@ Max Green, Saturday, 3 September 2016 1:27:27 PM

Max, my point of view includes first hand observations that form empirical evidence as my comments on web sites document.
And the Precautionary Principle indicates empirical evidence should be used to take action when there is not full scientific certainty.

I am coming forward with what I have seen and studied. I think it's up to science to do the science and get paid for it.

I have not refused to do anything, as you wrongfully claim.
I am telling the truth. It is you who is ducking justified questions.

I think your comments, Max, often involve prime example of "what you say is what you are".
It is you Max, who is raving, about Hiroshima bombs and peer review being the only way to go.
Acute urgency is involved with the state of the marine environment, worldwide. There are too many facets to be written and peer reviewed.
Seafood depletion, protein deficiency malnutrition, nutrient pollution, anthropogenic algae, precipitation forming cloud streets, cloud and weather change, is just part of the phenomena involved, plus the impacts and consequences of ongoing spin and ducking and weaving and inaction.

Me got nothing? In reply to that, ok I have nothing. So what now, Max?
It might be you who has achieved nothing.
Have you had a life working in science without discovering anything yourself? Done and dusted you say. You not me.

Can anyone provide reference to data showing difference in albedo between different ocean algae species worldwide? NO.
So much for warmth in algae being accounted for in measurement and assessment of this planet's albedo.

Big-mouth O’Reilly:
In relation to your support of the baseless assertion of human caused climate change, you were asked to refer us to science which showed a measurable effect of human emissions on climate. You stated :” Already have done so,”
That is a lie, you have supplied no such reference. Most fraud backers, when they cannot supply any science to support their position, either refuse or neglect to answer the question or they just go away. You chose to tell a blatant lie. When and where did you supply the reference, as you assert you did, big-mouth?

JF Aus

You keep pushing the view that alga creates warm, in that case why have experiments using iron filings been suggested as a means of geo engineering to pull CO2 out of atmosphere.

Leo Lane

Your usual aggressive outburst which displays no substance. You say you were a lawyer prior to retiring; and so, presumably would be able to make a good case. In your situation that is not so. Any number of times I have provided references to science. Your not a scientist and suggest you know better than the professionals.

For your arguments to have any foundation you need to show how various science disciplines disagree with man created climate change. We need evidence that after spending several years at University that young scientists graduating from numerous Universities around the planet would happily push your none science.

Scientists can identify the isotopes of CO2, and as a result its origin.
Measures of the forcing between radiated infrared and CO2 have been measured since 1979.
Underpinning those measures the 11 year ARM study conducted at two locations measured the forcing of radiated infrared and CO2.
References have been provided a number of times.

Fossil fuel companies must be very happy with you supporting them; they have spent millions on denier groups such as ALEC, Heartlands, Cato et al.
Between 1998 and 2014 , ExxonMobil paid $30,925,235 to denier groups, other fossil fuel companies have also contributed.
Scientists working for ExxonMobil in the 1970s held the view that man does have an impact on climate

@ant re JF Aus "that alga creates warmth/heat."

Of course this is nonsensical. Nothing is 'created' all heat/warmth from life forms - it is always the heat energy from the Sun transformed by biological life processes, it's why humans are at 37C - we don't 'create' heat energy out of nothing we transform 'stuff' that already exists .. behind all that is the SUN.

The only reaction that kind of 'creates' heat energy are nuclear reactors based on E=MC2 the transformation of Mass into Energy. Simple really. No energy from the Sun then there is no algae to begin with, nutrient runoff or not.

@LeoLane & to anyone else who thinks like him:

Well hello Leo Lane. If I have your meaning correct: I have/am a big mouth, make baseless assertions, tell lies, haven't provided refs, probably a fraud backer, can't supply any evidence, refuse/don't answer questions, tell blatant lies. Do I have that right?

re "When and where did you supply *the reference*, as you assert you did, big-mouth?"

There is no single reference, I never said there was. Seems to be something you just assumed *should be* the case. It isn't. I provided multiple refs as well as where to find the answers you seek.

You can find those refs/directions in my posts: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=69949

I think it's clear that your accusations are unfounded. Look closer! :-)

Or you could start here in 1856 in The American Journal of Science and Arts pg 377 - Papers published by Elisha & Eunice Foote REF: http://goo.gl/RG1Qmh - keep going until you get to the papers published in 2016. Human knowledge builds upon itself and get's better all the time despite any side-tracks and errors along the way. IT's there for the taking.

Maybe an analogy? All science (climate science) is like a giant Jigsaw Puzzle with millions of inter-connecting pieces. No single piece of the jigsaw puzzle proves how complete the whole picture is until they are all placed in the correct position and viewed as a whole.

con't/...

ant,

I think the geoengineering suggestion and experiment to grow algae in oceans to take up CO2 occurred at a time when nutrient pollution proliferating ocean algae was generally not known or seen.

Even in your comment above right here and now you refer to "the view" that algae creates warmth. It appears you are not seeing the evidence.
I think warmth in ocean algae is now more than a view, that is, if you consider the evidence I posted on page 17 of this OLO - Marohasy article thread.
I think warmth in ocean algae is now obvious.
To almost anyone following this thread I think the view could at least be most likely or apparent.

Changing tact somewhat, I would like to comment on your second para to Leo Lane, regarding disagreement within the various science disciplines.

I think a majority of scientists agree human activity is causing some change in weather and climate. e.g. It has been known for many years that removing forests has impact on rainfall and climate.
However I think most of those scientists do not agree CO2 emissions are causing global warming, i.e of the whole globe (AGW).

Initially in more recent years discussion was all about AGW but that focus seems to have morphed into discussion about Climate Change.

Evidence I observe indicates human activity is causing change in weather and climate in some regions but not globally at the same time. And I see evidence underwater as well as evidence above water.
I do not observe sea level rise occurring worldwide at the same time.

It's one thing to take action on the cause of global problem caused by a global gas, and I think it's another thing to take action on regional problems caused by nutrient overload pollution occurring sometimes in some regions.

Inaction and failure to reduce the nutrient load and curb impact and consequences is the most serious problem.

/con't

What Marohasy has done is taken one jigsaw puzzle piece labeled BOM, complained about her lack of access to the *pigments/knowledge* of that piece - she thinks she can see a speck of dirt.

Aha, she declares, the whole jigsaw puzzle image of a million pieces is a fraud!

That ain't 'science' that's just being silly. That the BOM/auditor general, Minister refuse an inquiry is proof there's a fraud to Marohasy and anyone silly enough to believe her. That ain't 'science' either!

Anyone who expects a single reference (or a few) to prove AGW/CC is more than silly. It doesn't work like that.

The IPCC summarizes thousands of papers, they compile the facts and the *message* into a meaningful whole. I have read every single page of every IPCC report. Have you?

I can understand what those reports are saying, and why, and have looked behind them into the published literature upon which those IPCC reports are based on. Could you do what I have done and understand it?

I gave you a ref to the IPCC didn't I and to Google Scholar? Are you so utterly incapable to go there yourself and read it for yourself? Apparently yes, you're incapable. You are not my problem.

Well listen closely Leo *I am not your slave!* I owe you nothing!

The climate scientists owe you nothing.

We've done the work, done the hard yards, invested the time to understand what is going on. It took me almost 10 years to get my head around everything, and still I know nothing compared to a working climate scientist.

I gave you links to ask them questions directly - why you asking me questions?

I provided many links that would put you onto that same journey that leads to the proofs of AGW/CC. Ignorance and laziness is not an acceptable excuse.

Do you imagine your comments upset me? Not in the least. You are as irrelevant to me as climate science is to you.

Do not blame me for your own failures and total lack of personal responsibility!
-