ant,

That epa link you sent is not active and i am using a basic smartphone from a farmhouse without strong signal.
To make an inactive link active on OlO delete the s from the http.
No worry, i will look into it and respond asap.

Thomas O'Reilly,

Try giving your Rule #1 Critical Thinking - Can't Prove a Negative, answer in a Court of Law.

It's disgusting this skipping or ducking answers and reality is continuing.

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

Except in the next breath you contradicted yourself and decided you did not actually accept the working group's findings on extreme weather events. What was that about believing the bits you want to, and then just making up what you want to? ;-)

ant,

Here is the USA - EPA link you posted and it's now live:
http://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms

Let's get this straight.
Algae and algae blooms cannot exist on warmth alone, there has to be adequate nutrient to feed the algae.

Nutrient comes first, then sunlight and solar heat to generate photosynthesis, then comes further warmth generated during multiplication of algae cells.

There is also solar warmth transferred particle to particle from the algae matter into the water molecules.

Solar warmth alone and due to any greenhouse gas linked-increase in warmth is not enough to generate algae blooms.
If solar and/or increase in greenhouse gas warming was enough to proliferate algae then algae blooms would be occurring throughout all surface water of all sunlit oceans, and especially within warm ocean currents.

The East Australian Current is a known warm current but is exceptionally clear with no algae visible.
Visibility in the warm EAC surface current waters is a divers dream. e.g. usually about 90 metres visibility underwater.

The EAC originates in nutrient and algae rich warm equatorial waters but as it flows away southward it seems the nutrient becomes exhausted and the algae dies and falls away into deeper currents or directly to the sea floor.

I have considerable understanding of the EAC, ask Search and Rescue in Canberra if they know about that.

Empirical evidence indicates the EAC and similar current/s worldwide are causing confusion and thus sea surface temperature anomaly in CO2 emissions-related science.

Adjustment of temperature measurement to perhaps suit older climate change modelling may be leading science away from reality and impact of underwater phenomena such as warmth linked to algae.

I think it is certain that warmth linked to ocean algae matter was not measured and assessed in AGW, IPCC and Kyoto associated science. However, why is that so?

JF Aus

As requested.

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

ant,

Read into that link document dated 2016 and see (copied and pasted);

Algal blooms absorb sunlight, making water even warmer and promoting more blooms.

At least USA government science is now realizing algae generates warmth.

However relatively speaking there is a lot missing in what is needed to be so urgently learned.

Graham Y; re Jennifer's theory.
The integrity of the data and where it comes from is really immaterial.
If you believe in the integrity of Photos and video footage taken in the Arctic showing the lack of ice, coupled with the large melt of the Northern Russian and American coasts, then there is no argument.
The increase in extreme weather events is also a pointer to what is going on .
A quibble of a few decimal points of the temp readings do not explain these.
If you do NOT believe the integrity of the graphic evidence of Arctic melt, then there is no point in arguing.