Well Marohasy has certainly achieved her object.
This thread has spewed forth more uncertainty than an Australian government.
The whole reason for this is to confuse the proles and maybe make them vote a certain way.
In the long run it will make no difference because the world will keep on reacting to the abuse that is being put on it and eventually it will become mostly uninhabitable for humans.
Good luck with that I will be long gone.

Max Green, Friday, 2 September 2016 11:22:52 PM

Max, what is your motive in saying, “if the algae is under the ice”?

As per my page 17 post on this thread, Stanford Uni scientists have made the “impossible discovery” in already finding algae under the sea ice.

There is also the NASA satellite image showing algae flowing north along the coast of Alaska in the Bering Sea, plus another species of algae mid water between Alaska and Russia, all where sea ice occurs and where the ice is reported melting faster and more than was natural.

I have an ac e up my sleeve, Max.
I have known about warmth in algae since the 1950’s in the wool industry.
I have already done measurements you suggest, and more, as a way of confirming insight from the 1950’s.
I wrote some of it on the US.Huffington Post some years ago.
Why bother with CSIRO that is known for dismissing it’s own scientists with their different view.

I think physics should include KNOWN, DEMONSTRABLE, REPEATABLE physics of algae and nature.

Perhaps, Max, if you had upbringing and training to care you would see and understand nature and algae and physics.

I think algae that grows under ice has developed metabolism to thrive in those conditions and includes ability to thrive even more when waters become loaded with anthropogenic nutrient.

It is also possible to see algae that has grown in open sea under sunlight, and that then flows into Arctic waters and under sea ice.
Relevant images that form data and empirical evidence are all there on page 17 of this thread.

Why don’t you care about my point of view, Max?
I have a point of view from underwater within ocean ecosystems.
If physicists had such a point of view then warmth in algae plant matter would likely have been measured and assessed in AGW -Kyoto science.
It’s a pity you don’t care.

Show how the 2 paragraphs are mutually contradictory, in your opinion.

Suggestion; lay off the ad hom and direct insults you also troll at others on this site

@ mhaze re: COASTLINE INCREASE

Please don’t abuse ESL issues to twist this study to say something that suits you. They clearly said WE are doing this: and the largest increase was the drying up of the Aral sea. If there is a communication issue, it might be that they lumped every category of drying up and land creation in under the generic term “coasts are growing all over the world.”

But maybe that’s just my problem in accepting your premise? 33,700km2 over 30 years is about 1123km2 / year, on average. The draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes created 20,000km of land. That’s ONE act of land creation in ONE country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draining_of_the_Mesopotamian_Marshes

China: 3500km in 5 years, then 200km / year ongoing. But 10% of the amount you’re sneering at in 5 years, in one country alone?
“During the 11th five year plan (2006-2010), China’s land reclamation frenzy was at its height, and under the auspices of the central government 700km2 of land – roughly the size of Singapore – was being created each year. … to prevent what was looking like a “land reclamation bubble” the amount of land that could be legally be created nationwide was reduced to 200km2 each year.”
http://www.citymetric.com/skylines/gift-sea-through-land-reclamation-china-keeps-growing-and-growing-1350

The Philippines once had 5000 km2 of wetlands, but have lost about 80% of that in the last 30 years.
http://www.worldwildlife.org/habitats/wetlands

So who are you to sneer at a mere 33,700km over 30 years?

Sneering. It’s a common habit with denialists.

WAS IT US OR NATURE?
1. They specifically said *we* did it. You can blame ESL, but we all know what you’re doing. Cherrypicking. We know your type. ;-)
2. They specifically pointed to the UAE and CHINA and SPECIFIC human engineering projects.
3. They did not mention ONE natural mechanism where nature might somehow be offsetting coastal increase.
4. They said they still accepted and expected sea level rise!

But hey, go ahead and just IMPLY natural sea level retreat into the article. You’re now reduced to cherrypicking something that isn’t even there!

@Robert LePage "Well Marohasy has certainly achieved her object."

Nah, I don't think so. She was crowing the article had 13,000 hits in it's first 5/6 days. That's about what OLO gets normally (IPA even less btw) - but in this case anyone alerted to the Q&A episode via twitter etc would have seen this article pop up in search .. it doesn't mean that 13,000 views agreed.

The regular gang of agw/cc anti-science commenters here always post.
imo Marohasy only looks like a bigger fool than she may have before, and many more people know about that now. Only narcissists think everything is about themselves and note the "web-traffic" because it's all they have.

It doesn't mean the majority of 'readers/visitors' thinks what she imagines they do.

Face it, the IPA membership has so little faith in their own Libertarian ideology, imo, their MO is to infiltrate the Liberal Party with their members like Patterson and Wilson.

Why? Because imo they all lack the courage of their convictions to create a proper bona-fide Libertarian Party of Australia and stand openly for election and lay their cards on the table openly and honestly.

Eating out the heart of the LNP like a worm is far easier (and cheaper) than being up front and honest about themselves. Marohasy serves their purposes in this regard. 30 pieces of silver buys supporters to a cause 100% of the time. (shrug - it's common)

Of course this is old news, but sometimes it helps to remind people of the obvious as it gets drowned out by the hyperbolic hand-waving such as Marohasy's. AGW/CC is merely an opportunity to push their broader biased ideological political power agendas. :-)

Cox, Roberts, and Q&A made international headlines - Marohasy did not!

Besides the usual echo-chambers this ridiculous Marohasy article has barely been covered by anyone. Nobody cares about Marohasy, not even the IPA membership who are using her. lol

Marohasy is so unimportant and inconsequential she doesn't even rate in the climate skeptics world

The Who is Who network of climate skeptics

Ron Arnold
Timothy Ball
Joseph “Joe” Bast
Joe Bastardi
Michael Bastasch
William Briggs
Russell Cook
Judith Curry
Joe D’Aleo
James Delingpole
David Paul Driessen
James Enstrom
Steve Goddard
Pierre Gosselin
Greenie Watch
William Happer
Jim Lakely
Patrick J. Michaels
Steven J. Milloy
Christopher Monckton
Marc Morano
Joanne Nova
Roger Pielke Sr. (Or Roger Pielke Jr. – Unclear in Email)
Thomas P. Sheahen
S. Fred Singer
Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon
Roy Spencer
James Taylor
Anthony Watts

Sourced and referenced via Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) file.

Ref to original refs
http://climatestate.com/2016/08/30/australian-senator-malcolm-roberts-claims-that-there-is-a-pause-in-global-warming/

Also see there another 'graph' on that page which is even more up-to-date than the one used by Cox on Q&A

"Who do you trust, Goddard with ties to special interests who creates doubt on climate science, ignores empirical data, observations, and facts or the actual people, the scientists who study climate.

"Meanwhile global temperatures keep climbing, below a graph from the Japan Meteorological Agency, does this look like a pause, or is this also part of Steven Goddard‘s conspiracy?"

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html

Quoting: "The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2015 was +0.42°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.78°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891."

I know the data has been corrupted by 'frauds' everywhere. The Japan Meteorological Agency are as stupid and corrupt as the BOM and Nasa/Giss, obviously.

Who needs evidence when you 'just know' that's true!

JF Aus,
your 'point of view' is your own opinion, not science, until it gets written up and submitted to a peer-review organisation. The fact that you refuse to do that shows that you're only after converts here, not actually interested in the truth but just another version of an anti-AGW conspiracy theory.

You'd rather rave about your algae theory than read peer-reviewed stuff from the IPCC. Your view is incompatible with the IPCC because you're trying to subvert the role of CO2 and insert algae as the villain. This is preposterous and ridiculous. CO2's atmospheric heat trapping properties have been known since Fourier in the 1820's, just short of 200 years. Go study the "Radiative Forcing Equation". It works out to be 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. Good luck demonstrating that algae can trap that kind of energy!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-per-second-widget-raise-awareness-global-warming.html

You've got nothing, expect to keep asking where you are wrong. I've shown where you are wrong repeatedly: incoming sunlight + albedo + atmospheric gases = warming rate for that area. The algae component of that is in albedo. Done and dusted.