relevance to a global conspiracy for One-World Government = Zero

Historical and Future Energy Use, GHG Emission Projections, IPCC AR5
http://www.scribd.com/document/206878243/Historical-and-Future-Projections-for-Energy-Use-and-GHG-Emissions-the-IPCC-AR5

see Pg27 'Safe GenIV Nuclear Power Plants'

pg6> Quoting extracts from the IPCC AR5 Sept 2013 - Summary of Total cumulative fossil fuel CO2 emissions

Between 1750 and 2011 amounts to 365 ± 30 PgC (261 years)
2000 – 2009 increased by 3.2% yr-1
2011 amounts to 9.5 ± 0.8 PgC
Hold that rate to 9.5 x 88 years = 836 PgC to 2100
Between 2012 and 2100 amounts to 1685 ± 225 PgC for RCP8.5
This scenario amounts to 19.1 PgC yr-1 over 88 years
1685 PgC is 462% (x 4.6 times) above the 365 PgC cumulative total of 1750 to 2011

RCP 8.5 assumptions above for fossil fuel energy use may be significantly LESS than the current BAU Energy forecasts from 2013 to 2040

"Expert judgment based on the available evidence suggests that TCRE is likely between 0.8°C – 2.5°C per 1000 PgC"

The Paris COP delivered an agreement by Governments for ongoing increases in global GHGs beyond 2030!

Angel Gurría Secretary-General OECD: A call for zero emissions
http://forumblog.org/2014/01/call-zero-emissions-climate-bailout-ooption

'Delivering on 2 degrees' UNFCCC Paris COP Agreement/MYTH Prof Kevin Anderson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gJ78vDU17Y

"We Have To Consume Less": Scientists Call For Radical Economic Overhaul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEQ7cOUjwgM

Capitalism 3.0 - A GUIDE TO RECLAIMING THE COMMONS by Peter Barnes
http://archive.org/details/Capitalism_3.0_Peter_Barnes

The facts are: Temperature conspiracy theories plus Abbot/Marohasy are irrelevant to anything and everything AGW/CC and of no importance.