Hi JF Aus,
I apologise: for a moment I thought you were actually trying to find scientific evidence for your case. But I didn't notice it was a link Thomas had put up.

But that's the problem with you, isn't it? You don't link to peer-reviewed science to support your case, because there ISN'T ANY. You've got nothing, and I'm bored. Other than the pink algae on the ice, algae CANNOT be responsible for the warming we observe because they DON'T have a significant impact on the physics of heat retention, respond to climate change but don't cause it, and while damaging to some ecosystems, are not statistically significant enough to account for major albedo changes to the ocean. The ocean is already quite dark enough as it is.

Basically, I've linked to the peer-reviewed trials, 13 of them, which indicate that MORE algae would mean LOWER temperatures. It's up to you to put up or shut up. Please come up with a valid scientific data set or you're just another of a million internet trolls, and not worth our time.

@ Max Green, Sunday, 11 September 2016 12:41:43 PM

I suggest read the last sentence of the second paragraph at the link below, posted by Max Green as evidence of AGW.
I see no data collected in polar waters where ice is claimed to be melting due to CO2, and I think that is quite extraordinary. Surely data proving AGW would be sought and collected. But no, no data.
Could this be example selected data is being used to promote AGW?

Example of data not being seen and measured, is why temperature within massive algae blooms has apparently not been measured and assessed in relation to AGW.
Different algae species must have different albedo that is measurable. Difference in water temperature below the surface must be measurable, within such different blooms.
Has different albedo above algae blooms been measured and compared with temperature underwater within such blooms?

Some algae phytoplankton blooms are more white than dark green like others. There must be different reflection.
NASA images I have linked to on page 17 of this thread, clearly show the whiter coccolithaphore algae in the Bering Sea between Alaska and Russia. Here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=17

However sea surface temperatures in the following link page have been taken from the first millimetre of surface water, not within the ocean water body, or within the mass of algae in blooms.
The following link page also shows data is ‘missing’ from coasts of land masses, where other evidence indicates nutrient loads are elevated and algae is more prolific. Why is that data missing?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

Be aware of the laws of thermodynamics.
Science is aware that what goes in must come out.
Solar heat that goes into algae during photosynthesis must come out.
But how long does it take for solar heat to come out of algae after sundown, from particle of algae matter into molecule of water, seconds, minutes or hours?
Evidence I am aware of indicates four to five hours (summertime).
If anthropogenic nutrient pollution proliferated algae was not there, then THAT algae-associated residual heat would not be there.

John C Fairfax.
(not the newspaper)

JF,
So the bottom line is you're concerned about the oceans. That's good. But presenting weird arguments and then linking to sources that have nothing to do with your weird arguments is not convincing.

What you have to prove:
1. How would algae warm the oceans?
2. What is the physics? What is the evidence?
3. Is there even a correlation? EG: Have we increased anthropogenic algae above natural algae that would account for the warming we witness in the environment? What was the original algae load in the oceans, and what is it now?
4. How can you demonstrate that algae add an extra 4 HIROSHIMA BOMBS per second? (Same as 3 Christmas light globes per square metre of the earth's surface).
5. If algae are meant to generate so much heat, why are there actually so few of them? The following map shows the VAST majority of the earth's oceans to have less than THREE HUNDREDTHS of a GRAM of algae per CUBIC METRE OF WATER! That's only 0.03 grams / M3!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA
6. How do you discount the known physics of CO2? We KNOW what it does: it's nearly 200 years since we discovered it. Are you REALLY mad enough to suggest that 200 years of physics is just plain wrong, or some kind of conspiracy theory? Fourier discovered the Greenhouse effect in the 1820's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

Radiative Forcing Equation proves MORE CO2 = MORE HEAT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Until you can answer all the questions above, you don't have a case.

Well Max, I'm not sure whether you can't get this, are determined not to get it or do get it but aren't prepared to accept yet another instance where you misunderstood following your "outrageous" debacle, the misreading of the extra coastal land paper etc etc.

I suspect the later.

After I opine that the difference is that, while I'm primarily interested in what the paper has to say about the present levels of extremes on a global scale, you proceed to 'prove' me wrong by quotes regarding the future levels on a local scale.

Again AR5: ""In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century..." and lots of similar observations in that paper (which it'd be futile to mention yet again).

If I say the weather in WA today is bright and sunny, its rather incongruous to 'disprove' that by telling me the forecast for Sydney tomorrow is for rain. I suspect you get that but won't acknowledge it.

mhaze

You say:

"If I say the weather in WA today is bright and sunny, its rather incongruous to 'disprove' that by telling me the forecast for Sydney tomorrow is for rain. I suspect you get that but won't acknowledge it."

Your example doesn't make sense. It is mere sophistry having no bearing on the IPCC discussions.

The re-appearance of the "blob" is quite unexpected.

In 2014 and 2015 the so called "blob" off the West Coast of the US was having a huge impact on weather patterns off the West Coast of the USA. The "blob" was associated with drought in California. Already, the situation is quite grim in some areas where domestic water wells were failing in August 2016.

http://tularecounty.ca.gov/emergencies/index.cfm/drought/drought-effects-status-updates/2016/august/week-of-august-8-2016/

The "blob" had quite an impact on wild life and the shell fish industry.
Many ski fields did not gain enough snow.

The "blob" has returned, no La Nina weather pattern looks as though it will be appearing.

The reference provided suggests many of the matters already experienced in 2014 and 2015 will re-appear with the "blob" from now on.

It may have a negative impact on Lake Mead which was mentioned in a reference you provided, mhaze. The amusing part being you denied having provided that reference.

http://komonews.com/weather/scotts-weather-blog/cliff-mass-the-warm-blob-is-back-in-the-pacific-ocean

Hi Mhaze,
The Working Group is NOT talking about the future, but about the past.
I'll have to unpack all your cherrypicks here.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327516

YOUR FIRST CHERRYPICK:-
"In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due..."

Comes from page 162.

FULLER CONTEXT:-
“….to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.”

ALSO ON THE VERY SAME PAGE!
“It is very likely that the numbers of cold days and nights have decreased and the numbers of warm days and nights have increased globally since about 1950. There is only medium confidence that the length and frequency of warm spells, including heat waves, has increased since the middle of the 20th century mostly owing to lack of data or of studies in Africa and South America. However, it is likely that heatwave frequency has increased during this period in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia. {2.6.1}

Now, is “since 1950” the past or the future? ;-) Here’s the tip: don’t copy and paste from denialist trolls or you'll look like an idiot.