@ Max Green, Thursday, 1 September 2016 11:33:28 AM

Max, you indicate warmth in ocean algae has been measured in AGW - Kyoto science because the original source of heat from the sun was measured and satellites have measured the planet’s albedo. Accordingly I question:

How did AGW and Kyoto associated science measure algae beneath sea ice when algae under sea ice was unknown at the time Kyoto Protocol was developed?

How could satellites measure albedo associated with algae under sea ice when it is the white of sea ice at the surface that dominates reflectivity?

How could satellites measure albedo of algae MASS deeper down and not at all visible or reflective at the water surface?

From my point of view, during hours of sunlight solar heat is absorbed in algae, plus algae produces more heat and mass as cells multiply during photosynthesis.
At sundown the solar heat source shuts down but heat within the algae plant matter remains for several hours and perhaps sometimes until sunrise depending on the mass of algae and water current movement or not .
Next day there can already be some warmth retained and more sunlight adds to that residual warmth.
I think ocean algae retains heat similar to a battery retaining energy, including overnight.

Based on empirical evidence I think that after sundown EXTRA/MORE heat in the algae transfers particle to particle from the algae into the water causing the water to warm to whatever slight degree, and I think that EXTRA/MORE warmth would not exist if anthropogenic nutrient proliferated algae was not in abundance or there at all.

From my point of view this is not about vertical reflectivity – albedo.

My view on AGW is fundamentally about particle to particle transfer of heat retained in algae plant-matter for several hours during darkness, similar to how a cotton plant-matter singlet or jacket shields body heat especially at night.

I am not ignoring heat-trapping physics of CO2, nor am I accusing anybody.

P.S
For reference see my post on page 17 of this thread

Dude, just to be clear, you misunderstand the word irony. You were attempting sarcasm, but it didn't work because you demonstrated comprehension problems with the *subject* of the material you were quoting.

>>"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world," said Dr Baart. "We're were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking."

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100

What was that? Who was able to create more land? Was it nature? Was it some mistake in measuring sea level rise? Who or what did it again? Who is the active *subject* of this sentence? Seriously dude, you’ve just failed Year 6 Comprehension!

And you try to sell this to us as a wealth creation thing? As if spending millions securing our foreshores is going to somehow magically conjure more money for roads and hospitals? Irony? No mate. That's a fail.

Just in case you're confused about where the most land reclamation was, the article spells it out: “the Aral Sea has been the biggest conversion of water to land.”
How big a conversion of water to land?

“Formerly one of the four largest lakes in the world with an area of 68,000 km2 (26,300 sq mi), the Aral Sea has been steadily shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Sovietirrigation projects. By 2007, it had declined to 10% of its original size, “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

68,000km down to a tenth it's size! That's a *lot* of extra land. Too bad it's all bad news!

@mhaze veers off into fantasy land, jumping to silly assumptions, putting words into my mouth, all the while spinning like a top. LOL

re: "while disdaining to actually demonstrate such special knowledge." oh do go tell your mother, maybe she's interested in your silly opinions, I'm not.

re: "vaguely relevant URL without delineating how those references prove their point." so you're admitting you need help to work it out? LOL

There's been no "vaguely" about it. That you and others don't even bother looking, can't fit in more than a Tweat sized factoid, or work out what the Refs & Comments are all about ain't my problem kemo sabe - it's all yours. Go check my peter principle url again and read it this time then go look in the mirror. Oh the 'irony' of it all. :-)

re "[I] implied it was conclusive" oh what rubbish, read what I wrote which is exactly what it meant, and not your creative sci-fi imagination of what you believe it implied.

Which part my constant recommendation to all to "read the literature" and I do not care what people's opinions/beliefs are do you not get mhaze (apart from all of it that is?)

re: "are either utterly irrelevant to the point at hand or only tangentially relevant." Rubbish and BS ... is this all you got - hand waving on a forum?

re: "He also links to SREX, again without any advice as to why its relevant" READ IT is the recommendation. What? Oh it's too hard & your head hurts? ;-)

Here you are complaining about refs to info, papers, books, all kinds of issues including sacrosanct 'opinions'. You're complaining about 'knowledge' and links. Do you get that, what you're doing? Then mixing it into an adhom ridicule piece, then a load of guff about Nero? Is that all you got in your swag. Bloody hell man. What an intellectual giant you are mhaze.

Again, please go tell your mother. Your problems and your supercilious opinionated rhetoric are none of my business. Don't care, doesn't matter to me one widdle bit.

JF Aus,
if the algae is under sea ice, even better.
Sea ice reflects 90% of the sunlight, open ocean absorbs 90% of it.
In other words, the algae are only able to metabolise a small amount (based on their metabolic efficiency) of the 10% of the light (or less, depending on the thickness of the ice) left over after the ice has reflected most of it away. Those pesky algae only have a tiny fraction of the energy to convert to heat. Far more worrisome is the KNOWN, DEMONSTRABLE, REPEATABLE physics of CO2.

“From my point of view”
I really don’t care. Until you stop seeking attention on an internet forum and send your whacky stuff into the IPCC or CSIRO or other peer-reviewed bodies, I couldn’t care less *what* your POV is. Go measure the heat from algae. With sciencey tools like a thermometer. You seem to know what the word empirical means. Do you also know what a control group is? Cool. Do it. Go wear a white coat while you measure algal heat versus normal water heat. Dress up. Have fun. Take some friends. Write it down. Then go send it all into CSIRO. Because I really don’t care until you put your money where your mouth is. You’re just another ranting person on the internet until you publish this theory of yours.

Oh, and these next 2 paragraphs are mutually contradictory. I do hope you realise that.
“My view on AGW is fundamentally about particle to particle transfer of heat retained in algae plant-matter for several hours during darkness, similar to how a cotton plant-matter singlet or jacket shields body heat especially at night.

I am not ignoring heat-trapping physics of CO2, nor am I accusing anybody. “

My fourth post on this thread for the day so the continued expose of Mr O will need to wait a day or so.

In the meantime...

Max,

Are you aware that the authors of this report are Dutch. Therefore English as a second language.

So using a very specific understanding of the plural pronoun to support your idea might be thought of by some as somewhat fraught. Others might call it bonkers.

Seriously, do you really imagine that the authors we saying mankind created 33000 sq km of extra coastline in the past 30 years? Do you appreciate that's an area more than half the size of Tasmania?

As far as I aware the authors haven't offered a considered opinion on what caused the increased coastal lands. My guess would be that when/if the reasons are investigated it will be some combination of sedimentary deposits, continental rebound and isostatic tilt. But we could be waiting a while for answers - I suspect we won't find too many geologists willing to risk their career researching something that the consensus doesn't want to be so.

What went on in the Aral sea and other inland areas is irrelevant in regards to the increase in coastal lands. The Aral Sea is some distance from the coast!

You wrote "And you try to sell this to us as a wealth creation thing?" and elsewhere "but you want us to put it into defending the Opera House from going under". At no time have I said I want us to put money into defending us from sea level rise. You constructed that idea from whole cloth ie rubbish. I did suggest that our vastly wealthier great-grandkids might like to do so if they so desire 80 years from now.

@mhaze: "the continued expose of Mr O" - Oh no, I'm shaking in my boots!

"Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures"?

The one who wrote the article is confused, as are those who believe her disinformation, her adhom ridicule and her sophistry.

mhaze et al seem to be living under the misapprehensions that I or Cox are affected by anything they say (or care) and that an article by Marohasy here makes the slightest bit of difference to objective Reality or Facts.

For well adjusted folks not driven by extreme beliefs and not living in a world where ~30,000 scientists are political operatives engaged in global fraud (or they're just stupid) vs say 'normal' research scientists - the evidence is overwhelmingly self-evident.

Marohasy needs to explain scientifically - IF her silly accusations are correct and that the global temperature data has been fraudulently changed to show a warming where she claims (without any evidence) there was cooling - then why is there still global warming and ice melting .... where before there wasn't.

Why isn't the Arctic Ice coverage and thickness (ie Mass) the same as it was in 1979? Links are good to share knowledge.

The Climate is complex that requires a complex all encompassing explanation of it's Nature, it's current, past, and possible states.

Mudslingers like Marohasy never do this!

Request for an inquiry into BOM to the Auditor?

All she had was unanswered leading questions. Her request was refused, as it was earlier by the BOM, by Greg Hunt, because her assertions are ludicrous on the face of it.

People can believe whatever they like, free to put any AGW/CC denial 'celebrity' they wish up onto pedestals, believe everything they say, but that isn't going to change reality nor the facts or stop Ice melting.

Genuine climate science vs snake-oil salesmen.

Reality of AGW/CC vs WTF to do about it.

Never the twain shall meet!