Thanks to a reader who just email me a link to this very relevant paper: http://tinyurl.com/p3jed53
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
G. V. CHILINGAR,L. F. KHILYUK,and O. G. SOROKHTIN2

Tin foil hat time again....The UN coming to take your children....

So begins the new Sophistry Parade of John Nicol and Jennifer Marohasy.

Things must be serious at 'DenierWorld Central' to be dusting off John Nicol again. Don't you have some calving to do on your farm John? Some grand kids to hang out with?

Marohasy's NON-PEER REVIEWED Energy Sources aka Taylor & Francis Ltd. 'ARTICLE' is NOT a "paper":

"According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere."

Something I and climate scientists didn't already know.

re "The present-day average surface temperature Ts  288 K and effective temperature Te  255 K."

Kinda interesting point could be - the TROPOSPHERE is not the earth's surface nor it's Temperature. Who knew? Climate scientists knew.

re "Global Atmospheric Cooling due to Increase in CO2 Content" pg 7.

Here they speak of the Atmosphere, they do not speak of the land/oceans surface temperature when humans , animals and vegetation lives.

Climate Science has said for DECADES that the GHG effect theoretically should lead to decreasing temps in the Upper ATMOSHERE

(which btw is part of the "atmosphere" referred to in the paper, ref'ed by our Jennifer *supposedly* a PhD biology (science) graduate.)

Knock me down with a feather if the satellites launched to measure and calculate such "temps" subsequently showed high atmospheric cooling exactly where it was "predicted" to happen.

Now if an emeritus Professor of Geology and a PhD of Biology cannot notice such flaws and intentional "DoubleSpeak" or "NewSpeak" in science papers, nor work this stuff out without assistance, nor help those lesser than they are learn something TRUE, then what chance do us poor humble citizens have of working it out by ourselves?

A next to nothing chance. I believe what John Howard and Tony Abbott believes ... whew, now I can go back to bed.

A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone.

A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.

Is it not true that there is sufficient low frequency radiation which CO2 can absorb, incoming from the sun to saturate the absorbance capacity of all the CO2 in the upper atmosphere?

This being the case, that CO2 has actually reduced the radiation reaching the surface, & reradiated at least half of it back into space, causing some minor cooling.

If the absorbance capacity of the CO2 is mostly saturated by the sun generated radiation, it can then have little capacity to absorb any outgoing radiation from the earths surface.

The way I see it, the CO2 has little capacity to do much at all other than intercept & effectively reflect some incoming radiation.

I wish someone who still has the capacity to do the math on this would do so. Heavy math at my age generates headaches.

Ah so, more Co2, cooler earth, Yes? Solar thermal furnace in waning (cooling) phase since the mid seventies, (NASA) cooler earth, yes?

So there is nothing to concern us here, not the melting of the formerly permanently frozen tundra, nor the ongoing disappearance of glacial ice the world over? Nor the rapid melting of the Iceland ice sheet, the disappearance of alaskan summer sea ice for the very first time in living memory?

All figments of overworked imaginations that simply can't happen because Co2 cools the planet and more of it results in a cooler planet, yes? Is that the assertion?

Not record breaking hottest year on record followed by more of the same! Other than overworked fevered imaginations, what are the answers to the aforementioned phenomena? Martins hiding on the dark side of the moon beaming martin microwaves (phaser guns) for their secret hiding places perhaps?

We have the (nuclear) science to extract Co2 from seawater and turn it into jet fuel? Meaning a nuclear powered aircraft carrier can make her aircraft fuel on the fly from abundant Co2 extracted directly from seawater? So it can't be all bad!? [Except perhaps for the fossil fuel industry that scuttlebbut suggests supplies your research grants?]

Suggest you see Professor Robert Hargraves (from Harvard?) on u tube in his cheaper than coal (3 cents per kilowatt hour) thorium lecture!
Have a nice day
Alan B.

Ah it must be that time of the year again,they have let the climate denial nutters out again,still to your right wing blog they are much more gullible over there

oh Jennifer please tell us that you are a supportive of that paper you posted.

For those of you playing at home this "paper" is so bad it promted a blog

http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com.au/2008/09/khilyuk-and-chilingar.html

An interesting read Jennifer although I didn't understand the maths in the paper.
What I really like is you introducing ideas and theories that get the alarmists knickers in a right old twist and I must say it doesn't take very much!

Cheers

Ross

JN & JM said: "Roberts would not purport to be the first to claim the atmosphere cools the surface of the earth that is warmed by the sun."

They proceed to have it with a few 'journalist's opinions'. I am not a journalist.

Quoting Roberts:
"It is basic. The sun warms the earth's surface. The surface, by contact, warms the moving, circulating atmosphere. That means the atmosphere cools the surface. How then can the atmosphere warm it? It cannot. That is why their computer models are wrong."

Is this really a reflection of the scientific knowledge and logic of JN and JM?

Follow closely because Nicol and Marohasy are supporting/agree with Robert's ludicrous beliefs.

1) Hot Sun heats earth surface makes it 'hot'
2) Cool atmosphere cools the earths surface, takes away the heat.
3) A century plus of Climate Science Knowledge must be wrong!

John Nicol physicist (ah?), please tell us what happens when air masses blow across the Antarctic, Greenland, Arctic Sea Ice, the Himalayas and mountains in NZ?

Seriously John and Jennifer, get a life. You are incompetent as climate scientists!

Now you may be stupid and ignorant or simply paid to act that way, but that's no reason for the rest of the planet to dumb themselves down to your level.

But yes you are correct on one thing. I have no respect for either of your qualifications, nor your capacity as operate as "paid shills" with unlimited grandiose egos, nor the content of any of your 'writings.'

You are no body of any importance. However, given your indomitable spirit I think you both (and John Abbot) would make very successful TV Evangelists.

You have all the right qualities necessary and the absence of ethics to make a small fortune by ripping off the gullible, unintelligent and naive of this world.

More info:
http://climatelab.com.au/the-team

http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPT2xYM2ViOVBwTU0

http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPbXkzb1RlVGJaZFU

Peer-review is not he only "quality" pointer. JM's ref was 'Cited by 7' over 9yrs. That means something especially HOW it was cited, agreed or not!
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=18284820513214899922&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

Oh the things this PhD Biology Graduate never tells her audience.
-

Wouldn't it be interesting if the global warming alarmist could actually discuss the science involved, rather than refer to academics authority or resort to abuse.

Guess I might as well sink to their level. Useful idiots all of them. Other than the academics. Most of them know damn well the thing is a rort, they use it to fund their institutions.

I'm still flummoxed as to how any engineer can make the statement "How can anything that cools the surface warm it? It can't."

I'd expect every engineer to know that an increase in the temperature of the coolant can warm the surface, as can a decrease in the flow rate of the coolant.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,

Interesting question.

Obviously the answer at night is no.
Rather less obviously, the answer in the daytime is also no.
Even in the daytime, more of the radiation that the CO2 can absorb is coming from below than above.

Malcolm Roberts has certainly put a lot of time into learning the truth about climate 'change' with none of the rent-seekers' motives. He is certainly going to be a thorn in the side of alarmist, controlling parliamentarians and their urgers and lobbyists.

HASBEEN. Your second post: pithy, accurate, pssssng in the wind tho old chap, the 'believers' have a religion wherein observations and mathematics are just a fantasy of the delusional.
Jennifer, as a highly qualified and published scientist, it concerns me that you should actually have an opinion at all! Your objection to the BOM spurious adjustments to the actual temperature data is heretical. There orta be a law about that sort of thing. Or perhaps an 'impartial review' by BOM?

John Ryan,

If it is acceptable for you to call people "climate change nutters" for their beliefs, it is also acceptable for them to call you a moron for your beliefs. There's a good chance that, if you ceased abusing people who don't hold your opinions, they woul not call you a moron.

Because, John, anyone who does call current climate/weather a 'change' when nature is just doing what has always done, is rather moronic.

Been there and done that.

61 pages discuss a Marohasy 'climate science' article where ~97% of the content thoroughy debunks Marohasy's ludicrous claims and delusional beliefs.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=1

After the 3rd page Marohasy disappeared from 'the scene of the crime' never to be heard of again.

Disappears again at pg3 - is she a Page Girl? :-)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18490

No, she's more like the French Underground in WW2 - a hit and run merchant, but this time for deceit. All three Nicol, Marohasy, and Abbot need to be classified as 'Terrorising Truth Insurgents' imo.

Take a dump here, take a dump there, then run away to the 'echo chambers' of their religiously held beliefs, totally unable and unprepared to defend themselves.

Gosh, I'd convict them on the sole basis of their profound incompetence alone. Their decades of deceptions and manipulation of readers would merely be icing on the cake.

Where is that "refusal doc" by the Audit Office (ANAO) not to investigate the BOM I asked for? :-)

http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Request-Audit-BOM-Marohasy-Ver2.pdf
and
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/06/audit-general-dismisses-need-for/

Marohasy Quote: "This requested (sic) was rejected without any consideration of the evidence."

Oh really, how 'terrible that sounds' Marohasy. But you fail to tell your readers precisely why the ANAO rejected your request "without any consideration of the evidence."

Now why would that be Marohasy?

Let's see if you can TELL THE TRUTH, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before I do and make a total liar out of you once and for all forever.

Publish a scan of that rejection letter in full - I dare ya to! :-)

Can you type a truthful response Marohasy without gagging, twitching or blushing bright purple?

aka "how to lie the truth" - research it
http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=how%20to%20lie%20by%20telling%20the%20truth

Learn about the things in this book:

"Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage" by Paul Ekman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman
http://www.paulekman.com/
http://www.strategicliving.org/reviews/TellingLies.php

You will then understand and recognise the tools used by Marohasy, and every other climate science denier, fossil fuel PR rep, the unethical paid shills and mentally corrupted incompetent ignorant politicians such as John Howard was and still is!
-

Ah so, more radiant heat cooler upper atmosphere? And borne out by measurements of the upper atmosphere above the equator (70C below zero) and above the arctic. (40C below zero) The reason for this phenomena?

Increased retained heat equates to increased global convection and consequently tropical air rising to higher colder limits! And given what goes up must also come down, it does so where it is coldest! You guessed it, over the arctic ice as descending air first warmed by tropical extremes first!

Consequently the inverse reading of the air above the tropics and descending as warmer air above the ice!

! And explains why we seem to be measuring increased wind speeds as the average the world over? And just not possible as evidence of increased global convection, if we are being cooled as alleged by the "climate scientists" who authored this article!

Maybe those pesky martians have a cloaked and extraordinarily powerful wind machine? As separate from the bag of wind blowing big from the depths of the senate?

And likely what you'd expect when there's not enough room for both the man and his overblown, over inflated ego in the same room at the same time?
Alan B.

"The standard hypothesis has, at its core, the unproven assumption that the heat-energy absorbed by the increase in carbon dioxide distributed throughout the atmosphere, leads to re-radiation with half of this re-radiation directed downwards"
This standard hypothesis seems a bit flat earthy. As seen looking side on to a CO2 molecule up high in the air, above our near sphere, would there not be more up than down to radiate at? Thus more than half goes out because five sixths will miss the planet at the EXACT directions of three dimensions. Five directions out of Up, left, right, foward, back and down. The sise of the hit area from any angle between the horizontals and "down" would depend on altitude.

"One Nation and Malcolm Roberts queries United Nations" - Pauline Hansen says: "Now we are in danger of being swamped by Muslims, who bear a culture and ideology that is incompatible with our own."

No one who supports One Nation's rhetoric and Policy could rationally support the State of Israel. No one who believes in the values expressed by Roberts and Hansen could logically refuse to support the cause of the Palestinians.

Since the 1930s the Palestinians have been literally "swamped by Jews, who bear a culture and ideology that is incompatible with their own."

No one could fail to be enraged by the fledgling UN deciding to impose a Partition Plan upon the people of Palestine!

What if the UN/UNSC passed a Resolution today to Partition Australia between Muslims and Non-Muslims?

From the start of The 1948 Arab–Israeli War the Jewish leadership in Palestine instigated a systemic pogrom of ethnic cleansing of Palestinian CIVILIANS destroying their homes businesses villages and stealing their property wholesale - telling them to LEAVE their own homeland.

That's a War Crime and a Crime against humanity.

A One Nation supporter would not accept that the UN or Muslims have a right send Australian residents to NZ or Indonesia. Why was it OK for the Jews or UN to that to the Arabs in 1947/48?

You must be a supporter of Palestinian Rights to Self-determination, their LAND and CULTURE as it was in May 1948. No excuses are acceptable.

If such acts are a crime against Australian rights so it was upon civilians living in Palestine in 1947-1948.

So I will look forward to hearing Hansen and Roberts to expose the Myths that Israel is a legitimate nation State in May 1948 and today.

If you are experiencing some unsettled feelings it may be Cognitive Dissonance - "...the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time."
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm
-

There are some who reject facts, logic and ethics instead choosing live inside the fantasy bubble of an ancient belief system.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18514
-

Aidan says
"I'd expect every engineer to know that an increase in the temperature of the coolant can warm the surface, as can a decrease in the flow rate of the coolant."
Aidan would not warmer coolant radiate more heat out to space? What good would a coolant be if it did not warm?
Also how can increasing the quantity of the coolant be compared to decreasing the flow rate? If CO2 can radiate up and out then more of it can radiate more out. I can see that more coolant would even out the temperatures and reduce extremes but the global effect would be a reduction due to more heat leaving from the coolant.

Oh dear we still have men arrogant enough to think they can regulate the climate. Obvously the same dumbed down crowd who deny laws require a Lawmaker, complex design requires a Designer and morality requires a Moral Being. Oh well if they can't accept these simple facts they will continue with the earth worshippers religion based largely on fraud.

The idea that CO2 can act as a coolant was used here by NASA as they struggled to cope with how powerful the effect of the solar cycle was on the thermosphere.
They say
"When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation. It is widely-known that CO2 levels have been increasing in Earth's atmosphere. Extra CO2 in the thermosphere could have magnified the cooling action of solar minimum."
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/

Why are we reading articles like this? what is the four trillion dollar per fossil fuel industry so concerned about?

How about thorium? Created in solar nova expansions. Abundant, cheap and easily recovered! Something roughly the size of a plump cheery, enough to power your home and transport options for a hundred years and the ball of thorium large enough to do so would cost just one hundred dollars to refine?

[Child's play any kid with high school science could manage!] That's just a dollar a year to power your home and transport for a hundred years!

And there's enough of this easily recovered material in the ground to power the entire world for a thousand years!?

Molten salt reactors, working in normal atmospheric pressure, can be massed produced and sent everywhere in stock standard shipping containers! And the good news doesn't end there, given enough cheap, clean, inherently safe energy, we can end want and wars!

Moreover, these things can burn more than thorium producing comparatively tiny amounts of far less toxic waste, but can do double duty and burn existing nuclear waste to reduce the half life to just three hundred years!

The seriously threatened fossil fuel industry relies on the word nuclear power summoning up imagines of Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Chernobyl Fukushima etc! To get the usual suspects and their ideological dogma back on the campaign trail doing their PR work for them!

We should have a nuclear industry and import and reburn nuclear waste to reduce the half life of this waste from current thousands of years, right down to around three hundred, and have the rest of the worldpay us billions for doing so! All while we power up our economy, virtually for free!?

Yes, self evidently some of our pollies are patently in the pockets of the foreign fossil fuel industry?

Otherwise what I'm advocating would be our current reality!? As opposed to the usual obtuse obfuscation by obdurate organisms!?

Get on U tube and get fully informed, if only to understand what's really rattling the chain of the fossil fuel advocates?
Alan B.

1. On the mechanism of radiation emitted from the ground, meeting a place in the atmosphere where half goes to space and half downwells (simply put). That half that goes down repeats the cycle and so there is a series whereby ½, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 etc of the original is lost to space.
If you sum this series it comes back to unity, meaning that by this simple maths the said atmospheric layer might as well not be there. Of course, effects like advection complicate the maths and might mean that they have to be investigated separately to this simple series sum.

2. Re 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it is not needed to invoke this because it is a given that the air cools the earth. It is a given that overall, heat moves from the earth to the air, because of the non-accumulation of the continuous generation of earth heat meeting the air - the air which has a mechanism such as radiation to space to cool itself and the solid/liquid earth. Note however, that the details of the earth are visible by eye to astronauts outside the atmosphere, so a significant amount of outgoing radiation is in the visible light region. Not all is in the infra red. So the earth can also radiate directly to space, whether there are GHG present or not.
Geoff Sherrington, scientist

On heat transfer, there are texts full of classic heat transfer equations. Some of the work on borehole temperature maths gives these in a similar setting to the one you mention, heat being lost from earth (its radioactive and remnant components, tidal heating if significant), interfacing with the land/air boundary. The full atmosphere has a temperature gradient that is quite complex and influenced by many factors like ozone etc. At the interface, there is a simple concept of a sharply decreasing earth temperature over the last several hundred metres to the surface, exponential if you like, abutting a cooling sink (the air). The amount the sink cools the earth depends on factors like its temperature at a given time. If the air temperature remains higher/lower than normal for a significant period (significant as in being able to measure it confidently), the earth’s near surface cooling curve simply moves the curve’s starting point deeper or shallower into the earth and its finishing point, at the exit temperature to the air, higher/lower to follow the air temp movement. There is no question that the air cools the earth at this interface, because if it did not there would be a steady heat accumulation that is not observed. If you like, the near-surface earth acts as a buffer to hold variations in the cooling ability of the air from time to time.

A challenge has been put out to Roberts by a Geologist:

http://theconversation.com/our-planet-is-heating-the-empirical-evidence-63990

Anybody who holds the number of conspiracies held by Roberts, can not be taken seriously.

A clip showing the action of light and CO2:

http://vimeo.com/32056574

The 11 year ARM study provides greater sophistication in showing forcing in the natural environment.

Disagree with the experiments and studies, please produce experiments that CO2 and radiated infrared do not create warmth. Just verbiage/sophistry is a non-answer.

sherro1
Speed is the main thing. It takes 100,000 or so years from the centre of the sun's gas. The moon is quicker :
" When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The "dark side of the moon" can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C)."
easy come, easy go. Probably a couple of minutes ?
For a 1 degree rise in this place there must be a tiny decrease in speed of yesterday's heat leaving. ( even if heat cools faster from a higher temp). Maybe someone compared sun's gas density : speed with change on earth.

You reference geophysicist Dr Sandiford writing in The Conversation.
A few posts back from here, I gave a description of processes that are completely at ease with Dr Sandiford' description.
What was the purpose of quoting Dr Sandiford in respect of processes found in text books?

The hound says:” Tin foil hat time again.”
I knew the hound was deficient in the top storey, but was not aware of the depth of his stupidity.
I thought Max Green was the only one to use this particularly stupid fraud promoter’s slogan.
It is no surprise that the IPCC have been shown to be wrong again.
When they predicted global warming because of the increase in CO2, global warming stopped. Their unproven hypothesis on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere has failed.
The surprise will be if they are ever proved to be right about anything.
John Ryan shows that the fraud promoting nutters are active with his particularly incoherent post.
Bigmouth O'Reilly is out again with reams of irrelevance and lies. It is pointless to direct a rational statement to him as he is incapable of rational behaviour, aren't you, bigmouth.

Sliggy, the coolant is a metaphor. The point is, increasing the temperature of the coolant flowing in would reduce its ability to absorb heat, even though once it's hotter it would indeed radiate out more heat.

To put it in more general terms, every engineer should know that any change that reduces a dynamic system's ability to lose heat cools it.

And yes there is (very slightly) more up than down to radiate at.

And you're correct that the thermosphere is cooled by CO2 – but there's so little CO2 (and indeed so little of any substance) in the thermosphere that its effect on temperatures below is negligible.

________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,

Looking at, and exaggerating the significance of things that climatologists are already aware of, treating it as a new discovery and coming to easily debunked conclusions is not actually "learning the truth". You only think he's learned the truth because his conclusions fit your prejudices.

________________________________________________________________________________

runner,

If people pointed out that human activities including pollution and overfishing are affecting the squid population, would you accuse them of being arrogant enough to think they can regulate the squid population?

If not, why do you make similar accusations relating to climate?

________________________________________________________________________________

Leo Lane,

I pointed out a few months ago that the blog post on which you had based your accusation that "global warming stopped" was years out of date and the conclusion was now untenable – global warming continues and the notion that it had ever stopped was just an artefact of using cherry picked statistics.

So why do cling to the silly belief that it's stopped when the evidence clearly shows otherwise?

Air cools stuff as it passes over or through it. Were this not so, our radiator cooled engines would overheat. Blowing on the soup spoon cools the soup, and as warm air passes over water, some of the retained heat is transferred to the water, which is also heated by direct solar radiation.

Turn on a fan and soon your sweat soaked body starts to cool as the moisture on your person starts to evaporate, to add to the atmospheric moisture.

Endlessly repeatable experiments, which produce endlessly repeatable results are the very cornerstone of good science!

Several samples of air can be collected and contained as measured cubic metre samples; with the Co2 content removed the drop in measured temperature is just 0.05C, whereas, with the moisture content evacuated, the fall is 30C! Repeat all day to get exact same result!

Proving that the real GHG, may well be H2o? And seen during the dead of winter, when a cloudless night, even in the inland tropics, can produce frost. Conversely an overcast night is generally considerably warmer.

Co2 is an excellent fertilizer, which promotes verdant plant growth, (the greenhouse effect) and increased plant growth generally equates to additional moisture aspiration via the lush improved growth. Thus increasing the atmospheric moisture content or humidity. Which then, just as we see on an overcast night, increased humidity equates to higher temperatures, thanks to the thermal blanket that is atmospheric moisture.

Wind action can and does transfers some of this heat to water, which reacts by producing further increased atmospheric humidity!

Round and round it goes, where it ends nobody knows! In the interim, none of our prospects or economy will be harmed by the rollout of thorium based cheap, clean and inherently safe energy! Just the very opposite! Now tell me Jenny, what the deleted expletive is your problem with that!?
Alan B.

Aiden says
"Sliggy, the coolant is a metaphor. The point is, increasing the temperature of the coolant flowing in would reduce its ability to absorb heat, even though once it's hotter it would indeed radiate out more heat"
Aiden says
To put it in more general terms, every engineer should know that any change that reduces a dynamic system's ability to lose heat cools it.
While it could simply be said that CO2 increases the systems ability to lose heat. It is better with your metaphor to point out that engineers will introduce a nonlinear feedback regulator to stabilise a dynamic system. In an internal combustion vehicle this nonlinear regulator device is the thermostat. If CO2 truly has a nonlinear reducing warming effect as the IPCC says it does then driving the atmospheric level up forces the system into the operating range of this thermostat.
However if the sun is causing the warming and CO2 causes cooling then we also need to drive the level up. Likewise if the solar decline is going to cause cooling and CO2 causes warming then we need to drive the levels up. The planet has survived the increase to 400PPM well, so not driving the level up beyond saturation as it has been in the distant past seems to be a risk not worth taking.

Alan B says
"on an overcast night, increased humidity equates to higher temperatures, thanks to the thermal blanket that is atmospheric moisture"
The extra cloud, the water vapour produced as CO2 helped to reverse desertification and end world hunger in your example, would reduce temperatures via albedo. A win win. Yet another reason to drive CO2 levels up.
If want a 50MW thoruim reactor right now are there any working for a year or two without problems?

I feel that Malcolm Roberts may be a little too exhuberent in delivering his message, even verging on some exagerrations, but on the other hand some noted alarmist scientists have openly declared that it is OK to exaggerate in order to get their beliefs out to the to the public. It has worked quite well for them, for instance take this opening line from the article above:

“…Guardian Australia's environmental reporter Michael Slezak, could have sought expert advice…”

Sleszaks online article opens with the compulsory photo of BACKLIT menacing looking “smoke contamination” billowing from a bunch of WATER COOLING TOWERS and grinds on with other grossly misleading exaggerations, and omits important contrary information. This prompted me to email him; transcript follows with links rather than images:

“Dear Mr Slesak,
Re your article online,
Could you please clarify a couple of points.

1), WRT the following headline photo:
http://tinyurl.com/jzr3qb3

Are you aware that that menacing looking backlit “black smoke” is actually condensing water vapour from water cooling towers?
2), Why did you not show one of the satellite data sets which contradict the highly adjusted (AKA as homogenised) data from GISS (NASA)? Here is the UAH version (RSS is similar):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2016_v6.jpg
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

The UK Met office data (not shown by you)
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png
is less extreme in its adjustments than GISS and is also contradicted by UAH and RSS which clearly show a plateau in warming since around 1997 (and the spike from the 2015/16 El Nino; a natural event; is rapidly diminishing).
3), A colleague of mine tells me that he raised half a dozen comments mentioning like things but is currently only able to find one surviving. Now why would that be?

Me? I’ve been thoroughly turned off by the lack of balance at The Guardian and don’t visit anymore.

Yours sincerely,
Bob Fernley-Jones, (mechanical engineer retired, Melbourne)”

Continued:

Perhaps the grand oracles of doom here, (apparently all devoid of any scientific training) might care to open the HadCrut4 global surface temperature graph and note that the 1998 El Nino boldly stands out. However, in contradiction it has disappeared in Slezak’s GISS presentation. It is being more quietly whittled away by the Met Office too, for instance check their earlier HadCrut3 version. Meanwhile both RSS and UAH satellite data show 1998 as inconveniently very proud indeed.

Alan B,

It is well known that water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But the amount of H2O in our atmosphere is self limiting because it condenses into clouds. The slight warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases results in more H2O being held in the atmosphere in vapour form. So H2O's main effect is to amplify the warming rather than cause it in the first place. Although there are concerns regarding aircraft emissions of H2O in the stratosphere, particularly at night.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Sliggy,

Don't forget we're only influencing the climate – we don't have the ability to actually control it!

Your "operating range of this thermostat" comment makes no sense at all. Climatologists know for sure that CO2 has a warming effect, amplified by H2O.

CO2 in the thermosphere has a cooling effect on the thermosphere and a warming effect on everything else, as the thermosphere's heat comes from solar energy and particles from space interacting with particles in the thermosphere. But as the thermosphere holds only 0.002% of the gas in the atmosphere, its effect on overall temperatures is negligible.

Aidan,

And the proven lies you believe don't fit your prejudices? You live and breath crap, you Marxist fool.

Siliggy, as I understand it the very first thorium reactor was built in Oak Ridge Tennessee, and ran for five years without a single problem? Until Nixon, with as much scientific knowledge as your average troglodyte, pulled the funding! How clueless was that!?

You see, in a molten salt reactor the fuel is already molten and the simple design is walk away safe! It operates at normal atmospheric pressure, so there is no inherent pressure to be contained in a pressure chamber and inside a hardened building.

The Indians are said to be working on a 300 MW prototype and suggest it'll be operational this year? The chinese are also beavering away at this technology, given its pollution free promise?

The early prototypes were around 40 MW, which can be mass produced for far less cost than any conventional reactor! Used in parallel 10 (shipping container sized) units i.e., can become a 400MW power plant! And for far less than any comparable coal fired or conventional power plant!

They can therefore be trucked or shipped almost anywhere, even a waterless desert, given heat transfer can be accomplished with gas, say helium.

Of additional interest, nuclear technology has enabled science to turn Co2 into a compressible liquid and a possible forerunner of man made hydrocarbon fuel?

Apparently we can already extract copious Co2 from seawater far out at sea to make jet fuel!?

Don't take my word for it, get on u tube and listen to the TEDx lectures.

I understand the Indians have incorporated at least one into a conventional reactor to burn the waste they create from that.

Suggest you get on u tube and listen to highly credentialled experts giving their TEDx lectures at Copenhagen, so you and any other interested party can become more fully informed. Then if that's your pleasure, challenge their knowledge?

Once we the people are fully informed we can demand of the do nothing pollies, Just don't do something, stand there!
Alan B.

Aidan,
Something that you seem to be unaware of is that the IPCC cites Kevin Trenberth’s ‘Earth energy Budget’ to show that ~50% of the heat leaving the surface is from evapotranspiration (coming largely from the oceans), assisted by 11% from its partner; convection. The total balance is from ALL infrared radiation which is given as only 39%, of which 64%% escapes directly to space through ‘transparent windows’ in the absorption spectra. That leaves only 14% of surface heat loss via ALL GHG radiation of which CO2 is a small part. At the TOA the total heat loss from all EMR, including reflections is obviously 100%.

There is no dispute that CO2 is a GHG and will nominally result in warming, however not all feedbacks contributing to NET OUTCOMES are positive (amplifying).

What climate alarmists are not keen to discuss or research is that if surface temperature increases, so too will evapotranspiration and convection, probably further AIDED by increased advection (winds). Given that the great majority of the current heat loss is from evapotranspiration and convection, it seems likely that there is a big negative feedback.

This would be regarded by most alarmists as very, very inconvenient information.

You can trust the following source for the IPCC/Trenberth’s analysis because it comes from Skeptical Science:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tracking_Earths_Energy.htm

@Armchair Critic, what Kerry says is reasonably correct (for a politician). The Climate Science has been saying that for, gosh, at least the last 20 years! Your problem is that you still do not understand what is "really" being said and already well known. Educate yourself better. Ask for help from those who do know what you do not.

@Aidan: "It is well known that water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse (effect) gas than carbon dioxide."

Yes, and they also know that ALL heat is generated by the Sun and if it wasn't for our Atmosphere we'd already be fried and frozen daily.

Unfortunately the ignorant denier dweebs here do not have a clue about anything. Well except for generating hot air from their bowels and mouths on a daily basis.

@ttbn, you are 'crap'! And a gutless coward who is an abject Idiot! Go be a abusive cyber-stalking Troll somewhere else. In your own toilet closet and disconnected from the internet preferably.

@Bob Fernley-Jones, it is a criminal offense to impersonate others. Please stop trying to masquerade as someone with intelligence or who has true knowledge about Climate Science.

Skeptical Science was created to assist people like yourself. It's loaded with Volunteers willing to answer questions by those who do not have a clue. It is perfect for people like you, once you are willing to accept that you you are not very intelligent, and you don't know shite about Climate Science.

God gave us all two ears and two eyes so we could listen and learn twice as much as we are able speak. Try it one day. Silence is golden!

Sceptics might be interested in looking at an article 13/9/16 In "NoTricksZone". It deals with a bloke who cooked the Books on the subject on Wikipeda. Climate hysterics and bulldusters should avoid it for health reasons.

Jennifer Marohasy PhD states:

"I made a request for the same in a letter to Grant Hehir, Auditor-General of Australia, with supporting information on 11th November 2015. This requested was rejected without any consideration of the evidence."

re her posting
Auditor-General Dismisses Need for Scrutiny of Bureau’s Homogenization Methodology
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/06/audit-general-dismisses-need-for/

I ask again of Marohasy: WHY ARE YOU LYING ABOUT and SPREADING DISINFORMATION OF THIS MATTER TO THE PUBLIC?

WHY ARE YOU INTENTIONALLY NOT TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT THIS MATTER?

Could it be that you and John Abbot are not as clever as you imagined you were, and foolishly believed that you would not be caught out being intentionally deceptive to your readers and the public?

Or that if you were, it would not matter anyway?

Why does the IPA engage the services of a paid Research Fellow like Marohasy when she is provably dishonourable, dishonest and unethical?

Why does the IPA pay for a Research Fellow who makes false statements to the public about the BOM and the ANAO and their staff?

Or does the IPA also have no ethics or integrity?

-

AN IDIOTS GUIDE TO CLIMATE SCIENCE and Global Climate Models
By Gavin Schimdt, a real qualified sientist at NASA/GISS
http://www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change

That talk was obviously made for the benefit of people such as Emeritus Prof John Nicol (Geologist) and Jennifer Marohasy PhD (Biology).

Here are few more instructional videos along the lines of An IDIOTS GUIDE TO CLIMATE SCIENCE - the target market is obviously right here!

Climate Science 1956: A Blast from the Past
http://youtu.be/sdALFnlwV_o

CO2 & the Atmosphere
http://youtu.be/E9eGzPxA1Dg

Welcome to the Anthropocene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGtCkv7_nIs

Greenland: A Ring of Mountains
(with a 3klm thick ice sheet the size of QLD)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmC7-DrAuJU

'Demise of the Great Barrier Reef' - 2016 Coral Bleaching Event
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY9p746teHE

The End of the Line.Documentary 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZdUSi9z38Y

Global warming & overfishing: SEA THE TRUTH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V325y7QCg3c

The Arctic's Record Breaking Ice Melt 2012 (2016 #2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaKqhRTqSlg

Climate, Ice, and Weather Whiplash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7EHvfaY8Zs

Frozen Planet Ep No. 2
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsdlvl_frozen-planet-ep-no-2_shortfilms
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p011vc1z

Peter Ward Our Future In a World Without Ice Caps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtHlsUDVVy0&feature=youtu.be&t=32m22s
-

More From the IDIOT'S GUIDE to CLIMATE SCIENCE for Nicol, Marohasy et al

aka a Video Treatise for the 'Not Knower'

The 2013 Annual GWPF Lecture - John Howard Showing how much of an unintelligent gullible fool he is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJwDwLabGCc

Ove Hoegh Guldberg - Climate change in the ocean - the big picture?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osOmoq-0fhk

Kevin Anderson 'Rhetoric to Reality'
http://youtu.be/KumLH9kOpOI

Medieval Warm Period -- fact vs. fiction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

No Slowdown in Global Warming (2013 old news)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=047vmL6Q_4g

Noam Chomsky: How Climate Change Became a 'Liberal Hoax'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUA4cm0Rck

A New Climate State: Arctic Sea Ice 2012
http://youtu.be/ZYaubXBfVqo

Hans Rosling - 200 years of global change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grZSxoLPqXI

Global Warming: An Uncontrolled Experiment
http://youtu.be/XygKbidDD0I

"We Have To Consume Less": Scientists Call For Radical Economic Overhaul to Avert Climate Crisis (POLAND COP 2013)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEQ7cOUjwgM

"Time is Running Out: Ecology or Economics?" - David Suzuki
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wtUMM8SDws

Climate Change: Next Generation Nuclear Power (Catalyst ABC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JijgbC8uNRo

LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

World's First NUCLEAR SALT REACTOR Documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTrg9_mrNSQ

ThEC13 - Thorium Energy R&D in China
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9KCJ-yNAyg

Enough Is Enough: Full Film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ-LYElvtEU

Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite Resources
http://steadystate.org/discover/enough-is-enough/

George Lakoff: Moral Politics (old news 2008 but Facts don't Change)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM

What is "Capitalism 3.0"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdRHKp--elw

Who is Afraid of the Big Bad Climate?
What is the Worst That Global Warming Could Do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_Fvs48hb4

CO2 is CO2 is CO2 - Science Literacy Public Outreach for Universities
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_Fvs48hb4&feature=youtu.be&t=35m13s

Communicating Climate Science: A Historic Look to the Future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_-8u86R3Yc

Dr. Michael Mann - Are We In Runaway Climate Change?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYztqmno6jw

AUSTRALIANS FOR COAL. What is your investment dollar doing?
http://youtu.be/tqXzAUaTUSc

50% of global CO2e comes from only 10% of the population
Kevin Anderson March 2016
Implementation of the COP21 Paris Agreement, a scientific perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJ8lMIm9-c&feature=youtu.be&t=36m53
-

Thomas O'Reilly

This might be relevant: to help you improve your writing style.

"... Read the source however many times it takes to be able to tell others what the source says, without looking at the source.Paraphrasing means you use the source’s ideas, but you put those ideas into your own words and sentence structure." from https://www.coursehero.com/file/p3lf8nv/Is-CUTTING-AND-PASTING-a-good-idea-PARAPHRASING-Determine-that-the-source-is/

Otherwise, it's as though you can't process information, or think for yourself. You can think for yourself, right?

Thomas Oh Really says
"Yes, and they also know that ALL heat is generated by the Sun and if it wasn't for our Atmosphere we'd already be fried and frozen daily."
Right after saying
"Please stop trying to masquerade as someone with intelligence or who has true knowledge about Climate Science."
Looks like the old "Pride goes before a fall" is true.
Here are a few of the myriads of other sources of Heat on our planet.
"Like a hybrid car, it taps two sources of energy to run its “engine” – primordial from assembling the planet and nuclear from the heat produced during natural radioactive decay.

They may be able to quatify this by 2025?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14735543.Amount_of_fuel_left_in_Earth_s__tank__will_be_known_by_2025/

Now this one might be via the sun but it may not
"The four planets that influence the most the solar surface through tidal forcing seem to affect the Earth climate. "
http://gpcpublishing.com/index.php?journal=gjp&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=443

A lot of the tremendous energy released by a lightning strike could also come from deep space.
"Scientists have come up with a few possible explanations for how lightning gets going, and the new technique could eventually discern between the options. One is that chunks of ice and water in a storm concentrate the fields, creating small regions that are strong enough to spark. Another controversial idea is that cosmic rays themselves might initiate lightning, thanks to the charged particles they leave in their wake."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/cosmic-rays-could-reveal-secrets-lightning-earth
Thomas and the IPCC will need to wait untill the science is settled for all the above. Oh but wait there is more.

Keep Shrugging Thomas. Here is some more heat for you.
Starlight is bringing us heat from outside our solar system.
"If the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night."
Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox#/media/File:Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif

Ok we all know that gravity waves have been detected recently. Do we know how much heat they transfer to us?

Aidan above has said "heat comes from solar energy and particles from space interacting with particles in the thermosphere."
Thanks Aiden.

Now if one hundred billion neutrinoes go through our thumbnail every second and then right on through the planet or vice versa, do we know how much energy they transfer to the planet via non contact magnetics? What about how much they transfer to our Van Allen belts?
"Energy and momentum losses in the process of neutrino scattering on plasma electrons with the presence of a magnetic field."
"The results we have obtained demonstrate that plasma in the presence of an external magnetic field is more transparent
for neutrino than non-magnetized plasma."
http://cds.cern.ch/record/581549/files/0209196.pdf
Oh just call it trivial and ignore it even if it could be more energy than we get from the sun.

Then there is dark energy. Does anyone know what it does, what it is and if it exists?

Jennifer,
I stopped reading O'Reilly’s posts during your last essay here when I learnt that when he is presented with incontrovertible evidence contrary to his agenda here, he either does not respond, changes the subject or presents a tirade of irrelevant links, or abuse and whatnot other distractions.
For instance, I‘ve no idea if he tried to look at the UK Met office graph cited above although I notice the link I provided is inactive and would need to be pasted into a browser which might be a tough ask for him. Here it is clean (hopefully):

http//crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png

If it fails again just paste it into a browser.

I wonder if others here predicting a horrible death for their grandchildren have no desire to learn that that may not be the case.

It is funny how when a challenge is put to provide experiments to show that CO2 has no impact on radiative forcing none have been provided, says it all.

On 16/9 at 7.19pm:

A clip showing the action of light and CO2:

http://vimeo.com/32056574

The 11 year ARM study provides greater sophistication in showing forcing in the natural environment.

Disagree with the experiments and studies, please produce experiments that CO2 and radiated infrared do not create warmth. Just verbiage/sophistry is a non-answer.

Not able to do so, then denier arguments are but a facade without foundations.

AGW CO2 science cannot produce experiment or any evidence to show how greenhouse gas increases sea surface temperature in different locations but not globally at the same time.

Ant,
You have a huge misconception there. I would think that at least 97% of sceptics fully appreciate that CO2 is a GHG and that it has been proved to be so in lab experiments. The issue for that majority is; what is its NET EFFECT in an extremely complex system? There are small groups that deny GHG warming but mainstream sceptics disagree. (e,g “The Dragonslayers”, Doug Cotton and the gravitational guys like Nikolov and Zeller).

The problem is in the extreme complexity of the system and the fact that in the total thermodynamics and other dynamics such as ocean circulation causing regionalization and whatnot, the proportion of heat transfer via CO2 is tiny (See IPCC/Trenberth Earth Energy Budget above). There are many ‘poorly understood’ phenomena (admitted by the IPCC and other authorities) such as cloud cover and evapotranspiration involving negative feedbacks. That is one reason why thousands of climate scientists are still working on something that paradoxically is claimed to be “debate over”.

You ask for sceptics to produce an experiment to prove that CO2 does not cause warming! That is simply not possible because of the vast complexity of the system. In the same way, climate scientists cannot design an experiment to prove their case either, (and if they could they would become unemployed). There is no significant empirical evidence either. THAT IS WHY they resort to COMPUTER MODELS that involve estimates for ‘poorly understood’ phenomena of great complexity. Unfortunately those models still cover a wide range of predictions and are way-off from the observational trends.

Finally, perhaps you can take comfort that the 2015/16 “Super El Niño” (as described by Kevin Trenberth) which is another ‘poorly understood’ ENTIRELY NATURAL event is declining rapidly (and it is very likely that 2017 will be cooler based on typical past ENSO trends).

PS ‘poorly understood’ is a technical term to describe something that may have well-understood effects but for which the causes are unknown

Can anybody tell me what the negative consequences might be of treating human induced climate change as real, regardless of whether it is or not? In other words, what are the costs associated with taking steps to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions? Conversely, what are the positive consequences of doing so?

Similarly, what are the relevant negative and positive consequences of treating human induced climate change as not real?

Thanks, I'm sure the people here will have that sort of information at their fingertips.

Craig, Others may wish to respond to you with the actual dollar cost of subsidising, for example, wind energy and in the process forcing up the cost of electricity for all. But I've always been even more concerned about the cumulative costs to societies, families and individuals when we are blind to the truth. Science has always been about getting to the truth of the matter: a byproduct has been the innovative technologies that even enable me to communicate with you (across a great distance and almost instantaneously) via the internet. But now, you are suggesting this truth is irrelevant... indeed it would appear that you, and may others, would like us to adopt a sort of postmodernist approach to science where we accept only that information that supports the utopia you have dreamed of. I would also caution, that you becareful what you wish for.

Jennifer, I'm not sure how you arrived at that rather insulting conclusion from my question. I'm simply trying to understand what the scale of the problem that's being argued over might be, without the rather silly resort to partisan abuse about irrelevancies.

There is and has been an enormous amount of time and energy spent arguing about whether human induced climate change is real or not. It seems reasonable to try to understand whether the game is worth the candle.

You might consider yourself a crusader for truth in science, but I suggest to you that abusing me for asking simple questions that can be very readily addressed scientifically and dispassionately is possibly the most eloquent statement you could have made about the sincerity of your own motives.

El Nino and La Nina, are symptoms of climate change not the root cause! As indeed are the oceanic currents and associated pools of warm or cool water that give rise to this phenomena!

Which seem to be getting progressively stronger or more active? In recent times?

Resulting in the worst most enduring droughts with no comparable example in living memory? And 100 year flood events, manifesting thrice in a single decade?

Yes solar thermal activity creates all our weather along with the aforementioned phenomena! None of which ought to be getting more robust during a solar waning (cooling) phase that kicked in during the mid seventies! (NASA)

Simply put, none of the global weather events cited are the primary product of El Nino or La nina, given they too are impacted positively or negatively by increased trapped solar radiation!

And to put it in a nutshell? the only way to increase solar thermal induced phenomena, when there is less of it! Is to trap more of it!

And to give an allergy that the rubes can understand, greenhouse gas works not unlike double glazing that traps solar thermal output in our homes during the cooler winter months. And more transparent polycarbonate, lets more of it in?

Except, lighter than air methane, traps much more of it a greater altitude than heavier than air Co2. Sometimes referred to as marsh gas, given it seems to find the lowest levels, where it can and does asphyxiate the unwary, which may account for some of the finest fossils found in former marshes?

These Authors and their endless references to El Nino as PRIMARY causative factors in recent record climate events are used, I believe, in the knowledge and understanding that the average rube won't have enough science to question these ill informed conclusions/obtuse obfuscation?
Alan B.

Craig, I am not sure how I insulted you, except to perhaps point out that for me this issue, my article with John Nicol, is all about getting to the truth of the matter and being honest to enlightenment science. Relative to this, the dollar cost of energy is almost irrelevant. Perhaps I did not understand your question: you might rephrase it?

Craig Minns asks
"Can anybody tell me what the negative consequences might be of treating human induced climate change as real,"
The simple answer is no. Who can predict the future? On that point though if the sunspot count really is the best clue to the future climate then the global ice age is going to come on fast and we have been preparing for the opposite. The obvous outcome of that would be less chance to aviod world war three as refugees from Europe flood into Syria. So my best guess is that the climate scam will bring on all out nuclear Armageddon followed by cannabalism and disease in the frozen remains until abiotic hydrocarbons burst up and cover all the corpses.

Jennifer, I'm sure you know as well as I do what was insulting about your response, so let's not bee disingenuous. You are right to say my questions weren't tightly framed, they are simple questions on a public forum after all. It is to be hoped that good faith prevails in such an environment, allowing proper discussion to proceed, although it is obvious that is rarely the case on this particular site.

To clarify:

1. Leaving aside the question of whether human induced climate change is real or not, what are the costs of taking mitigation action (reducing fossil fuel consumption, etc) in the assumption that it is real and what are the benefits?

2. Leaving aside the question of whether human induced climate change is real or not, what are the costs of taking no mitigation action in the assumption that it is not real and what are the benefits?

Craig,

With due respect, if we don't have a proper understanding of the physical mechanisms (what I mean is, if catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is little more than a myth -- as I suggest in the article that begins this thread) what on Earth are we going to take action against?

Craig, Let me assure you, we can and should react to human induced climate change as if it were indeed real, regardless of whether or not it is! And for sound economic reasons alone!

Such as the rollout of alternative energy options like cheaper than coal thorium! Can in a publicly supplied cost only scenario, provide all the power you need for you home and transport options for a dollar a year, for one hundred years!

Can and will lift billions out of poverty, where when the minimum wage traverses $7500 per, population numbers will stabilize at around 2.5 children per fertile couple. Replacement only and when it rises to around 5-6,000 per stabilizes at around 1 child per couple. (Professor Hargreaves, harvard) See TEDxCopenhagen on U tube.

This 50's molten salt technology needs no pressure containment vessels that could rupture under duress, and are walk away safe!

Have a butchers at TEDx to see chapter and verse evidence, history, blueprints and diagrams.

Oh for energy that cost the average householder a dollar a year? What would that do for our manufacture, transport, irrigation, desalination and recycling options? Exactly, turbocharged economic overdrive and costs of living driven below the floor!

Ditto all production, processing and transport costs! It'd mean affordable power for the direct steel production process invented in this country and the lowest costing steel/smallest possible carbon footprint exported to the world, possibly as finished steel based products!

Or given aluminum is congealed electricity, as much of that as we could make and export as planes, trains and what have you.

It means cost effective titanium and cobalt smelting, with costs reduced to the point where we can compete more than effectively with any nation on earth!

And reduce the cost of building a two lane shipping canal through the dead centre, to much more than just feasible!

There's absolutely nothing to fear here, except for foreign fossil fuel suppliers and or foreign owned coal fired power! Even there, a competent businessman will know when to cut his losses and get out!? Alan B.

Jennifer, I don't need to have a fire burning on my lounge room carpet to assess the relative costs and benefits of allowing one to burn unchecked if it should happen. In order to work out whether my proposed mitigation plan is worth the effort of implementing it, I also need to know what the cost of doing nothing is. Simply relying on someone telling me that my fireplace is cinder-proof and therefore no fire can possibly occur is not a wise option

In other words, whether there is a fire or not is irrelevant in this case, provided I know what one is and its consequences if it should happen to occur in my lounge room.

The topic of human induced climate change is not new. By all means argue about the details of the science if you wish, but if you assume that is the only argument to have, then you are mistaken. A more important discussion is about whether the steps taken to reduce the flows of carbon to the atmosphere are a net positive or negative in economic terms when compared with the status quo. If it turns out they are a net positive, then the argument about the science becomes moot to a large extent. On the other hand, if they are a net negative, then the question of whether there is a real risk that needs addressing may be an important one.

FWIW, I am of the view that climate is a complex dynamic system that is not yet properly understood and probably won't be for several decades at least. Arguing about it is equivalent to the arguments about the reality of quantum mechanics in 1923.

Craig,
Unfortunately it seems there’s been a misunderstanding between you and Jennifer. Better perhaps if you had sought clarification from her? I confess that in the context of incessant abuse towards her from several of the regulars here, that in fact I was uncertain where you were coming from.

That aside, there’s no simple answer to your questions because of too many complex facets (and only 350 words allowed). For instance Europe has faced big hikes in consumer fuel energy costs and huge public expenditure in subsidies for renewable energy schemes with very poor outcomes. Spain is a basket-case and Germany is withdrawing and planning new coal-fired plants. South Australia received global attention recently from failures in supply/costs caused by renewables failures. The UK with critically marginal capacity may be in danger of power outages during coming winters that may result in thousands of deaths.

Oppositely, if for instance climate change research were discontinued, universities would have financial difficulties because huge grant monies would be lost and thousands of scientists around the world would immediately become unemployed. (That is not an ideological view but a statement of fact)

On the other hand, some sceptics have claimed trillions of $ would be saved that could be better used for potentially more important concerns such as poverty and disease. There are also some potentially very serious neglected risks; failure of electronics including on essential satellites and Earthly power supplies from big solar flares if orientated towards Earth. (Look up Carrington Event 1859 telegraph failures)….or nasty new viruses, etcetera.

BTW you advised Dr Marohasy: “You might consider yourself a crusader for truth in science, but I suggest to you… …is possibly the most eloquent statement you could have made about the sincerity of your own motives”. Are you assuming she has an insincere agenda? If so, I’ve no clue why.

I hope you’re not influenced by your personal views on the politics of the One Nation Party (which I might share), but that is irrelevant to the scientific issues, even if the senator exaggerated on some. (Whoops 341 words)

Craig Minns brings up "the negative consequences....of treating....climate climate change as real...".

That's what hysterics and liars are doing now, is it not, and it is costing us billions. How much more negativity and wasted money does he think is possible? Global 'warming' turned out to be bulldust, so they switched to 'climate change' which has always been part of nature for long before the liars and hysterics turned up, and people adapted. They were not educated in unecessary crap,as people are now; they accepted that that they were part of the natural world, and had to live on its terms, and they didn't think of themselves as demigods who could control nature. They believed in much higher things than todays's atheistic Marxists who believe that they have to bring the rest of us to heel by any means. As with SSM, multiculturalism, diversity and all the other left crap, so too is 'climate change' a power grab and attempt to control, as well as downright theft from the public purse.

Bob,

You can have 2×350 at one go, but no more than 3 posts in 24 hours on the one thread. Only if you keep talking sense, and successfully educate Craig Minns, of course :).

Empirical evidence of substance indicates human induced change to climate is real but is not caused by CO2 emissions.
It should not be presumed CO2 emissions are the cause, when in reality there may be another cause, an unseen cause or a cause not wanted to be seen.
Government dumped sewage for example.

The human population has reached 7.3 billion.
Rivers and coastal ecosystems have been turned into sewers to dump nutrient loaded sewage waste.

Nutrient overload pollution is continuing to proliferate masses of algae plant matter that can be seen linked to precipitation and formation of pinpoints of cloud that form bigger cloud.
Satellite images show pinpoints of cloud forming above known algae inundated waters where microscopic algae are so dense they can be observed from satellites.
Google: cloud streets NASA images. Zoom into the pinpoints of cloud. Explain whatever reason that apparent phenomena. E.g. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40716

Answers to a few questions might reveal what is actually happening to the air and sea and land environment of this planet.
What causes the “El Nino” phenomena?
Why are some areas of ocean heating much more than other similar areas?
Why are Sea Surface Temperature measurements an anomaly in AGW CO2 science?
Is increase in CO2 actually deflecting more solar heat in upper atmosphere?

What could be the social and environment and economic consequences of failure to develop solutions to a cause of ocean area warming and change to cloud caused by something other than CO2 emissions

Jennifer wrote;

"for me this issue, my article with John Nicol, is all about getting to the truth of the matter and being honest to enlightenment science"

Whew wee. That is a doosey.

The issue is more about the truth not lining up with your politics.

Knowledge is power! Get on U tube and the TEDx Lectures, or if you're willing to give up two hours from the rest of your life? Listen to the NASA lecture on molten salt reactors and thorium! Then choose the truth over the blind ideological dogma that seeks to prevent the truth from being disseminated? And just what you'd expect when reason and logic are replaced by fossil fuel funded activism?

There is absolutely nothing to fear from the mighty irrefutable truth! Unless you are somehow hurt by it?

And without question the fossil fuel industry, its bottom line/profit curve are in the cross hairs? And indeed some of the nations almost exclusively reliant on the sale of petroleum products for their economic national well being, power and influence! Know the truth and the truth will set you free!

Today I watched an airplane flying on fuel created out of extracted Co2 and hydrogen! Using nuclear technology!

Now if all the energy dependant hydrocarbon importers did that? The oil barons would lose all power and influence and the money tap that has made some of them extremely wealthy! Expect pandemonium on an epic scale!

Jenny, Bob and ttbn can obfuscate, become increasingly irrelevant or increasingly abusive? And if it prevents you checking the published and scientifically validated facts for yourself? Then their strategy and asinine activism will have succeeded? Is that what you want?
Alan B.

Looks like there could be something to CO2 cooling at lower atmospheric levels. Venus is not doing what was expected.
"The strangely cold region lies about 78 miles (125 kilometers) above the planet's surface, and appears to host temperatures around minus 283 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 175 degrees Celsius). It's sandwiched between warmer layers on both sides."
http://www.space.com/17850-venus-atmosphere-cold-layer.html

Then right down at the surface and below.
"It may seem downright bizarre, but a new model of Venus' super-hot atmosphere suggests its greenhouse gases may actually be cooling the planet's interior."
"http://www.space.com/9155-hellish-venus-atmosphere-cooling-effect.html

J F Aus says
"Nutrient overload pollution is continuing to proliferate masses of algae plant matter that can be seen linked to precipitation and formation of pinpoints of cloud that form bigger cloud."
I agree with you that the nutrients end up causing more clouds via Planckton DMS but there are TWO ways that this causes global cooling not warming. Thanks for the reminder of TWO more ways CO2 cools the planet.
1) CO2 and the nutrients encourage more planckton growth. The planckton DMS comes up as the sun hits the planckton with UV light. This leads to more and bigger clouds. The clouds raise the planets albedo and reflect heat away. This is all modulated by the various solar cycles as the Spectrum shifts up and down in wavelength.
2) CO2 encourages more planckton over the vast oceans. The extra photosynthesis is an endothermic chemical function( It takes in energy). It stores energy that otherwise would have been heat into the life cycle enhancement of the oceans. Then as the abundant extra living things reach the end of their lives after breeding, many fall to the bottom of the ocean. At the bottom of the ocean they have sequestered CO2 and energy together thus cooling the planet and storing the CO2 for future OIL (natural renewable energy).

@ SteeleRedux
Once again you abuse the messenger and without any evidence of why. Presumably you have an undefined contrary view? It adds no value to the debate and would likely be ‘removed by moderator’ at many blogs.
@ Alan B.
I agree that the advancing technologies you report on have exciting prospects and hope it will be successful. I recall that a while back that India was initiating thorium research and today I googled [thorium reactor china]. There is this interesting article.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/08/03/chinas-research-into-thorium-will-have-implications-for-nuclear-energy-in-the-united-states/
If protection of the fossil fuel industry in the West is a concern that is probably not the case in Asia and a different concern becomes that there seems to be an enormous threat to the Western economies coming from Asia.
However, I can’t see the vaguest connection in that with the subject of the lead essay here.
@ Siliggy
That’s very interesting but take a look at the reported surface conditions:
Pressure = 93 bars, T = 470 C, CO2 = 97% (Earth = 400 parts/million. It can only be EMR saturated once)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

That is very different to Earth including that sunlight barely reaches the surface and when everyone was shocked that Russian landers found not a cool surface as predicted but great heat that quickly wrecked their landers, Carl Sagan asserted the GHG effect. Others have pointed out some problems with that, and some credible hypotheses are I think:
*Impact from a large space object a few thousand years ago
*Geological activity (One Russian lander seems to have passed through a volcano plume of high concentration methane BTW)
*Gravitational effects (also controversially applied to Earth by Nikolov and Zeller)
Whatever, what you describe is not seen on Earth although there are alternating TEMPERATURE layers involved in the stratosphere and above, with the highest T in the Thermosphere above 100 Km…. but HEAT content is extremely low and it’s nothing to do with GHG’s

Unhinged Malcolm Roberts queries United Nation's science.

Fixed that for ya.

In relation to Robert's statements, Professor Roger Jones stated:

"“There is so much wrong in these few sentences that it is almost beyond parody — it turns the Senate Chamber into the theater of the absurd.

Malcolm Roberts broke the first law of thermodynamics, which is the simplest — the conservation of energy — and then broke the rest of them.”

Other Professors of climate science are quoted in the article:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/09/15/australia-s-climate-denialists-senator-malcolm-roberts-fails-high-school-science-maiden-speech

@ Siliggy, Monday, 19 September 2016 7:03:07 AM

If there are two ways plankton is causing cooling then surely there must be a way or two that plankton is also causing increase in warmth.

In any case, I think solar heated phytoplankton-algae acts like a hot water bottle in a bed. Cotton plant matter sheets retain warmth albeit for a short period.
Solar heat warms a house made of wood plant matter and some of that warmth is stored and retained for a limited number of hours.
Algae is plant matter.
The fundamental point I think is that warmth retained would not be stored or retained if that plant matter was not present.

If the water bottle or the wooden house is big enough, say with double walls or layer upon layer of plant matter forming insulation, such as a cotton overcoat or two, some warmth may be retained until daylight.

At daylight the solar heat then adds more warmth to the already slightly warmed house that in turns warms further.
Of course there is surely a limit to the amount of solar warmth plant matter can absorb during daylight and retain.

The East Australian Current retains warmth for weeks as it streams from equatorial waters to near Bass Strait and Tasmania.

There is need for true climate science to measure and assess near surface warmth in ocean or lake water that coincides with known existence of algae plant matter in that ocean or lake water.
For example, a coinciding massive area (‘blob’) of warm water is occurring downstream from a massive bloom of algae/phytoplankton plant matter, off the coast of the US, Canada and Alaska.
Predominant mid-year wind in the area flows northwards, warm water tends to the surface and wind drives surface water current.

At the following link note the NOAA SST anomaly chart at top of page (I do not agree with all that is said in the article).
http://komonews.com/weather/scotts-weather-blog/cliff-mass-the-warm-blob-is-back-in-the-pacific-ocean

I think warmth swept north from algae is forming "the blob".

What could otherwise be warming that NE Pacific Ocean blob – hotspot?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiIPBnZCmVk

An inconvienent truth about that video from ant. Pause it at 2:57 and you can clearly see the black lines lower at 6000 and 4500 CM-1. This seems to indicate CO2 in the atmosphere IS blocking other wavelengths.
Notice also that at the wavelegth he points to BOTH LINES HAVE DIPS but water vapour give a peak.
Dallas It would have been good for you to type a few words about that current ice age predictions video.

Yes the pollution of once pristine oceans, the lungs of the planet, has to be a worry! And we need a very different attitude to run off to address some of the problems we are creating?

Ponded paddocks, myriad upland dams, Weirs, levees and downland barrages, will extend the freshwater environment far further and give any turbidity time to settle out!

Where that is really bad, the flow can be temporarily diverted through really large shallow settlement ponds which can be alternatively flooded or dried out via evaporation!

Once dry, the congealed muck can be removed and returned as soil conditioners as and where needed? Algae can be farmed as the basis of an endlessly sustainable self sufficient fuel production?

Other than that we can create synthetic diesel by combining Co2 collected from seawater with hydrogen collected via electrolysis from water decarbonated seawater.

Interestingly, as you reduce the Co2 from seawater, the natural environment removes similar amounts from the atmosphere. Whether that does or doesn't affect climate change is of little moment!

If all the warming is the result of natural events, we need to make plans to evacuate, preferably before we emulate Venus, the hottest planet in the solar system!

As we transition to nuclear power and synthetic fuels, we don't need to just dump current technology/infrastructure! But gradually phase them out at the earliest convenient time!

Thus we could build our first thorium reactor in S.A. The next in W.A. then N.T.? Followed by the old brown coal facilities, where each one could be tasked to use off peak capacity to create very low cost synthetic fuels, methanol and a diesel/jet fuel equivalent even if that needs to be stock piled in billions of megalitres?

And fund the transition from the megabuck profits on offer!

Meaning, we no longer be held by the economic short and curlies by foreign fuel suppliers! Who need to be forewarned, gather ye rosebuds while ye may!
Alan B.

Dear Bob Fernley-Jones,

Abuse the messenger? Hardly.

And further I am not the one espousing a contrary view, she is.

Of course the argument put here is not about the science. There is a direct correlation between one's politics and one's ability or desire to accept the science of AGW. I simply have made the obvious point that Jennifer's world view is shaped by her politics and unfortunately this includes her views on the science around climate change.

I have probably posted a couple of hundred responses arguing the toss with climate skeptics but their politically inspired intractable contrariness means it is a fools errand. So I have just called it for what it is.

The Marxist goon, steeleredux, accusses Marahosy of allowing her politics to override the truth. What a hypocrite this bozo is! He is totally guided by his political views. As far as I know, Ms. Marahosy has not revealed her political preferences, so the goon doesn't know what they are. She, like anyone else who dares to question the Marxists ignoramuses, is used as a punching bag by these gorillas.

Just noticed his last post in which he admits that he is a fool! A very odd bod!

Siliggy

What experiments can you provide that show your point of view.

Mythbusters have also been providing an experiment on greenhouse gases.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Dallas

I saw the paper you provided a video too more than a week ago.
Papers written by scientists get criticised by peers; it is the process of skepticism that is part of science. But, all is not what it seems.

A bit of perspective on the paper released about a mini ice age.

Valentina Zharkova, one of the authors is quoted as saying:

"In the press release, we didn’t say anything about climate change. My guess is when they heard about Maunder minimum, they used Wikipedia or something to find out more about it."

https://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

Opening sentence from USA Today who had interviewed Valentina Zharkova:

"No one is more surprised than Valentina Zharkova that her research prompted a worldwide media storm over the next ice age.

That's because her research never even mentioned an ice age."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/16/scientists-dispute-ice-age-warnings/30257409/

Its the usual case of deniers trying to put 2+2 together and coming up with 5.

I wonder why I don't believe anything deniers write without first checking?

Bob, my apologies for the slow response, the dreaded 4 post/day limit struck.

Jennifer's response to my question was simply insulting and absolutely calls into question her own sincerity in claiming to be on a crusade for better science. She has had further opportunity to answer what are basic questions if you are trying to determine the best course of action and has chosen not to do so. That's her prerogative, just as its mine to discount the sincerity of her claimed motivations. As for me "seeking clarification" before responding to her snarky little rant, I'd suggest you need to consider cause and effect and she needs to think before she posts.

I don't find your argument about costs/benefits calculations convincing. Surely there must be some genuine data? If not, what are you all abusing each other about?

A simple analogy can be drawn from the early days of the automobile. Any "sensible" person could see they were no match for the speed, power and reliability of horses...

Alan B., I think that thorium and other nuclear power solutions will have a place in future generation schemas, but I suspect that the rate of progress in renewable technologies is such that within 20 years or less there will simply be no question that they represent the most efficient means of both generation and distribution. The old "base load" paradigm will go, along with the power generation technology that created a need for it. There is definitely a need to further develop rapid response generation capacity though.

For those who are interested in working out whether the net result of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will be warming or cooling, I've reposted at my blog: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/

@ ALL
Those who believe that their grandchildren are going to die a horrible death but do not wish to hear that this may not be true, and those that still accuse Dr Jennifer Marohasy of insincerity motivated by politics, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU READ the comments section under the same essay repeated at her blog, especially hers, (link above).

@ Craig Minns
I’m surprised that you are such a sensitive person to be so offended by what MAY have been a misunderstanding. Might your “my [Craig’s] proposed mitigation plan” not tolerate any consideration of naturally caused elements in global warming? Note for instance that the 2015/16 Super El Niño that caused so much excitement with the “hottest year EVER” in 2015 is still rapidly dropping towards La Niña @18/Sep
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml?bookmark=nino3.4
The last “Super El Nino” was nineteen years ago, boldly standing out on UAH and RSS but disappeared from GISS (NASA) whilst quite prominent on the UK’s HadCrut4 and more so in the less adjusted earlier HadCrut3.
http://www.alternet.org/third-ever-super-el-nino-underway-heres-what-north-america-can-expect

As for costings, they are not a simple $ transaction but involve humanitarian, environmental, food productivity concerns etcetera and inaction on potentially more serious issues. Trying to sum those costs would be extremely difficult and an analogy might be like determining what is the average of all the opinions in political activity around the Globe, (including ISIS).

@ SteeleRedux
In the context of what I wrote, I’m happy with you asserting that her views are contrary to yours rather than your views are contrary to hers. Your vacuous words continue to have no relationship to the scientific points raised. (Even if perhaps there may be exaggerations by senator Roberts, and I don’t recall a single political statement from her) Your scientific contribution has been ZERO on an essay concerning scientific issues

@ mikk
Thank you for your wise contribution to the scientific issues.

A film clip which debunks Monckton and also is about forcing.

There are a number of videos in the series, displaying misrepresentation when comparing Monckton's opinion in relation to a science paper and what the authors of a paper have actually stated or graphed. Sections of graphs have been cut from the original science paper and doctored to promote the view being pushed by Monckton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij0NLBEeUbc

Earlier, at 19 September 10.42 am, I showed a current instance of deniers misrepresenting the work of Zharkova.

The point being go to the original paper, don't take the word of deniers.

Dear Bob Fernley-Jones,

Oh please, if you are going to assert Jennifer might not hold right-wing political views then you have absolutely no right labeling anyone else vacuous.

She was a senior research fellow at the IPA for god's sake. You know the one, it promotes “public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets”.

She describes herself on her own blog as a “utilitarian libertarian”.

If you have evidence that contradicts the bleeding obvious then I'm happy to look at it but until then it would be helpful not to try and gild the lily.

Now if you could point me to the “essay concerning scientific issues” I'm happy to take a look. It can't be the one she has just posted because that was just a crude attempt to try and add a modicum of credibility to the assertions of a bloody POLITICIAN.

Bob, you have the cart before the horse. I made a simple post asking about economic impacts of both scenarios (which I'll get back to in a moment) and Jennifer's response was: "you are suggesting this truth is irrelevant... indeed it would appear that you, and may others, would like us to adopt a sort of postmodernist approach to science where we accept only that information that supports the utopia you have dreamed of".

If anyone should have sought clarification before spouting off abuse it's Jennifer. You'll note that instead of answering the questions she has chosen to take her bat and ball and go home in a huff. Says it all really.

Now, back to the questions. You say that making an economic assessment of the likely costs and/or benefits is impossible due to the overwhelming complexity, which is begging the question. Break it down into the components, explicate your assumptions and a reasonable estimate becomes readily achievable. I urge you to do so, because if it turns out you can demonstrate the economic case, all of the silly name-calling about the science can stop.

You apparently have an engineering background: I'm surprised you find the idea of making estimates so confronting.

@SteeleRedux,
The point I was making is that despite your mantras, Dr Marohasy discusses scientific issues and does not discuss politics as far as I’m aware.

Presumably you have contrary political opinions to her (erh sorry, you prefer, she has contrary political opinions to yours) and that you assert that whilst your own politics do not influence your climate change fixations, that Jennifer’s assumed politics do indeed influence her dedication to scientific research. You should really grit your teeth and see some expanded science on this thread over on her blog (including her added comment there, link above).

An immediate first action of the current Oz coalition gov. was to axe The Climate Commission presumably because of its many non-science-based false prophecies. Professor Tim Flannery for instance is famous for many whoppers like it ain’t gonna rain no more. Well for a start, I see that Melbourne’s water reserves have been excellent since 2009 and they are currently receiving another flood boost before a likely La Niña easing in 2017.

I’m now going to assume that you have similar political views to Professor Tim Flannery (who is an acknowledged expert on mammalian fossils BTW).

Bob Fernley-Jones,

Tim Flannery's "whoppers" are just a media creation – he never said "it ain't gonna rain no more". He said the rain might not come, but if you check the context he said it, you'll find he didn't mean the rain might not ever come; he meant the rain might not come before the dams were empty, so desalination infrastructure was needed to provide a secure water supply.

@Aidan,
Oh dear, have you been reading HotWhopper or SkepticalScience or Desmogblog or….with those rose coloured glasses again? You are correct though, he didn’t actually say; "it ain't gonna rain no more", (that was MY sarcastic paraphrasing) but he did say a great deal more and has effectively been “THE MEDIA”, if I think a little quieter of late.
Of course all the scare-talk of the now defunct Climate Commission had nothing to do with scaring various state governments into investing billions of dollars into desal plants? Or, the Wivenhoe Dam (which had been intended as a part-empty cistern to AVOID Brisbane flooding) being allowed to overfill prior to the floods? If I remember correctly it was said to have caused an extra 10m height in the Brisbane River when a massive release of water eventuated in order to prevent a bigger disaster.
I could go on but it would probably be a waste of time as far as you are concerned

Bob, the Brisbane flood height was under 5m in total at the City gauge. The releases from Wivenhoe added about a meter or so to the major peak IIRC. Their main impact was to raise the minimum water level (at low tide, in other words) during the flooding period, prolonging it and somewhat "flattening" the surge response of the system. I'm not having a go at you, you've probably misremembered something you didn't pay a great deal of attention to at the time. The height of the Bremer at Ipswich was over 19m, so perhaps that's what you recall? I spent the night of the flood peak watching anxiously as the creek running behind my business premises rose, then with huge relief watching it fall after reaching within about half a metre of overflowing, so I paid a LOT of attention to it. If I were religious I'd have thanked God for stopping the rain!

I do share your concern about those who make pronouncements designed to feather their own nests, but I'm not sure how that applies to the desalination schemes. Would you mind expanding on that?

The “utilitarian libertarian” and "generally an outlier" [aka lifelong devil's advocate?] Marohasy said: "For those who are interested in working out whether the net result of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will be warming or cooling" come hither to my Blog.

I'd be interested in this "theory" when it has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal and hailed as true by scientists. Until then...

@Craig Minns: "If anyone should have sought clarification before spouting off abuse it's Jennifer. You'll note that instead of answering the questions she has chosen to take her bat and ball and go home in a huff. Says it all really."

She did this with her last 'article' about Cox and Roberts. It was like the killer rabbit scene in Holy Grail 'run away, run away'. :-)

@Bob Fernley-Jones: "Dr Marohasy discusses scientific issues...." Are you certain about that? I re-read this article by Nicol/Marohasy, and while it's a little 'sciency' I did not see any science there.

I saw complaints about Journalists with science, which is as easy shooting fish in a barrel. I see an old 2007 IPCC quote they deny is true with no evidence. I see a claim that climate scientists have the warming thing back to front - zero evidence, no references to any published research Papers.

Ending up back at journalists again with : "This was a point made perhaps too subtlety by Roberts, and clearly not understood by those reporting upon his maiden speech."

That's not science as I know it. I did not see a reply to any questions. Saw Zero Science. Maybe I missed it, feel free to point it out with a copy paste if you want. Perhaps we have differing opinions about what constitutes 'science'?

Flannery isn't a climate scientist. So what? Neither are you, Nicol, Marohasy or J.Abbot. Nor me but I'm not the one pushing a new theory either!
-

Ho Hum, you are all at it again.
Enormous amounts of time taken up on something that does not matter
who is right and who is wrong.
No matter which way it goes there will be a lot of red faces.
Oh dear, just had a horrible thought.
Maybe it will not get resolved at all because the use of fossil fuels
will fall to next to nothing.

Then you can all go on forever arguing about what might have happened !

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH !

On 16th I asked:

"Where is that "refusal doc" by the Audit Office (ANAO) not to investigate the BOM I asked for?"
http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Request-Audit-BOM-Marohasy-Ver2.pdf

Marohasy says: "This requested (sic) was rejected without any consideration of the evidence."
To understand the 'meaning' please view that in the full context:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/06/audit-general-dismisses-need-for
[btw comments are closed]

Of course Marohasy's 'audit' request was rejected. And without any consideration of "her reasons".

Why? It is outside the legislated remit of the ANAO. It is outside the planned Audit program of the ANAO of the Department of the Environment and Energy that covers the BOM.

eg Specific characteristics and risks within the portfolio which influence the ANAO's allocation of financial audit resources and our annual selection of performance audit topics and other activities include the:
http://www.anao.gov.au/work-program/portfolio/environment-and-energy/portfolio-overview

The key areas of financial statements risk for the Department of the Environment and Energy relate to the:
http://www.anao.gov.au/work-program/portfolio/environment-and-energy/portfolio-financial-statements

Last specific BOM program Audit was in 2013-14
http://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/administration-improving-water-information-program

It appears the activities of the ANAO are directed by Legislation and the Minister in consultation with the ANAO Management, relative to available resources and priority settings.

Not by 'requests' from the public.

Yet, Marohasy put it this way: "This requested (sic) was rejected without any consideration of the evidence."

Yes. True. Well, sort of. The "context" matters most.

Is this kind of approach to only partially disclose some of the facts an example of "lying the truth"? eg http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002771400078X
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/683272

'Lying the truth' means there is 'truth' in a statement, yet the "take away meaning" of most readers would be something completely different IF "all the actual facts" of the matter were known.

It's similar to the effect of asking 'leading questions' and 'rhetorical questions' that the questioner does not specifically tell their audience what the correct answer is - the audience is "led" to believe what the answer is - based on the overall rhetorical devices at play.

It's like "begging the question" or everyone assuming what the answer is without really stating it. This, like most logical fallacies, is an ever present tool in the conspiracy theorist kit-bag.
-

The investigations against ExxonMobil have gone Federal:

https://thinkprogress.org/sec-exxonknew-4bd7b1f68500#.vtn7kcywm

The first paragraphs from the article:

"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is reportedly investigating Exxon on allegations that the company is not accounting for the longterm risks of climate change.
According to multiple reports, Exxon might not be accurately valuing its assets during the current spate of low oil prices or, in the longer term, in the face of climate change disruptions and decreased fossil fuel use.

It is illegal to misrepresent financial information, including asset values, to shareholders."

A further quote:

"The news comes nearly a year after Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times independently discovered that Exxon scientists were aware as far back as the 1970s that burning fossil fuels leads to climate change."

@Craig Nimms,
Hi Craig,
I feel that you are oversensitive concerning your understanding of Jennifer’s comment to you. I also notice you did not respond to my query; {Might your “my [Craig’s] proposed mitigation plan” not tolerate any consideration of naturally caused elements in global warming?}….an example of exaggeration followed. I have a thought that perhaps you have a covert ideology and an element of hostility towards her (it is very strong with some others here).

Wivenhoe Dam: Yes sorry I remember that wrongly but if the water was 5m high at Brisbane I imagine it was higher than that somewhere upstream sometime.

Desal plants: If your point is that the Climate Commission was not created until after the projects were initiated, my point was that its various members had initiated their campaigns long beforehand. They scared the pants off the Labour gov who decided we’d better fund these guys, and State govs, prodded along by the media, were obliged to panic.

You might be interested in this graphical history since the low level in 2009 in Melbourne’s water reserves: http://www.melbournewater.com.au/waterdata/waterstorages/pages/storages-over-the-years.aspx
I think that in a week or two, what with yet more rain forecast today, reserves will be very healthy indeed ahead of an anticipated (by some) biggish La Niña coming next year.
Many dams for the Murray/Goulburn are well over 90% full, (the massive Hume dam = 96.9%): http://www.g-mwater.com.au/water-resources/catchments/storage-level

PS,
For the prophets of doom here,

I'm sorry if you are distressed to hear that water reserves in Victoria have been splendidly good for a long time now

Google; 1970 climate change.
Global cooling was subject of the 1970's.

It appears Senator Malcolm Roberts is correct about CO2.
Less radiation = cooling, as does increase in cloud/precipitation and shade caused by increase in ocean and lake algae plant matter that I have been indicating.

Scientific explanation of the cause of Sea Surface Temperature measured warm areas of ocean that are presently an anomaly in AGW science, will I think explain the anthropogenic real cause of change in weather climate.

Bob,
It's wonderful that you want to play white knight to Jennifer's damsel in distress act, but honestly mate, this is 2016, surely she's a big enough girl to speak for herself? She seemed to have no trouble doing so earlier.

As for bearing her hostility, I don't even know the woman. I've done my best to be civil, but it seems to be casting pearls before swine.

I'm no wiser about your concerns wrt desalination schemes. What is your point in clear English, doing away with the insinuation and innuendo? Presumably you are exercised by the idea that there was some kind of boondoggle involved? I'm also unclear about the relevance of water storage levels, this is "a land of drought and flooding rains" after all. Are you suggesting that not taking precautions against a prolonged drought is a good idea?

Have you had a chance to use your skills as an engineer to work out some of those cost/benefit estimates yet? Until you do, the rest of the discussion is just so much erm... hot air.

A bit of levity never goes astray:

http://youtu.be/rY-HOYTz-rs

Can a blanket violate the second law of thermodynamics? by Prof Stefan Rahmstorf (Physicist, Oceanographer & a REAL Climate Scientist)

"One of the silliest arguments of climate deniers goes like this: the atmosphere with its greenhouse gases cannot warm the Earth’s surface, because it is colder than the surface. But heat always flows from warm to cold and never vice versa, as stated in the second law of thermodynamics." http://goo.gl/5iE36y

JN/JM: "Hence increased carbon dioxide...will result in more efficient cooling of the earth."

And yet the Earth is warming! Record Global Mean Temps = Logic or BS?

@Bob Fernley-Jones "Dr Marohasy discusses scientific issues and does not discuss politics as far as I’m aware."

Could Bob show me one genuine "scientific issues" article or journal paper that commences with a Conspiracy Theorist Politicians name in the title and then immediate proceeds to criticise Journalists as not being as "clever" as that Politician?

Then concludes with the comment: "This was a point made perhaps too subtlety by Roberts, and clearly not understood by those reporting upon his maiden speech."

Where is the "published peer-reviewed science" in that article? Or the one about Cox http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18459 or the one about 'bush fires' http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18490 A Copy paste or a line number would do.

What I have read looks nothing like 'genuine science'. It looks like 'political advocacy' and a denial of known science. Looks like a duck, quacks .... etc.

I believe that Nicol and Marohasy need to consult Julian Cribb AO, from OLO's Editorial Advisory Board.

Sharing Knowledge: A Guide to Effective Science Communication By Tjempaka Hartomo, Julian Cribb http://goo.gl/XeLscj

and
http://goo.gl/gKFDKj
http://www.foodwise.com.au/tag/julian-cribb/
http://goo.gl/OtjyzZ
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271234

Ignoring science can become a legal issue when victims of severe climate change events claim damages by Julian Cribb
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-litigation-hidden-in-eye-of-the-storm-20131118-2xr9b.html

Writing a popular science article - Science is communicated also to non-specialized audiences, so students need some training on this issue; it is a necessary skill in their professional careers. http://goo.gl/3Zcuzd

Prof Peter Ward UW, on Science Literacy in Universities
http://youtu.be/HP_Fvs48hb4?t=39m47s
-

Thomas O'Reilly,

Are you able to explain reason for warmth recorded in the Sea Surface Temperature data that is an anomaly in AGW science?

JFAus, are you able to explain it?

I'm keen to understand this issue better.

It has been stated that Roberts has broken all the laws of thermodynamics; that is, general physics. How is it possible to take him seriously?

Quote from Professor Jones:

"“There is so much wrong in these few sentences that it is almost beyond parody — it turns the Senate Chamber into the theater of the absurd.

Malcolm Roberts broke the first law of thermodynamics, which is the simplest — the conservation of energy — and then broke the rest of them.”"

Reference provided at 19September 9.06 am.

Roberts presents pseudo science, why support him?

@JF Aus, Deja Vu is it?
"Are you able to explain reason for warmth recorded in the Sea Surface Temperature data that is an anomaly in AGW science?"

Yes, but it is much better to find out for yourself. Maybe Prof Cox could help you? He's been doing a science series on TV for weeks now, and in one of those he provides the Physics (Laws) why the Oceans are blue and the sky is blue and how the whole planet looks blue from space.

Seems to be something about how infra-red energy in the visible light spectrum energizes molecules such as H2O. Those two little hydrogen atoms become activated by the infra-red spectrum and start vibrating. The molecule "warms up" iow. And if wasn't for those little suckers of 'ghg' molecules like CO2, CH4, N2SO, and water vapour in the atmosphere absorbing that infra-red spectrum of light before getting out into space that our planet would look 'whitish' instead of blue.

Basic Physics basically. <wink>

To put that another way, if there was no oceans and they were all replaced by say iron ore, and there was no ghg's in the atmosphere, then our little planet would look Red from space, just like Iron ore kinda does. So my tip is go chase Prof Brian Cox, he can tell you all about it.

Meanwhile here is your homework, but you are not allowed to ask me another question for at least 4 weeks. There will be an exam!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/

"Beam me up Scotty!"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming

Google Scholar
http://goo.gl/arU7dc

http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_observedchanges.php

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap6_FINAL.pdf

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap30_FINAL.pdf

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/10/ocean-heat-storage-a-particularly-lousy-policy-target/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content

I was thinking about "think globally, act locally" and wondering why you wouldn't join an environmental group (or the EDO, or Greens) working to reduce runoff into the oceans. All the effort and energy channeled in a positive way might help to actually change something?

I compiled the very latest CSG mining environment studies, sent it off to the NSW Minister, who passed it to the Chief Scientist, who then after reviewing all info, advised serious changes to the Laws, the rest is history. So?
-

Bob F says "*Geological activity (One Russian lander seems to have passed through a volcano plume of high concentration methane BTW)"

This is exactly the type of thing that was predicted to be found on Venus by Immanuel Velikovsky.

wiki says.
Worlds in Collision is a book written by Immanuel Velikovsky and first published April 3, 1950. The book postulated that around the 15th century BCE, Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet or comet-like object, and passed near Earth (an actual collision is not mentioned). The object changed Earth's orbit and axis, causing innumerable catastrophes that were mentioned in early mythologies and religions around the world.
The wiki article then goes on to attack Velicovsky because his observational methods did not produce politcically correctness suitable enough to fit in with the fashionable theories in vogue.

A series of short Videos.
"Charles Ginenthal presents at the 1994 Velikovsky Symposium in Oregon the detailed results and data compiled by the Venusian probes, both American and Russian, and compares the hard data of such versus subsequent "revisions" which were then widely publicized/disseminated, and how this latter disinformation amounted to an ongoing debasement of science at the altar of dogma.

(In Part 1 Charles reviews the age-old and insidious process of sceince by ad hoc-ism.)

The trendy usage of the AGWA term "runaway greenhouse effect" is shown to be one of several possible motivations for the "revisions" to the actual probe data streams."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCDS7JmUhl8&list=PL334491CC94CEE42C

Another pearler (Hilarious rubbish)from Thomas Oh Really as confused by Cox.
O'Reilly says
"Yes, but it is much better to find out for yourself. Maybe Prof Cox could help you? He's been doing a science series on TV for weeks now, and in one of those he provides the Physics (Laws) why the Oceans are blue and the sky is blue and how the whole planet looks blue from space. Seems to be something about how infra-red energy in the visible light spectrum energizes molecules such as H2O."

Thomas has thus ended any foolish notion of him understanding or Cox being able to teach atmospheric optics.

To see how the sky being blue has absolutely nothing to do with infra red or GHG's read about Rayleigh scattering here.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/blsky.htm

The atmosphere scatters violet and blue light so much it is blue on the way out (sometimes without even hitting the ground) also. At the article linked to above wqe find. "Air molecules, mostly nitrogen and oxygen, are 1000X smaller still. They interact only very weakly with visible light but with their enormous numbers in the atmosphere we see the effects."
High energy shortwave visible light heats the atmosphere directly from the sun due to Nitrogen and Oxygen being 780900PMM and 200900PPM. Blue and violet light have more enrgy as higher frequency EMR than infra red. This is all modulated by the solar spectoral shift ( the light from the sun is not constant).
Absorbtion bands
http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/

JF Aus

An interesting article about phytoplankton, among other things:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160919131958.htm

@Siliggy go away, find someone else to 'play' with. I'm not interested - PLONK!

Forces of Nature with Brian Cox - Season 1 Episode 4 ''The Pale Blue Dot''
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNplJG8sCrU

or spend $2.99 and watch a decent version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfhQ03HUvTY

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=22358

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html

Yes, it is much better to find out for yourself! LOL

BUT

"Never argue with stupid people (or internet trolls), they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

AGW/CC comments from RC

There are several problems with satellite temperature record. One, the satellite instruments do not measure temperature at all, they measure microwave brightness over a wide range of altitudes.

It takes complex processing of the raw data through a computer model to estimate temperature. Two, that temperature is for the mid-troposphere, not the surface where we live. Three, both the satellite instruments and the satellite orbits degrade over time, meaning the record is stitched together from readings from multiple satellites and instruments over time.

UAH TLT – what is generally jabbered about by Denialists as the “satellite data” , provides a measure of the weighted average temperature from the surface of the earth to an altitude of 10 km or so, and is much more heavily manipulated than the surface temperature record that is measured by real thermometers.

I tend to think of those who deny the basic physics of the greenhouse effect as being analogous to Young Earth Creationists while those who accept the basic physics but still deny that AGW is a problem (e.g., believe we are saved by negative feedbacks or convection or what-have-you) as being more like Intelligent Design proponents (where one is denying a lot of scientific evidence in a specific field but at least not denying basic science across a broad spectrum of fields).

Looks like Nicol & Marohasy are in the YEC Box!

Roberts and his ilk have been thoroughly debunked for their fictional mythical fantasies on RC - really it's so sad.

Can a blanket violate the second law of thermodynamics?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/can-a-blanket-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics
-

@ Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 22 September 2016 12:27:54 AM

Yes, I have asked you to explain warmth recorded in SST anomaly data.

I have browsed through the ‘homework’ but still the question is unsettled from my point of view based on years of experience with underwater photography, colour, matter, turbidity.

Now I think I can see why you and Professor Cox are confused.

Saying the ocean is blue is a generalization that does not describe the real colours that can indicate water quality.
It’s like not seeing a black person blush in daylight or not seeing a white person blush on a dark night.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/50384/how-can-bodies-water-be-different-colors

In increasing areas of ocean the water has changed from clear to green or green more often than not.
Some areas that were green as observed 50 years ago are now more green or a muddy green.
Why the change and what impact according to science?

Some ocean waters are now showing a whiter-blue due to massive coccolithaphore blooms that surely cause change to this planet’s albedo, some are dark green, but has such change been measured?

SST data involves only the first millimetre of ocean surface water, so where is scientific thermometer data showing coinciding temperature WITHIN algae blooms and ocean dead zones and currents globally?

What reference exists to show AGW data and analysis of warm ocean surface currents streaming away from algae inundated waters?
E.g. the East Australia Current transports warmth in very clear water, though warmth begins weeks earlier in tropical waters, then nutrient apparently depletes, algae falls away, the very clear EAC then streaming to near Tasmania?

Photosynthesis-linked and/or radiated solar heat in open ocean water can therefore last weeks over long distance.
Surely a blanket-mass of living ocean algae MATTER can also delay particle to particle loss of heat, also slowing the second law of Thermodynamics .

Think, at the BIQ algae building in Germany, “photosynthesis causes the microorganisms to multiply and give off heat”. Can anyone prove that incorrect?
Scroll down to various evidence at my post at page 17, here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=17

Think globally act globally. Very urgently.

Craig Minns,

My post above to Thomas O'Reilly should point to my view of the SST anomaly charts.
They do not show any anomaly from my point of view of ocean ecosystem currents and nutrient overload pollution and consequent increase in algae plant matter.

I would be pleased to chat or answer any relevant questions if I can.

@Siliggy et al

Gee, still at then guys!

Yes it’s entertaining that OhReally thinks Rayleigh scattering involves infrared when it is visible phenomena. In fact it is SCATTERING of shorter wavelengths of visible light (blue) that are greatest and most visibly apparent. The longest wavelengths (red) are also scattered but much less so and thus totally swamped by blue.

Re your earlier Velikovsky comment:
I’ve read all of his books I think back in the seventies. He was a brilliant multidisciplinary researcher who made Egyptologists wriggle the toes in their shoes and his geology and palaeontology work was required reading at some US universities back then. He was apparently a close friend of Einstein, but I’m rather doubtful about his Venus hypothesis.

For instance if an emergent Venus passed near to Earth sufficient to cause Bible descriptions of disasters in Exodus, then I think there would be a more direct description of a large glowing orb in the sky, particularly at night. Additionally, I obtained a translation (Victoria State Library) of the “lamentations of Ipuwer” which Velikovsky quoted and which allegedly also described stuff. However, I think it was a bit of a stretch and maybe concatenated within translations. My brother obtained a notably different translation in London which also seems a stretch.

Nevertheless he was brilliant elsewhere, for instance he was apparently the first to find significant implications in the rate of retreat of Niagara Falls and his fossil and prehistory research was remarkable. He also made some astonishing predictions other than “Venus surface is hot not cool” that “experts” scorned. For instance he correctly predicted that one of the gas giants emits strong radio waves, not from guesswork but from detailed and complex analysis of the physics.

I too think it was abhorrent how he was treated after the first print of his book, including scholarly threats to publishers against reprints. There were several learned professors who proudly declared that they had no intention to read the book because it was heretical crap. Carl Sagan was disgusting.

@Siliggy,

I was nearing the 350-word limit and Re Velikovsky:

The doubts I mentioned re Exodus do not exclude consideration of an earlier event, which might fit better with more subdued suspected geothermal actvity. I guess it’s at least thirty years since I’ve read ‘Worlds in Collision’ but I seem to recall some plausible Newtonian physics and other stuff that are well worth study.

@JF Aus
Have been looking about at things that may interest you regarding the surface of water. First up earthquake prediction is sometimes possible using SST's and other information. Heat loss from the hot innards of the planet could be the anomalies you see.
The short abstract sayys it all on this one about the stratification breaking.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/291986650_Ocean_surface_temperature_anomalies_from_underwater_earthquakes

Chlorophyll concentration and surface temperature changes associated with earthquakes.
"We were successful in detecting pre-earthquake anomalies prior to all three earthquakes."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-012-0264-8

Chlorophyll absorbs energy from light strongly at visible frequencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll#/media/File:Chlorofilab.svg

This one is the best of all! Infra red absorbtion into a surface water phase change. Am curious about you being able to photograph any of this action. Temperature may remain constant while energy is stored or discharged in huge volume.
Often absent pass fail short course climate scientists would have no idea.
http://youtu.be/i-T7tCMUDXU

@Bob Fernley-Jones
Have only read worlds in collision and that was also thirty years ago. Still have my copy though. Amazed you and your brother went to the effort of digging up the old texts.
Exodus 13:21 "21 The LORD was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night."
Sounds like a comet tail to me. Would a large glowing orb be as bright as a thick comet tail? Not sure how it can park between Pharoah's army and the fleeing slaves or outside a tent other than reflection of water into fog.
http://biblehub.com/exodus/13-21.htm

@O'Reilly I like it here so if you do not like being corrected when you post crap. Stop posting it.

@anyone
Above I linked to a line chart that may not show absorbtion lines exactly correctly due to it being for electrical gas discharge.
This chart does not seem a lot different but may be more accurate for absorbtion and emission of Nitrogen and Oxygen.
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/tobbc/emission_lines.gif
What the chat means.
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/nasa/measuringuniverse/spectroscopy/a/absorptionemission-lines

@Bob Fernley-Jones and @Siliggy:

LOL do try follow along with what was said and try better to stop making stuff up as you go.

Did I mention that "Rayleigh scattering involves infrared"? No.

Did a provide refs to science? Yes.

Did I suggest should find things out for themselves and read the science repeatedly for 2.3 months now? Yes I did.

Are you possessed of delusional untrue beliefs on the subject of climate science that flies in face of maths and physics?

Most certainly.

Are you wrong?

Absolutely yes.

Do you both post unscientific 'crap' similar to Nicol and Marohasy's articles?

For certain yes.

Is this provable.

Absolutely yes.

Do you discuss anything that is accurate and based on genuine climate science?

Never.

Are you both so cognitively biased and utterly illogical?

Absolutely yes.

Do you both deny reality?

Absolutely yes.

Does this indicate either intentional deception and/or some kind of psychopathy or personality.

Um, I believe it does, but am unsure of the specifics.

-

@Siliggy says: "I like it here so if you do not like being corrected when you post crap. Stop posting it."

Says the person who posted info about Venus being ejected from Jupiter? ROTFLMAO

And Bob Fernley-Jones supports you on this and labels Sagan as "disgusting"? Far out man!

@Siliggy says: "I like it here..."

And I like you being here too Siliggy.

There is nothing better than a STARK CONTRAST to highlight the essential veracity of one's position and reliance on scientific rigor and credible evidence as opposed to fantasies.

Please, don't leave, stick around.

-

Science being explained to non-science literate people (which perfectly fits Bob Fernley-Jones, Siliggy, JF Aus, Marohasy, John Nicol and many more)

For Mack @47: That 324 w/sq m from the atmosphere is the reason earth’s global mean temperature is 15C instead of -18C. In other words, you’ve just put your finger on the greenhouse effect.

---

One of the simplest refutations of such nonsense is how halogen lamps are improved by putting a thin IR reflecting dielectric mirror on the inside of the glass envelope. The IR component of the light from the filament is reflected back and heats the filament further resulting in more visible light being emitted. The IR coating improves efficiency by about 40% making the visible output of a 60 watt bulb equivalent to that of a 90.

Eli did about the same thing many years ago by putting a thin foil of aluminum around a light bulb which resulted in a strong warming of the outside of the lamp, and, of course, a survival blanket, a think aluminized piece of plastic will keep everybunny warm and toasty.

---

Jim Eager @54
“That 324w/sq.m. from the atmosphere is the reason earth’s global mean temp is 15C instead of -18C.”
Hell Jim, earth’s global mean temp of -18C would have the earth as one FROZEN ball….even the oceans would be frozen solid. Are you seriously telling me that radiation from the atmosphere..or some atmospheric effect, is actually keeping the whole planet from totally freezing up !!?. I always thought it was the sun that melted ice.

[Response: This was the mystery that Fourier thought a lot about in 19th Century. Turns out it is an atmospheric effect. Pretty well accepted now though. – gavin]

---
M 66: Are you seriously telling me that radiation from the atmosphere..or some atmospheric effect, is actually keeping the whole planet from totally freezing up !!?

BPL: Yes, that’s exactly what we’re telling you. Without the greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, it would be frozen over. Sunlight alone is not enough to keep the Earth habitable at its orbital distance.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/can-a-blanket-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-2/#comment-660690
-

Mack @66: “Are you seriously telling me that radiation from the atmosphere..or some atmospheric effect, is actually keeping the whole planet from totally freezing up !!?”

Yes, that is exactly what I’m telling you.

It’s hardly news, Joseph Fourier first calculated it in 1824. It’s basic earth science based on the amount of sunlight reaching the top of earth’s atmosphere (1350 w/m^2), earth’s reflectivity or albedo (.33), and earth’s cross section area integrated over earth’s surface area. See Surface temperature of a planet down the Effective temperature wiki page at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature

---
> Paul Donohue … but doesn’t …?

Only for a “black body” continuous spectrum source.
If you slowly heat a chunk of iron (or a sufficiently large ball of hydrogen), it does go through color changes corresponding to temperature.

It’s a very common confusion (confused by (among others) streetlight vendors who are eager to sell cheap LED lights with a large blue emission spike in the spectrum but a “warm white” color temperature by also boosting the red end phosphors).

Color temperature is what you, as a human with normal color vision, will perceive.
A dog or a honeybee sees a different ‘color temperature’

The emissivity of the surface of a material is its effectiveness in emitting energy as thermal radiation.

Black cast iron skillet — high emissivity
Shiny stainless steel skillet — low emissivity

This may help: http://lowel.tiffen.com/edu/color_temperature_and_rendering_demystified.html

To bring it back to topic: what the ‘niers miss is that the visible light carries energy through the atmosphere.

Lie down outdoors while the sun shines; your blanket will warm up, whether you’re alive or not.

The visible light hits the blanket, ground or water, transfers that energy to the solid or liquid (which being solid or liquid shares that energy with what surrounds it, warming up.

The soil and water warm up and emit – infrared, and water and CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere do interact with some of the infrared, capturing some of that energy and re-radiating it in all directions, up sideways and down.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/can-a-blanket-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-2/#comment-660690

Stop Talking and Read the damned SCIENCE!

Where is the consensus in denier land?

Roberts suggests a conspiracy via the United Nations. He also does not understand the laws of thermodynamics per Professor Roger Jones.
The IPCC ( set up by UN) is attacked by those denying climate change; but then, sentences from the IPCC are cherry picked by deniers to back their arguments.
There have been cases where research authors have had to make statements after their research has been published to say the research has been completely misrepresented by denier journalists and groups.
We get some deniers saying the Earth is cooling; while others are saying that the sun is warming Earth more than usual.
Deniers argue there is a conspiracy in relation to the how temperature from weather stations is tampered with. They believe satellite measure of inferred temperature is more accurate. But, there is much modelling involved in providing temperature from satellites which needs updating due to fluctuations in satellite flights. Satellite temperature is measured in slabs, so cannot be compared to weather station temperature.
Some deniers say that CO2 has some impact on the climate; others are saying categorically that is not the case. Denier Agencies have been set up and paid for by fossil fuel companies; the Taxation Department in the US indicates ExxonMobil has paid almost $31 million to Denier Agencies.

Renewable energy is now becoming cheaper than fossil fuels, it is now a matter of how quickly they will phase out (per Dr J Romm).

So we have denier arguments with no consistency; arguing that peak Agencies such as NASA, CSIRO,NOAA,BoM et al along with thousands of climate scientists are wrong; yet, they hold consistent views. Climate science goes back almost two centuries.

Deniers present mutually exclusive points of view; Malcolm Roberts doesn’t even get the Physics right (Laws of Thermodynamics).

Hi ant! :-)

We must be due for another missive from Marohasy or Nicol or maybe even the 3rd Musketeer John Abbot sometime soon. :-)

In the meantime:

Where is Abbot and Marohasy's promised 'weather prediction' methodology - claimed to be superior to the BOM/MetOffice?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/predicting-annual-temperatures-a-year-ahead/
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/what-is-new-in-european-climate-research/

-

How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once by Graham Readfearn

New research claims psychological traits could help explain why climate science deniers often make contradictory arguments.

Often, deniers will tell you that temperature records show that global warming stopped at some point around 1998. But also they’ll insist that those same temperature records can’t be relied on because Nasa and the Bureau of Meteorology are all communist corruption monkeys. Or something.

Black is also white. Round is also flat. Wrong is also right?

A new research paper published in the journal Synthese with the fun and enticing title: “The Alice in Wonderland mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/sep/23/how-climate-science-deniers-can-accept-so-many-impossible-things-all-at-once

Debunking Malcolm Roberts: the case against a climate science denier - The One Nation senator dismisses the conventional scientific view of climate change. Here are the holes in his most commonly deployed arguments.

"Between 1998 and 2013, the observed temperatures were towards the lower end of the models’ predictions. That is not surprising, and it doesn’t mean the models aren’t working – the temperature rise has still been within the expected range.

But a paper last year showed the difference between prediction and observation has been exaggerated, since while models are all about surface air temperatures, the observations they were compared with have traditionally been a combination of air temperatures over land and sea surface temperatures, which are warming more slowly than the air above the seas."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/14/debunking-malcolm-roberts-the-case-against-a-climate-science-denier

US Election: Stephen Hawking and hundreds of scientists blast Trump's stance on climate
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-22/us-election-scientists-blast-trumps-stance-climate-change/7867072
and
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/21/375-top-scientists-warn-of-real-serious-immediate-climate-threat

and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/can-a-blanket-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/why-correlations-of-co2-and-temperature-over-ice-age-cycles-dont-define-climate-sensitivity/
-

@ Siliggy, Sunday, 25 September 2016 7:04:52 AM

Siliggy,

I have seen evidence of a volcanic explosion pushing no doubt nutrient loaded soil out underwater into ocean coast waters. There is also film of underwater volcanic vent activity indicating elevated nutrient levels.

The surface warmth and nutrient fed algae I have been tracking is however linked to known nutrient point sources.

Both heat and nutrient-bonded fresh water tend toward the surface.
Nutrient becomes bonded to the fresh water in our bodies and within sewage collection and 'treatment' systems.

Unprecedented anthropogenic nutrient loads are being dumped into the ocean ecosystem and there must be reaction to that action.

From my point of view the SST - AGW anomaly charts actually show currents flowing from known nutrient point sources and then out into the wider ocean and/or into gulf type relatively current free areas.
In other words the SST anomaly in AGW science is no anomaly in nutrient-linked water current movement.

The AGW - SST anomaly is spread worldwide and if the source was volcanic I would expect the ocean would be extremely hot, in comparison say, to a coffee machine starting to really heat milk.

For many years I have thought direct radiation on algae and other solid suspended matter in water is the cause of temporary residual heat, and that it takes just a few hours for that heat to dissipate, and that heat transfer would not occur if that suspended matter was not there.

Now however I understand algae is being harnessed to help warm the BIQ building in Germany and that seems like obvious evidence of heat in algae.
Plus there is surely change in albedo linked to clear water that has become green, and green water now a darker and/or muddy green.

f.y.i. See albedo involving algae and ice;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160622101943.htm

J F Aus says:
"Now however I understand algae is being harnessed to help warm the BIQ building in Germany and that seems like "
Am curious about the type of Algae. Any links? What do they feed it? Is it in sunlight or dark?

Climate subsidy industries are in the panic stages before being voted completely out. A rival cause of climate change threatens cashflow. The crying wolf crimes of the old climate scare mean it will be ignored real or not.
"Hyperactive magnetic field may have led to one of Earth’s major extinctions"
"This weakened shielding would have allowed more energetic particles into the upper atmosphere, which would have begun to break down the ozone layer that protects Earth from harmful UV radiation, Meert says. Twenty to 40% of ozone coverage might have been lost—in turn, doubling the amount of UV radiation that reached Earth’s surface, the team reports in a paper in press in Gondwana Research.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/hyperactive-magnetic-field-may-have-led-one-earth-s-major-extinctions

Just who is playing it down already.
"However, a group of researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California at San Diego and MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, led by Huapei Wang, an MIT postdoc, have studied Earth’s average, stable field intensity over the last 5 million years and found that the current magnetic field intensity is still twice the long-term average. This has led them to infer that a geomagnetic pole shift event is not in the offing in the near future and could potentially be thousands of years away."
"Additionally, contact with such high levels of solar radiation could significantly increase the incidence of cancer worldwide and it could actually mutate the genome of every living thing on our planet."
https://watchers.news/2015/11/24/scientists-allay-fears-of-geomagnetic-pole-shift-in-the-near-future/

"A new study, however, shows that the final stage - a sudden 180-degree flip - can happen within a human lifetime."
http://watchers.news/2014/10/15/earths-magnetic-field-can-flip-in-less-than-100-years-study/

"Besides giving evidence for a geomagnetic field reversal 41,000 years ago, the geoscientists from Potsdam discovered numerous abrupt climate changes during the last ice age in the analysed cores from the Black Sea, as it was already known from the Greenland ice cores."
https://watchers.news/2012/10/19/earths-geomagnetic-reversal-happened-41000-years-ago-new-study-claims/

@ Siliggy, Monday, 26 September 2016 7:39:59 AM

Siliggy,

Re algae and the BIQ building:
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3033019/this-algae-powered-building-actually-works

@Siliggy,

I was mad at the way Velikovsky was treated by the establishment over ‘Worlds in Collision’ including the attempted banning of his book by learned professors who proudly boasted they had not read it. Why? If it was nonsense, what were they scared of? I had to study the book with care. V raised the “Lamentations of Ipuwer” as an Egyptian account of planetary disasters that he hypothesised as described in Exodus, of which I was sceptical.


I see that O’Rielly is at it again although I stopped reading his tirades of irrelevance about half way through Dr Marohasy’s earlier article on Professor Brian Cox. Well done for spotting his belief that infrared causes visible light to exhibit Rayleigh scattering; that’s quite amusing!

Coming back to learned professors, I’m reminded that an equivalent today is rather like those of the CONcestuous group-think today, who preach apparently without having digested what the various IPCC FULL REPORTS actually say, helped along by the new religion of “Science Communication”. The colourful TV personality Prof Cox got away with misinformation and errors on Q&A; John Cook, Dr of cognitive psychology together with his official media boss Prof Hoegh-Guldberg of GBR death fame; and Prof David Karoly, expert in the phonology of the common brown butterfly, and…..and…..are all darlings of Oz media.

By coincidence, there is a new article well worth reading by Dr Tim Ball at WUWT which discusses the same group-think biases, including corruption of the IPCC SPM by Dr Ben Santer of ‘Climategate’ fame, quote; “As lead author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report, he took wording agreed to by fellow chapter authors and modified it considerably...[details followed]”:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/24/old-tactics-revived-as-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-deception-fails-an-open-letter-to-an-open-letter/

Continued below

@Siliggy Contin,

A while ago I helped a woman escape from an extreme Christadelphian schism that formed a community in the Adelaide Hills to avoid the coming wrath of God on 1/Jan/2000 when the evil city below would be destroyed. Even the moderate family members (doing very well amongst the sinners) believed that the Earth was only ~6000 years old, despite when I showed and explained to them the plastically folded sedimentary rocks exposed in road cuttings. The moderates even insisted that the Book of Daniel which pretends to be written in the time of one of the five* Nebuchadnezzar kings of Babylon, accurately forecasts a coming Armageddon. Actually, the book is recognised by scholars as written some five centuries later, precisely in 164 or 165 BC after lunching on Greek history.

I showed them it was simply colourful literature written by Hebrews who were resentful of the invading Greeks. For instance the warring ‘Kings of the North’ and ‘Kings of the South’ were unquestionably and in exquisite detail a clever disguise for the progeny of generals-turned-Kings/Pharaohs following the death of Alexander the Great. As for the legends of Daniel himself, which take place in four (or Five ?) different royal courts and are impossibly contradictory, well, apparently most Jews treat it as literature. No matter, these Christadelphians (and some extreme Christians) look forward to the rapture, which is to be preceded by the building of a third Temple and its destruction. (Look-out Mosque on the Mount?)

*Nebby III probably (?), in separate histories he was the destroyer of ‘The First Temple’.

Bob and J F Aus thanks gotta run will look at it all soon.
I think the cult deprogramming required for global warmists to return to sanity may be a lot worse than your Christadelphians Bob.

Actually Bob Fernley-Jones, J F Aus, and Siliggy, you are more than welcome to believe, opine and conclude whatever you wish to about climate science and AGW/CC.

I can't see why anything I (or others have to say) would make a difference to any of you. So go for it! :-)

Deny it all and criticise the science and label all the scientists doing the work as members of some crazed religious cult, if you wish.

You may even imagine the globe isn't really warming up at all and the whole thing is a big fat lie.

It really does not bother me, nor anyone else that I can think of.

Rule #1 - Read the Scientific Literature
Rule #2 - If you Know better then: Get it Published
Rule #3 - If Rule #2 is out of the question, see Rule #1

Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

<smile>
-

@Siliggy
Yes, and of course the point of my example in Christadelphian religion is that in group-think consensus, the radicalized members totally deny any inconvenient truths. Similarly, in the CAGW industry there is the added complication of ‘follow the money’ in such things as that good scare stories generate funding for research. It’s much the same in the media where bad news and scare stories are most popular.

Oh, and on The Media and “Science Communication”, I hope that the darlings of the ABC et al such as Professor David Karoly don’t read the above! They might be inspired to peer review publish a study showing that God has initiated a slow Armageddon via a gradual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere to somewhere above 0.04 %.

There was a recent scare story on ABC online: “Sea ice record retreat has Antarctic experts worried for wildlife, climate.” And a similar online story here in The Australian in National Affairs, both citing Dr Jan Lieser:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-lows-two-years-after-record-high/news-story/19e63cf9b569bc930287550155b27103

Talk about absolute nonsense! I submitted four separate comments to the Oz with linked graphics showing the recent bizarre sudden dip in ice cover was simply BAD DATA. All four comments were disappeared (I’ve archived the pending status screenshots). I also wrote to the author of the Oz story and to Dr Lieser and to ‘Letters to the Editor’ with no response to date.

NSIDC has since removed the faulty graphic used by the Oz.

How are you getting on with those cost/benefit estimates Bob? Surely they can't be too hard for someone who is capable of understanding long-term climate with so little room for doubt?

Bob

Satellite photos show small lakes on the East Antarctic ice shelf. In the past East Antarctica has been thought to be the most stable part of the continent.

Apart from that, a section of the Larson C ice shelf, is fracturing in readiness to calve, an area said to be about 6,000 square kilometres elsewhere.

There are a number of references.

http://mashable.com/2016/08/23/east-antarctica-surface-lakes-glaciers-melting/#iGOxLnKivgqF

A hyperlink in article provides access to comments about the area preparing to calve.

Quote:

"When this iceberg calving event happens — no one knows exactly when it will occur, except that it's getting closer — it will be the largest calving event in Antarctica since 2000, the third-biggest ever recorded and the largest from this particular ice shelf, scientists say."

@Craig Minns,

I haven’t even thought about it and I’m surprised that you have such a naïve comprehension of my earlier comments. For instance, why do you think the data are NOT available from the world of thousands of economists, sociologists, climate scientists, and a plethora of other experts required for proper analysis (but you ask me, a single mere engineer)? You are at risk of being labelled a troll.

I smile that you earlier feigned to uncertainty about human caused global warming, but have gradually exposed your real biased agenda.

@Ant,

I don’t get it. Are you responding to my analysis of a ludicrous scare-story of REPORTED sudden Antarctic sea ice loss this SEPTEMBER allegedly threatening animal species losses? I’ve exposed elsewhere that the F17 satellite data are crap since at least early April 2016 and that NSIDC switched to satellite F18 and have continuing problems in its calibration and whatnot. They’ve also deleted the erroneous graph employed in the big scare-story that was taken up so enthusiastically by the ABC et al.

Did you know that the areas of winter SEA ICE are warmer than the continental interior but can still be down to around minus 40 C air temperatures in September? What have small lakes of water somewhere else in summer got to do with it?

Did you know that that the fracturing of ice shelves (floating glacial ice) is primarily caused by mechanical stressing from tidal up and down bending plus a bit of wave action(storms)? Sure, the initiating mechanical failures will be aggravated by summer melting, but you need to look at the fuller probability that massive mechanical calvings have been (essentially) around for millennia and not be overawed by sensational interpretations of only a few decades of satellite photos.

Note that various satellite sources of data have shown a steady increase in sea ice cover but that was only since 1979 BTW.

"One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts would not purport to be the first to claim the atmosphere cools the surface of the earth that is warmed by the sun."

Ha ha ha! It's too good. The laws of physics are overturned by sheer sentiment.

Think about what you are suggesting! If it isn't true, then this is the world's greatest conspiracy theory EVER! So the ATMOSPHERE COOLS THE PLANET! Well, that's just overturned a scientific observation just short of 200 years old!
From Wikipedia:
>>The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859.[12] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[13] However, the term "greenhouse" wasn't used to describe the effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.[14][15] In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote "[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect", and "The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house."[16][17] Bell went on to also advocate the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[18]<<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History

This short history shows that any 'conspiracy' Deniers believe in must span nearly 2 centuries. Just *think* about what they are suggesting! Some world-wide scientific conspiracy started just after the Napoleonic wars, and continued through WW1, WW2, the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union, the re-unification of Germany, etc. Such a conspiracy surviving all these different world-changing political changes boggles the imagination. Deniers must live in a very scary world, and believe in an organisation that dwarfs James Bond's "Spectre"!

I know you haven't thought about it Bob, because let's face it, you don't want to think about anything that doesn't confirm your already predetermined conclusions, do you? Not very good engineering practise mate...

As you say, however, lots of people with lots of different skill sets no doubt have looked at it and thought about it. Ask yourself this: why are none of them advocating for maintenance of the status quo as you are?

I've already clearly stated my view that the science around human induced climate change is not yet fully understood and I've also clearly made the point that it doesn't matter, if the clearly better economic decision is to change to a renewable-energy based industrial model, which seems to be the case.

On that note, I'll leave you lot to enjoy your endless circular argument.

@Silligy,

You’ve re-aroused my interest in Venus after many years and I’ve just found a fascinating study* employing Magellan programme graphics (otherwise pay-walled)showing atmospheric profiles. There’s a big transition above the massive sulphuric acid cloud layer. There are interesting comparisons with Earth.

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

Venus is strange. Why is the surface T roughly constant day and night? Why rotating in opposite direction to other planets? All that sulphuric acid suggests volcanic activity? The thick clouds may have a blanket effect rather different to Sagan’s GHG assumption? BTW at Venus surface T’s emission spectra would be substantially in the NEAR infrared to which CO2 is almost transparent on Earth.
*The study explores the possibility of live viruses above the clouds

@Max Green,

“This short history shows that any 'conspiracy' Deniers believe in must span nearly 2 centuries.”

Yes, that’s a fair statement if the term ‘deniers’ is properly used, as it would be for instance with the small group of deniers known as “the dragon slayers”. However, don’t apply it to the vast majority of ‘sceptics’ of CAGW who fully accept the nominal warming effect of GHG’s, but question that feedback mechanisms etcetera are ‘poorly understood’ and that the net outcomes have only been guessed at via computer modelling (and rather poorly).

“Deniers must live in a very scary world, and believe in an organisation that dwarfs James Bond's "Spectre"!”

That’s quite amusing if you are applying it to sceptics rather than deniers. It seems to me that YOU live in a scary world where you predict a horrible death for your grandchildren but cannot tolerate any discussion of good news.

You would probably relish this study that amazingly got past peer review in the esteemed Nature journal. It claims CO2 sensitivity at 7 – 13°C, so your grandchildren are at grave risk. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature19798.html

You probably don’t want to know, but even Gavin Schmidt asserts that claim to be wrong.

@Craig Minns,
Thank you for confirming what I suspected.

Don't thank me Bob, no matter what I wrote, it would have "confirmed what you suspected"...

I'm entirely open to good news. In fact, I collect it on my blog. But it has to come from peer-reviewed sources, as in *real* science. I'm all for trialling geo-engineering schemes that might cool the planet and de-acidify the oceans.Then let the climate and nature experts inspect the results. But that's the thing isn't it?

I respect the peer-review processs: you obviously don't. Give the Snyder paper time in the peer-review circuit and see how the science bounces back. The peer-review process is quite rigorous enough to attack itself. This Snyder paper may not survive that process, and I'll be glad if it doesn't! The *regular* climate news is bad enough.

Whatever survives peer review is the best guess the human race has as to what is going on. We should listen to it!

Now, where I see genuine debate is what to DO about all this! I'm with James Hansen. I'm not convinced we can move to a power source that is mostly *OFF*. Sadly, many groups quote Dr James Hansen on the problem of climate change, while ignoring his stated *solution*.
He says:
1. Believing in 100% RENEWABLES is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. (Yes, he's aware of all the 'studies' that say we can, but still thinks storage is ridiculously expensive and cannot do the job).
http://goo.gl/8qidgV

2. The world should build 115 reactors a year*
http://goo.gl/Xx61xU
(*Note: on a reactors-to-GDP ratio the French *already* beat this build rate back in the 70's under the Mesmer plan. 115 reactors a year should be easy for the world economy. France did it *faster* with older technology, and today's nukes can be mass produced on an assembly line. Also, GenIV breeders are coming that can eat nuclear waste and covert a 100,000 year storage problem into 1000 years of clean energy for America and 500 years for the UK with today's levels of nuclear waste).

Bob

I believe this reference puts into perspective the research just published. New research is closely scrutinised when published, it is the usual process.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/global-warming-study-13-degrees-is-wrong-climate-change/#sthash.5nIshEys.dpuf

Quote:

“But the conclusions the study’s author drew from that research—that even preventing any further increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could still leave the Earth doomed to a catastrophic temperature rise of up to 7 degrees Celsius (about 13 degrees Fahrenheit)—isn’t supported by the data, several top scientists said.

“This is simply wrong,” said Gavin Schmidt, chief of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

Just to emphasize, the issue was about if emissions were to stop now; the author of the new study had suggested temperature could still go up to 7C; whereas, generally 2C is the accepted increase in temperature.

Science equals: question, then literature research, then hypothesis, then collection of data ,then hypothesis might be discarded or modified, more data collected or paper written, peer reviewed before publishing, once published may be critiqued by scientists reading published paper, the paper may then be modified post publication.

Last comment in relation to this OLO article.

The OLO article is about Roberts's maiden speech where he spoke about climate change.

He was criticised by a scientist for not understanding the laws of thermodynamics

The upper atmosphere of our planet can reduce impact of meteors and reduce solar heat, so why would increase in CO2 not reduce even a fraction of solar heat?

"so why would increase in CO2 not reduce even a fraction of solar heat?"

It's called physics.

Shortwave length energy (light) pierces easily through CO2.

Longwave length energy (heat) cannot as easily pierce through CO2.

Fourier discovered this in the 1820's. Basically, modern devices shine various spectra of energy through gases and see what 'shadow' they leave behind. It's like finger-puppet shadows, but instead of guessing the name of the animal, you're learning about what energy bandwidth has been trapped by the gas.

I've just typed all that for you JF Aus.

Do you have the integrity to watch this demonstration of CO2, verifiable by any decent physicist on the planet?

60 seconds only!

Watch the candle at 90 seconds in! The candle heat demonstration only goes for a minute.
(The rest of the video is great, and demonstrates the accuracy of today's climate models).
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

You're welcome.

Craig Minns,

f.y.i
http://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2016-2017-1/

@ Max Green, Thursday, 29 September 2016 8:05:55 PM

Max,

You say, "Longwave length energy (heat) cannot as easily pierce through CO2".

I think that if heat cannot as easily penetrate through CO2 then Malcolm Roberts has a point in indicating that increase in CO2 in upper atmosphere helps reduce solar radiation and heating of our planet.

Hi JF,
Thanks for that WEF report, I'm looking forward to having a good read! If you don't mind I won't comment until then.

On the subject of CO2 and absorption of IR:
the reason Roberts is wrong is that IR radiation that impinges on the earth is of shorter wavelength (higher energy) on average than the radiation leaving. This means that the outbound radiation is more readily absorbed by CO2 molecules than the incoming stuff.

The reason for the shift in wavelength is simple: the sun is hotter than the surface of the earth and hotter means more energy, means shorter wavelength.

This isn't in doubt. What is still not well understood, although models are constantly improving, is the effect of this increased absorption of low-grade heat on planetary cycles.

JF,
The heat is not coming from the sun, but the earth! The sun shoots light which goes straight through the atmosphere, and then bounces off the earth as heat. That heat is then trapped by the CO2 from escaping as efficiently as it used to. It's like a blanket keeping you warm, but for the whole earth.

"The mechanism by which carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere is commonly referred to as the "greenhouse effect." Stated very simply, carbon dioxide, or CO2, is nearly transparent to the solar radiation emitted from the sun, but partially opaque to the thermal radiation emitted by the earth. As such, it allows incoming solar radiation from the sun to pass through it and warm the earth's surface. The earth's surface, in turn, emitts a portion of this energy upwards toward space as longer wavelength or thermal radiation. Some of this thermal radiation is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere's CO2 molecules back toward earth's surface, providing an additional source of heat energy. Without water vapor, CO2, and other radiatively-active trace gases in the air, the planet's average temperature would be about 34°C cooler than it is at present."
http://www.co2science.org/subject/questions/1998/greenhouse.php

Basically, I wouldn't trust anything someone like Malcolm Roberts said about science. His performance on Q&A was too retarded for words. The radiative forcing of CO2 and how light pierces it but heat cannot is not debatable. It's stuff you look up in science textbooks. *OLD* science textbooks!

J F Aus
Thankyou for the link to the BIQ building. Just as I suspected however the algae does NOT directly warm the building. The algae absorbs solar energy and stores it thus preventing some of the suns heat from warming anything. The energy stored as a residue is harvested as biogas and burnt to warm the building.
That article linked to this below.
"When the sun shines, the algae multiplies as a result of photosynthesis. The system collects the residue, then converts it to biogas, which is burned in a boiler."
https://www.fastcoexist.com/1681728/this-entire-building-is-powered-by-its-algae-filled-walls

To mimic this in the oceans you need to convert the stored energy to heat. Some things that live on the algae will do this to some extent but the overall effect still seems to be cooling as energy sinks to the bottom of the oceans.

Bob Fernley-Jones
Found a great NASA video that shows how Venus is still like a comet in the tail and how holes in the atmosphere are due to there being no magnetic field.
http://youtu.be/9MVRMzmwubM
Seems to me the magnetic field is absent with the oceans just as they are absent on Mars. There is a theory that the earths magnetic field is produced by our oceans.
Velicovsky would have expected Rosseta to find hydro-carbons too. So his theory that some of our so called "fossil fuels" rained in from space is looking better all the time.

Oh J F Aus forgot this one for you.
http://youtu.be/ExOXF1x3N1g

Another way that CO2 helps to cool the planet is the leaky one way diode valve it creates for infra red (UP and out favoured).
Pressure Broadening creates a pyramid of absorbtion bandwidth. The broadening means that at low altitudes a wide bandwith is absorbed by CO2 to be radiated back up but at a high altitude much of this will not be trapped (so to speak) by CO2 having narrow bandwidth and will escape rigt past.
“Atmospheric pressure strongly affects the absorption spectra of gases (through
pressure broadening). This poses a major problem in computing the transfer of IR
radiation through the atmosphere with varying pressure, temperature, and amount
of gases. ”
Also see figure 6.1
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
More info on that and other broadening.
http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~mboett/astro401_fall12/broadening.pdf.

Siliggy,

Here are a few things for you to digest and perhaps comment on.

1. Cyanobacteria algae is deemed a bacteria. Some bacteria generates heat such as in compost as you know.
Cyanobacteria algae also feeds on waste.
http://archive.bio.ed.ac.uk/jdeacon/microbes/thermo.htm

2. I think you were AWOL and may have missed links I posted on page 17 of this thread, especially about electricity extracted from algae.
Surely there is heat associated with ocean algae occurring somewhere.
Scroll down here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=17

3. If you consider pinpoints of cloud can be seen forming above algae inundated water, surely heat is linked to convection reaching up at least to those pinpoints.

4. As I have said previously, using my hand I can feel warmth in a mat of algae in a pond while there is no apparent similar warmth in water alongside.

5. I agree ocean algae would make water cold lower down due to shade caused by algae at the surface, but if anthropogenic proliferated algae was not there there would be no shade and no cold and no solar energy absorbed and stored in such algae.

6. It has been said to me, quote, " No autotrophic organism can survive without emitting heat as a bi-product of photosynthesis."
True or false?

7. Can anyone give categoric assurance algae MATTER in oceans and lakes does not absorb solar warmth and store it after sundown even for 2 or 3 hours?

Homework:
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/how_is_heat_transferred.ht

JF,

The compost cyanobacteria is not sea alga.

"The term algae is used to describe a diverse collection of aquatic organisms that, in general, have the ability to produce their own food through the process of photosynthesis (though there are exceptions)."
http://greenwaterlab.com/algae-cyanobacteria.html

However, composts generate heat by breaking down organic material: by breaking down organic 'food'. "Compost heat is produced as a by-product of the microbial breakdown of organic material."
http://compost.css.cornell.edu/physics.html

One makes food by absorbing sunlight, the other generates heat by breaking down food. Very different.

Max Green,

Some ocean phytoplankton algae are cyanobacteria.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Phytoplankton/

There is also fresh water algae cyanobacteria with characteristics of both algae and bacteria. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/bathing/srwe1-chap8.pdf

It is heat in the bacteria part of cyanobacteria I am thinking about, even miniscule heat that may add to solar heat absorbed and stored temporarily in ocean and lake algae matter

No one cares. You are not credible. You do not answer questions put to you and ignore the established physics.

hat you have to prove:
1. Why 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

You can even SEE the physics here:
Mythbusters: 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Watch the candle at 90 seconds in! The candle demonstration only goes for a minute.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

CO2's heat trapping properties is really old science, and NOT something that needs proving again and again. It's the kind of thing you look up in a physics textbook.

2. How would algae warm the oceans? 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. Why have 13 international studies confirmed that MORE algae would equal LESS WARMING by removing CO2 from the atmosphere?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

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

Max Green,

Re your,
1.
Where have I discounted the known physics of CO2 or 200 years of physics?
I have not mentioned conspiracy.
I think there may be more than one cause of warming, apart from any warming linked to CO2.
I think algae is warming areas of ocean but not the whole ocean at the same time.

2.
Look at evidence another way.
Where is any evidence to prove categorically that algae is not helping to warm some areas of ocean and lakes?
Science has no evidence of how gravity is formed, yet gravity exists.
Scientific evidence is not essential to prove a fact.

3.
There is visible correlation where dumped human nutrient waste turns water green.
Read up to date expert insight:
http://www.circleofblue.org/2016/water-quality/epa-announces-national-wastewater-nutrient-pollution-census/

4.
You have been informed on the other OLO - Marohasy thread that 1,950 Hiro bombs hit earth every second, so how about you calm down with the 4 more you keep on and on about.
Besides, I repeat, I think algae warms areas, not the whole ocean of the planet at the same time as solar radiation does x 24 hour rotation.

5.
Living algae exists only in near surface waters where sunlight reaches, so deduct all the deep ocean water from your maths.
Again, it's only areas AND near the surface where algae of any consequence exists.

6.
More algae will kill more ocean food web ecosystems such as seagrass and coral small fish nurseries. I think the 13 algae fertilization study teams now know about that.

Max, do you know anything about bi-polar?
Nice on minute, nasty the next.
Go easy eh, with the waste of time innuendo.
How about you explain more about cyanobacteria and heat.
Methane is there also, at least on land

JF Aus

Bi polar is not just ...nice one minute nasty the next, what you say is more akin to passive/aggressive . Bi Polar is a very complex and serious mental health disorder when moods do change from manic to depressive; but in a fairly regular pattern; not minute to minute, it can be days or even weeks.

But, Max does not fit your characterisation, he is very measured and consistent in what he writes.

You seem unclear about methane; it is stored in marine environments as well as on land; eg off New Zealand. When it is voided from deep water bacteria process methane to create CO2.

Warmth and/or nutrients are precursors to the development of algae.

I have already provided a reference in relation to one article or another where warmth destroys phytoplankton.

I will not respond to any more comments about algae, my response was to clear up your miscategorisation of bi polar and comment about methane.

ant,

You are part of the AGW CO2 promotion team so your dropping out of debate about other possible causes of increase in warmth in areas of ocean and lake water, such as in the AGW SST anomaly chart data areas, can be expected.
I think it's likely there was similar drop out of debate about our planet being flat.

On subject of bi-polar disorder, I have a bi-polar friend who I have seen very suddenly let fly with clearly offensive words that can lead to a fight over virtually nothing in a restaurant.

I just wondered if comment online, one minute without ad hom and then later followed with ad hom comment (hinting at mental capacity), might be connected to bi-polar disorder.

While bi-polar condition may be serious, sufferers to my knowledge are otherwise usually very nice people.

JF Aus

Go to DSM V or ICD 10 and look at the definition of bipolar disorder, it is one of the most difficult and serious mental health disorders to diagnose. It often takes some time before a Psychiatrist is willing to provide a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

Should you not be willing to take your comments back about bipolar disorder it displays your willingness to jump to conclusions. That being my underlying reason for becoming involved back in the discussion.

"How about you explain more about cyanobacteria and heat."
It's not up to me to argue your case for you. Dude, how about you do your own job? There's heat from some cyanobacteria in compost, granted. But heat from photosynthesis in water? That's a different thing altogether, and up to you to prove. Basically, you've got nothing. Algae blooms are a *tiny* percentage of the global volumes of water, and do not as far as I can tell have a significant radiative forcing. The maths, dude, the maths! The Radiative Forcing Equation has spelt out the problem for us. It's there, plain to see. CO2 actually, repeatedly, demonstrably traps heat. Always. Every time. By a known quantity per square meter of the earth's surface. The ice caps are melting, the glaciers retreating, the season's changing, the ocean rising, the rain patterns changing. This is not a joke, and for the life of me I don't know why you're mixing up what might be a legitimate *LOCAL* environmental concern about anoxic algal bloom rivers, or some oceanic dead zones, with the immense *GLOBAL* concern about *GLOBAL* warming.

I hear you. Algal blooms are killing certain rivers, or rather, the industrial conditions and over-use of our waterways are leading to algal blooms that are a side effect of our indifference to nature and her habitats. But that's got nothing to do with global warming. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You've been going on about this for years, and are obsessed with raising it every time we discuss global warming, so I find it hard to believe you're not trying to undermine the peer-reviewed physics of CO2.

ant,

I have a friend with bi-polar disorder and he takes tablets prescribed by a doctor. From your comment above it seems you think diagnosis is still required.

You are always demanding evidence.
Do you have evidence of willingness on my part to jump to conclusions? If so let's hear about it.

Why should I take back my justified comment/s of substance?
Look back to the post about being, quote, "REALLY mad".

I think you, ant, are trying to detract discussion away from subject of photosynthetic ocean and lake cyanobacteria algae also having characteristics of bacteria, some of the latter producing warmth in compost.

United Nations science has to be queried because it is incomplete concerning AGW, especially the science is not explaining the heat in SST data that is an anomaly.

It's a pity you are walking away from debate here about possible or not cause of that heat resulting in that anomaly.

JF Aus

You have no idea how ludicrous your comments about bipolar disorder are!

A Psychiatrist would not make a diagnosis without meeting a patient face to face and spending a considerable time interviewing them; it is likely that a Psychiatric Nurse or Allied Health worker would have taken a full history prior to the Psychiatric interview..

Read about the Dunning-Kruger effect, JF Aus.

You have confirmed that you jump to conclusions without any evidence.

ant,

This friend of mine has met face to face and been treated by more than one Psychiatrist.
In fact I have two friends I know with the disorder and we sometimes talk about change in behaviour, change especially when they don't take their medicine.

Give it a break, ant. I don't want to waste my 4x24 hr post limit.
Get on topic, about queries related to UN AGW associated science.

JF Aus

My point was that you cannot get bipolar disorder right, it being a reflection on any other comments being unreliable in relation to climate change... warming through algal blooms is a nonsense.

@ Max Green, Sunday, 2 October 2016 11:36:39 AM

Photosynthesis is only part of the process that may lead to heat produced, i.e, apart from solar heat.

If nutrient was inadequate then photosynthesis in ocean cyanobacteria algae would not occur and nor would the related photo-biological process.

Nutrient comes first, then photosynthesis, then biological reaction occurs, the latter including in water, wastewater, sewage water, and I think in some areas of sewage nutrient polluted ocean and lake water.

I suggest consider biological oxidation, see -Grady, et al.
Here at page 2 & 3:

http://waterfacts.net/Review_of_Temperature_Effects_in_Biological_Treatment-web.pdf

Surely there is need to query UN science, especially about biological conversion of energy into heat and possible links to the SST data anomaly in AGW - climate science.

Correct solutions are required urgently to overcome various impact of nutrient pollution. e.g. There is the social and economic impact on people dependent on ESSENTIAL protein food from ocean seas and waterways, consequent to algae devastated aquatic food web nurseries and devastated wild fish populations.

All is not lost. There is a lot to be gained.
Clean energy is required to help overcome air pollution.

Nutrient harvesting and trading could be linked to production of algae for biofuel and fertilizer, feed and food.

World ocean and waterway health requires proper care management.

Relevant cost to manage the presently unmanaged world ocean ecosystem has to be linked to world fiscal policy.

However one thing at a time, urgently.

JF,
I applaud your concern for polluted waterways and clean energy. Really I do. But I'm not even a scientist, and yet even I can spot the first problem with the PDF you quote!

Talk about chicken and egg! What is the paper about: the temperature the algae causes, or the temperature that causes the algae? ;-) Seriously, dude, did you even READ it?

" In the mesophilic range, the rate of the biological reaction will increase with temperature to a maximum value at 31°C [87.8°F] for most aerobic waste
systems. A temperature above 39°C will result in a decreased rate for mesophilic organisms. At temperatures above 96°F (35.5°C) there is deterioration in the biological floc. Protozoa have been observed to disappear at 104°F (40°C) and a dispersed floc with filaments to dominate at 110°F (43.3°C). In the past, hot wastewaters such as those in the pulp and paper industry were pretreated through a cooling tower so that the aeration basin temperature did not exceed 35°C [95°F]. "

Also:
"Seasonal variations in temperature can markedly influence the makeup of microbial communities. Just as with pH, each species is characterized by a minimum, optimum, and maximum temperature that will support growth. "

The temperature causes the algae to grow or die! NOT the algae causes the temperature. You've quoted a paper that's back to front for your argument. Want to try again?

How would algae warm the oceans? What is the physics? What is the evidence?

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?

Why have 13 international studies confirmed that MORE algae would equal LESS WARMING by removing CO2 from the atmosphere?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

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

Max.

I am in conversation with you involving the bacteria aspect of cyanobacteria in ocean and lake water where there is heat.

Accordingly the paper I linked is about bacteria feeding on waste in water and generating heat.

This is not just about heat from compost of waste on land.

I will try to deal with your questions tomorrow, though I think I have already answered them.

"I am in conversation with you involving the bacteria aspect of cyanobacteria in ocean and lake water where there is heat.

Accordingly the paper I linked is about bacteria feeding on waste in water and generating heat."

Comprehension is not your strong point. The paper is about how bacteria RESPOND to heat, not how they generate it. Learn. To. Read.

@ Max Green, Tuesday, 4 October 2016 9:31:11 AM

Max and others,

That Grady, et al paper is about response by bacteria to heat, including to extra heat produced by bacteria during the biological process.
I read on page 3, quote, “One of the factors that affect heat gains in biological processes is the production of heat as a result of biological oxidation” (end quote).

N.B.
Production of heat is clearly stated. Production of heat as result of biological oxidation processes, is very different to solar production of heat.

Check @ Grady et al, I suggest read down into the paragraph beginning, “One of the factors………...”.
I read that if industrial wastewater is of high temperature already, and then production of more heat occurs as result of biological oxidation, a costly biological waste treatment process could fail (due to overheating).

By pointing to the Grady, et al paper, my intent is to indicate evidence of heat produced by bacteria in water, specifically by the cyano-aspect of cyanobacteria phytoplankton in some areas of ocean and waterways worldwide.

Cyanobacteria occurs and/or is harnessed in composting on land.
Up to 100% cyanobacteria can be present in wastewater treatment. See:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21287346

Cyanobacteria nutrient-dependent phytoplankton algae is occurring in increasing mass in warm ocean and lake water where convection and evaporation can be observed forming pinpoints of cloud in atmosphere above, as NASA images indicate.
E.g here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40716
here;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79706&eocn=image&eoci=related_image
and here, where the Australian BOM apparently does not see the algae including in blooms near shore;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88389

Effects of cyanobacterial populations are yet to be unravelled, I think especially including marine and waterway cyanobacteria - algae.
It seems there are study difficulties in situ so imagine difficulties at mercy of weather while working to understand chemistry and biology of cyanobacteria ocean micro algae and MASS linked to weather and climate.

Jennifer Marohasy questions some BOM measurement sites.
I am questioning and assessing nutrient overload evidence and impact apparently associated with Sea Surface Temperature data that is an anomaly in AGW - climate science.

It’s only 2016.
However boffins should end their long holiday. TIC

“By pointing to the Grady, et al paper, my intent is to indicate evidence of heat produced by bacteria in water, specifically by the cyano-aspect of cyanobacteria phytoplankton in some areas of ocean and waterways worldwide.”
Yes, but are cyanobacteria phytoplankton? Zooplankton eat other biological critters, phytoplankton photosynthesise. It’s a bit different. So rule out the process in composts: this is *way* different.

Even if they create a tiny amount of heat in absorbing sunlight, what percentage of that sunlight was going to turn to heat because of the albedo of seawater anyway? How to plankton interact with that process? By what percentage?

How much heat EXACTLY is added to the system when plankton photosynthesise?

How much EXTRA plankton is there as a result of human activity? Does this account for 4 Hiroshima bombs EXTRA per second on the earth? By what maths?

How many plankton are there in the world’s oceans? What percentage of those oceans are actually experiencing a bloom?

“I am questioning and assessing nutrient overload evidence and impact apparently associated with Sea Surface Temperature data that is an anomaly in AGW - climate science.”
Really? SST is an anomaly? I think you’ve drunk the Marohasy flavoured cool-aid, and there’s no helping you.

You haven’t answered ANY of the questions above with ANY scientific data.

Goodbye!

I am asked, "are cyanobacteria phytoplankton".
The answer is, can be.

Cyanobacteria can be found in a compost heap but not phytoplankton.

Some species of phytoplankton that are also cyanobacteria can sometimes be overly abundant in ocean and waterways, depending on suitable and adequate nutrient availability.

More here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Phytoplankton/

As for scientific data I think there is need to wait until science unravels cyanobacteria ecology in oceans and waterways of this planet.

Meanwhile, solutions should be commenced to reverse impact of sewage and land use nutrient pollution feeding algae that has devastated ocean estuary food-web nurseries and supply of food for marine animals and seafood dependent coastal and island people.

It's time for the United Nations Secretary General to see the empirical evidence indicating beyond reasonable doubt that nutrient overload-pollution has already devastated whole world ocean ecosystem ecology and is also causing change to weather and climate.

Max,
Sorry to see you say goodbye.
Thanks for the debate.

"Meanwhile, solutions should be commenced to reverse impact of sewage and land use nutrient pollution feeding algae that has devastated ocean estuary food-web nurseries and supply of food for marine animals and seafood dependent coastal and island people."
Agreed.

But.

You.

Have.

Failed.

To.

Link.

To.

Heat.

Or.

Climate.

Answer the questions or stop raving about this completely ludicrous theory of yours.

Max, you said goodbye.
You are still here.

Look back at what you have said in your own posts.
You repeat questions I already answered on the other Marohasy thread.
You repeat and repeat the 4 hiro bomb scare spin.
You infer I do not read after I pointed you to production of heat as a result of biological oxidation involving cyanobacteria.
It seems you yourself apparently have not read about phytoplankton cyanobacteria, despite the links I posted for you.

Then there are the NASA images.
Is it theory of mine that I see pinpoints of cloud forming from rising water vapour above visible algae including in known algae inundated waters?

Online Opinion is a website for opinion and I am expressing my opinion.
Accordingly I expect a scientist qualified in the particular field to produce evidence to prove my opinion incorrect concerning such serious matters, if that is the case.

I think I have stated matters well enough to the best of my ability and I feel there is no need to continue responding to your opinion any further, Max.

Cheers.

Why do you think you can equate the behaviour of some *algae* in the ocean with totally different bacteria in a sewerage treatment plant?

The bacteria we use in processing sewer wastes require industrially maintained temperatures and human organic wastes to breed. Only *then* does it add a little additional heat into the (artificial) system. Exactly which algae is going to behave the same way in the much colder, clearer, nutrient deprived oceans?

You might have stated things "to the best of your ability", but you have failed to provide ANY evidence to ANY specific question put to you.

1. Why you discount CO2 can and does trap 4 Hiroshima bombs per second spread across the earth? This is *in addition* to whatever other energy you many know about.

2. How would algae warm the oceans? What is the physics? What is the evidence? By what amount?

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. Why have 13 international studies confirmed that MORE algae would equal LESS WARMING by removing CO2 from the atmosphere?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

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

J F Aus
Have been looking at this for you and am very short of time due to a mate having a breakdown in a difficult location. Suggest you have a good look at two things. The difference between phytoplankton and zooplankton. Also a very interesting and RELEVANT to your interests thing seems to be that plants have a higher albedo at non photosynthesis wavelengths.
You will notice that on none of these charts do they even think about reflection of backradiation by plant matter(or anything else). So none of these charts really balances.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fa1UELwAvMI/Us1LPEvyufI/AAAAAAAAEto/Mdp0jpfzO4c/s1600/Fig2-11.png
http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/faq-1-1-fig-1.jpg
This means plant matter could become a warmspot from sunlight but not from backradiation. Making your theory live well with mine. Yours providing warming at low CO2 levels and mine producing more cooling as they go up. Think about it.

The peer reviewed literature says that algae trap CO2 and die and sink to the bottom of the ocean, cooling the planet. On a global scale, the ridiculously minuscule fraction of the planet experiencing algal blooms CANNOT CANNOT CANNOT explain the warming of this planet. It's 3 or 4 Christmas bulbs per square metre of the earth extra heat, or 4 Hiroshima bombs per second.

On a local environmental scale, dying rivers and algal blooms are a legitimate and sad concern. But global warming? Forget about it! Unless you're talking about human geo-engineering to COOL the planet by adding nutrients to the oceans to INCREASE algae! See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Siliggy,

I have considerable observational experience with zooplankton virtually crawling around underwater lights while filming at night and also under ship deck lights.
Then there is immobile phytoplankton that reduces visibility underwater during day and night.

It's only since discussion on OLO with you that I have delved into albedo and the first thing I notice is the different colour and also density of phytoplankton mass as seen from satellite.
For example there is the whiter appearance of coccolithaphore algae mid water in the Bering Sea, compared to the dark green of other algae species flowing northward in current along the eastern shore area of the Bering Sea.

There are massive masses of underwater micro algae that affect light processed in satellite digital imagery, so surely there is difference in relevant albedo.

I think higher CO2 levels may help proliferate more algae as cyanobacteria apparently thrives on CO2, and CO2 alone may maintain life until other essential nutrient again becomes available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fixation

Some people seem to think the ocean of this planet is nutrient poor but in reality most near shore waters and inland sea areas are rich with nutrient and sometimes become over-loaded with nutrient.

Then there appears to be people who do not see the algae and they think evaporation just occurs over water. I think they are not seeing evaporation and precipitation of cloud occurring above or in association with algae.
Yes, the figures at the URL's you posted above make no reference to algae, and to me that looks like not considering impact on climate between influence of a wet rainforest compared to a dry desert.

I think when all these different sources of extra heat are measured and assessed it will be apparent ocean algae plant matter is a significant factor in change to climate at different times in different areas worldwide but not all at the same time.

(the ipcc URL say's not reachable)
I hope your mate gets on top of his situation.

"Some people seem to think the ocean of this planet is nutrient poor but in reality most near shore waters and inland sea areas are rich with nutrient and sometimes become over-loaded with nutrient."

Dude, do you read ANY of the links I supply? What's the point of 'conversation' with you if you don't read anything I supply? Even the shorter bits?

For example, what percentage of the oceans have what number of algae in them? I've quoted the figures a few times. If the vast majority of the oceans have this tiny number, then obviously the vast majority of the oceans are actually clear blue salt water with hardly any nutrient. Areas of the ocean like nutrient overloaded rivers or rich coral reefs are the exception to the rule. The rule is clear deep blue.

This is why, YET AGAIN, I'll remind you that 13 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES have CONFIRMED that iron fertilisation of the oceans would COOL the planet by INCREASING algae!

Boom. KO. You're done, you're just not smart enough to see it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Why are some people blind to reality?

Why compare percentage of algae to percentage of ALL ocean water?
How is it possible some people do not understand ocean algae lives only in the first 100 metres of surface water?
The first 100 metres of surface water is the limit for sunlight penetration for essential photosynthesis in algae?
Science describes deep ocean life as equivalent with life similar to a barren desert on land.

Why is education about ocean of this planet so backward or suppressed?

Nutrient pollution in ocean and waterways has already devastated ocean ecosystems and seafood supply worldwide.
Cause is obvious to those who want to know.
http://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/issue7.pdf
and
http://www.helcom.fi/lists/publications/bsep100.pdf

Ocean water is not blue, it only appears blue.
Ocean water can be clear or shades of green or a muddy dull green.
Scroll down in the following page to the see the Norman Kuring NASA photo, and describe the colours.
Then read and understand cause, impact and consequences.
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-shift-arabia-sea-plankton-threaten.html

Imagine adding fertilizer to ocean currents linked to already nutrient overloaded seas and coastal ecosystems.

There is dire urgent need for United Nations and government associated science to be questioned.
The first question should be, "Does science have adequate money for research to identify and understand and describe what is really happening in the ocean and atmospheric environment of this planet"?

Present day relevant scientific literature is out of date.
The times and natural environment have changed.

There is need for a Royal Commission with focus into Australian Broadcasting Corporation justified reason or not for suppression of empirical evidence of substance indicating, in absence of full scientific certainty, the devastated the state of ocean and waterway degradation linked to nutrient pollution, and due solutions.

Why were "State of the Marine Environment Report" studies suspended? Why and by whom?

Where is One Nation and Senator Malcolm Roberts in this debate and time of dire need

“Why are some people blind to reality?”
You tell me sunshine, you’re the one who scoffs at the proven physics of CO2’s extra heat burden of 4 Hiroshima bombs per second.

Also, what I want you to tell this thread is what percentage of algal blooms cover the top METRE of the world’s oceans?

From your own link:

“More than 60 percent of our coastal rivers and bays in every coastal state of the continental United States are moderately to severely degraded by nutrient pollution. This degradation is particularly severe in the mid Atlantic states, in the southeast, and in the Gulf of Mexico.”
http://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/issue7.pdf

Now, what percentage of the world's oceans are the coasts? ;-)

Yes, it’s a real LOCAL environmental problem! Again, I’m with you on that. But NO, it CANNOT account for our problem of PLANETARY warming today. The vast, clear, algal deserts of our oceans contain hardly any algae. But that could change with as the climate changes. Just as the sewerage alga PDF YOU quoted discusses different organisms requiring different starting temperatures, the oceans are at risk of supporting more algal blooms as temperatures rise.

“And climate change isn’t just about temperature. It will also change how storms and melting ice add moisture to the marine world, make the oceans more corrosive, and alter the mixing of deep cold waters with light-filled seas at the surface. All of that can and will affect how harmful algae grow.
It’s just not always easy to see how.”

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/toxic-algae/

But it’s VERY complex! From the same link:

"It's pretty clear that if you change temperature, light availability and nutrients, that can absolutely change an ecosystem," Lefebvre says. "But is it just starting? Is it getting worse? Is it the same as always? I have no idea."

Max, reality about the extra 4 hiro bombs of radiation per second, that causes me to scoff because you give no evidence of impact of that 4 in addition to what the other 1,960 per second do naturally.

I don't understand why you question algae in the top one METRE of ocean. Why not one hundred metres? And I think that is a good question for the UN IPCC science people to measure and answer.
In reality however there is no baseline data and never will be any data showing the initial natural amount.
But I can describe on oath reality of increase I have observed in the past 60 years, such as surface colour change and loss of underwater visibility in some areas.

Impact is not just in the LOCAL environment, understand my focus. For example.

(a) There is seafood devastation-linked protein-deficiency malnutrition among neighbouring SW Pacific Ocean islanders.

(b) The SPC has officially stated populations of the 4 main species of tuna in the Pacific are now at historically low levels.

(c) Islanders and tuna depend on food supply from coastal estuary small fish nurseries that are supposed to supply the food web.

(d) Migratory predators including birds and fish unable to find adequate food on the Australian coast must find food elsewhere or die.
Fish are not immune to starvation. Starving animals do not breed/multiply successfully. Fishing restrictions have failed to prevent reaching historically low level populations.
Reality is inadequate seagrass, inadequate nurseries, inadequate food-web supply.
And development of lucrative aquaculture policy instead of sensible ecosystem management policy.

Reality is that nutrient pollution from over 7.3 billion people and their land use now so severe it is causing ocean ecosystem change increase in cloud and more severe weather, the latter for example extending from South Australia to the top of Queensland damaging the GBR ecosystem.

However oceans will not fill with algae because algae requires sunlight for photosynthesis in upper surface waters.

Reality is suitable nutrients have to be present in the first place.

I have an idea of the reality because I was there beginning 1954.

“Fishing restrictions have failed to prevent reaching historically low level populations. “

That sentence blindly assumes that today's politicians have delivered the fishing restrictions that the scientists have been asking for, but that is clearly wrong.
http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing

You appear to want to discount overfishing and blame everything climate and ocean related on one critter, algae. Problem is, high algae areas appear to be in *far* less than 1% of the earth's oceans.
Now demonstrate how that tiny fraction change in albedo, or increase in plankton activity, can in any way generate an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

Yet in the same post you admit: “However oceans will not fill with algae because algae requires sunlight for photosynthesis in upper surface waters. Reality is suitable nutrients have to be present in the first place.” So on the one hand, algae is responsible for global warming and global oceanic ecosystem collapse, ignoring the *known* phenomenon of CO2 and greenhouse gases, overfishing, and incredible build up of toxic plastic bags and micro-plastic, yet on the other hand you admit the oceans don't really support high levels of algae. Confused much?

As for 4 Hiroshima bombs per second:

“We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.”

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

And then this:
“The Hiroshima atomic bomb yielded an explosive energy of 6.3x1013 Joules. Since 1998, our climate has already absorbed more than 2 billion such bombs (4.0 every second) in accumulated energy from the sun, due to greenhouse gases, and continues to absorb more energy as heat each and every day. For more information, visit http://sks.to/heat. “

Yes, fishing restrictions have failed to prevent reaching historically low level populations.

Politicians and scientists have been very wrong, for example it is against the law to take small fish and legal to take the big adult mature breeding age fish. LOL. LOL LOL. Truly.

Then there are the 200 nautical mile limits that do nothing to stop migratory fish swimming outside the limit and being caught somewhere else.

Then there are fishing restrictions that cannot be policed because of not enough money for effective policing.

United Nations focus and agenda has to be questioned in more ways than one, absolutely.

And some people actually believe the WWF that has been on watch while all this devastation has been happening and become critical.
Australia now imports over 70% of it's fish product including to feed aquaculture.

Just on news yesterday the BBC told of not enough small fish to feed salmon and so omega oil production has halved and is expected to decrease further.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37321656

Truth is the world ocean environment can no longer support enough fish to bring about fish population recovery.
Major media has reality dumbed down.

Truth is anchovy are seagrass dependent and seagrass nurseries and anchovy populations are devastated worldwide due to nutrient pollution proliferating epiphyte growth.
Right at this very moment I am based 100m from where it is happening right now. I live and work in ocean ecosystems.
Google; epiphyte. Learn about different algae that is destroying ocean food web nursery ecosystems.

Truth is that foreign nations fishing and devastating anchovy and other small fish populations of other nations even led to start of piracy off Somalia and the lawlessness that followed.

Algae is not just about toxic algae blooms and news spin supposed to scare people into watching adverts or buying 'news' papers.
Nobody can deny cloud can be seen forming into pinpoints above algae inundated waters.

I have not said algae is responsible for global warming. What I have said is that algae is warming areas of ocean and lakes, not worldwide at the same time.

"I have not said algae is responsible for global warming. What I have said is that algae is warming areas of ocean and lakes, not worldwide at the same time."

Well, I don't even know if THAT could happen and would need to see peer-reviewed science that discusses the actual algae involved actually doing what you propose: not what you transpose from garden composts or artificial sewerage systems running at much higher temperatures than most natural bodies of water on this planet!

If this is not about global warming, why do you suddenly start rocking on your chair and repeating, "Algae cause warming, algae cause warming, algae cause warming," like Rainman wanting 12 Cheetos every single time there's a climate discussion? Huh? ;-) We're watching what you actually DO, not just what you claim.

The majority of the damage to our oceans comes from overfishing, then probably ocean acidification from burning too many fossil fuels, which thins the shells of calcium critters. Climate change will soon catch up with our ocean fishing, as previous Extinction Level Events have lead to anoxic oceans.

"Anoxic events coincided with several mass extinctions and may have contributed to them.[3] These mass extinctions include some that geobiologists use as time markers in biostratigraphic dating.[4] Many geologists believe oceanic anoxic events are strongly linked to slowing of ocean circulation, climatic warming, and elevated levels of greenhouse gases. Researchers have proposed enhanced volcanism (the release of CO2) as the "central external trigger for euxinia".[5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event

These involved GARGANTUAN algal blooms, but they're the RESULT of climate change and oceanic circulation cutting out, not the cause.

Here is just one question for Max Green to answer, and watch the way he answers.

Q.
What peer-reviewed scientific evidence do you have Max Green, to prove as you say, "The majority of the damage to our oceans comes from overfishing".

People can Google Scholar overfishing and depleted oceans, because I'm not playing that game until you address just ONE of my posts like an adult and actually look for the evidence required to support your claims!

But in the meantime, I repeat:

You appear to want to discount overfishing and blame all climate and ocean ecosystem problems on algae. Problem is, high algae areas appear to be in *far* less than 1% of the earth's oceans. Now demonstrate how that tiny fraction change in albedo, or increase in plankton activity, can in any way generate an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

Does this help with 4 Hiroshima bombs? It's the conclusion of the peer-reviewed science, and comes from devices they can show you in a physics lab if you bothered to google them.

As for 4 Hiroshima bombs per second:

Instruments tell us what CO2 does and by how much it does it.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

"The earth has warmed rapidly over the past century due mainly to human activity, and especially over the past few decades. The increased greenhouse effect has warmed the land and air and melted ice, but most of it (about 90%) has gone into heating the oceans. Several Skeptical Science contributors worked together to publish a scientific paper1 which combined the land, air, ice, and ocean warming data. It found that for recent decades the earth has been heating at a rate of 250 trillion Joules per second.

“Joules per second” is a difficult unit of measure to appreciate, and is especially foreign to people who are unfamiliar with science. This widget attempts to put that heating into terms that are easier to visualize. 250 trillion Joules per second is equivalent to:

Detonating four Hiroshima atomic bombs per second
Experiencing two Hurricane Sandys per second
Enduring four 6.0 Richter scale earthquakes per second
Being struck by 500,000 lightning bolts per second
Exploding more than eight Big Ben towers, with every inch packed full of dynamite, per second"
http://4hiroshimas.com/#Science

US military assessment of climate change:

Quote, last paragraphs:

"The next president will have a choice to make. One option is to continue down the path that the Obama administration has defined and develop policies, budgets, plans and programs that flesh out the institutional framework now in place. Alternatively, he or she can call climate change a hoax manufactured by foreign governments and ignore the flashing red lights of increasing risk.

The world’s ice caps will not care who is elected or what is said. They will simply continue to melt, as dictated by laws of physics. But Americans will care deeply about our policy response. Our nation’s security is at stake."

From:

https://theconversation.com/a-military-view-on-climate-change-its-eroding-our-national-security-and-we-should-prepare-for-it-65535

Analogy:

If a person placed $16,700 into a bank account in 1979 and found that in 2016 their deposit was $4,400, they would be very disappointed if no withdrawals had occurred. Bank charges being the cause of over $12,000 being lost.

Sea ice volume in the Arctic Ocean was 16,700 km3 in 1979, while in 2016 the provisional volume of sea ice was 4,000 km3 rounded up. From year to year there are variations; but a loss of around 12,000 km3 is significantoing down, the trend line has been continually going down.

Ant,
you can't possibly believe that US Military report. The algae made them write it! ;-)
Regards

Hi Max

You are onto something!

In September, denier sites were suggesting that as the sea ice extent had risen quickly in September 2016, it meant that scientists were wrong about the Arctic being in a mess. The only statistics that matter are those when maximum and minimum values are obtained in April and September. But, data taken twice per year can be misleading. There can be huge variation from one day to the next. Sea ice extent increase has now decreased to be lowest recorded since 1980 for October measures (IJIS). Illustrative of the point being made, we do not have a crystal ball to determine what sea ice extent will be next week; or the following weeks through till April.

It just illustrates how denier sites do not fully comprehend what data means, and then jump to the wrong conclusion. The more sinister conclusion which could be drawn is that the author of the article published by WUWT fully comprehends how sea ice extent varies on a daily basis up and down.

As stated, the only significant stats come twice per year; though they can cause wrong conclusions to be made as there are variations in sea ice extent from year to year. It is the overall trend line showing data for decades that shows what's going on.

Ant posts some misinformation.
"The world’s ice caps will not care who is elected or what is said. They will simply continue to melt, as dictated by laws of physics."
The reality is that Antarcica has been growing in both area and mass since it was covered by rain forest.
NASA says
"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.".
Further down NASA says
"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.".
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

For the Antarctic to have been gaining ice for such a long time without the seas falling means the planet must be gaining hydrogen and oxygen from some other place.
"Curiously, the decline in atmospheric oxygen over the past 800,000 years was not accompanied by any significant increase in the average amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, though carbon dioxide concentrations do vary over individual ice age cycles."
http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/6002.html
The hydrogen is coming in every day as protons from space in cosmic radiation. Also as solar wind.
The only constant on earth is change.

With the Antarctic growing like that for so long we should have noticed global cooling from the ice albedo feedback unless either the planet is growing or something darkens the ice at incoming wavelenghths.
In steps alge.
"When an 1818 British expedition led by Captain John Ross tasked with finding the Northwest Passage stumbled onto "extensive patches" of this stuff near Greenland's Cape York in Baffin Bay, the Times of London confidently declared it to be iron-nickel meteorite detritus. In reality, the Scottish botanist Robert Brown -- he of Brownian motion fame -- suggested in an appendix to Ross's mission report that same year the color could be due to an alga, a photosynthetic microbe. And it was."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/wonderful-things-dont-eat-the-pink-snow/
On the other hand the planet is growing.
https://youtu.be/oJfBSc6e7QQ

Siliggy

My last post was about the Arctic Circle; deniers have got it completely wrong.
Sea ice volume 1979 was 16,700 km3, in 2016 around 4,400 km3. Sea ice thickness is also down. The Artic Circle presents huge problems without taking into account Antarctica.

In relation to Antarctica, a 6,000 square kilometre hunk of the Larson C ice sheet is preparing to calve.
Pine Island glaciers are also not in a healthy state.

Antarctica has been assessed very closely over the last few years, satellite photos are not creating a happy picture. East Antarctica had been considered to be stable, that is no longer the case ( Tottem glacier ).

Deniers of new information about the world beneath the surface of the world ocean should not ignore virtual rainforests of plant matter beneath Arctic ice and offshore from Antarctic ice,

http://inhabitat.com/nasa-team-finds-rainforest-of-algal-blooms-under-arctic-ice/arctic-ice-from-space/

What impact could there be on albedo due to penetration and reflection of radiation hitting dark plant matter instead of clear water beneath the ice?

No wonder sea ice melts sometimes. Or can AGW science prove sea ice only melts from the top down?

Land and sea plant matter is linked to atmosphere and change in climate and so both should be measured and assessed in climate science.

Surely UN science should be questioned about impact of algae plant matter on weather and climate.

I don't think you get it JF Aus, it's SO much more serious than that! The algae have infiltrated the UN and are planning to corrupt our taxation system, gradually increasing their level of global governance until they take our women and children!

In the meantime, ice is good. ICE is the major albedo changer, as it reflects 90% of the sun's rays. Any (hypothetical and unproved) heat from photosynthesis under the ice is only from the 10% of light left over from the ice.

Gee, I wonder what force could possibly be melting the ice? I wonder if there's some global scientific conversation that accounts for that enormous kind of energy, instead of looking at algae that are only blooming in WAAAAAY under 1% of the oceans? Boy, this is REALLY REALLY HARD! I WONDER what it could be?

"Detonating four Hiroshima atomic bombs per second
Experiencing two Hurricane Sandys per second
Enduring four 6.0 Richter scale earthquakes per second
Being struck by 500,000 lightning bolts per second
Exploding more than eight Big Ben towers, with every inch packed full of dynamite, per second"
http://4hiroshimas.com/#Science
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 8 Octob

Max Green,

You definitely fit the definition for Internet Troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_trol

Sticks and stones, JF, sticks and stones.

If I'm finally resorting to sarcasm it's because of the utterly dreary one sided nature of this interaction. Trolls (like yourself) just take a contrary position for the sake of it, for attention, or because they're too dumb and too stubborn to know any different.I post because I care about the fate of this planet. You post because you've got some bizarre unprovable hobby horse and you can't let it go. If you go back over this thread you'll see I ask dozens of questions you never bother to answer, and yet answer heaps of yours. One sided, much?

For instance, you didn't address the fact that ICE is the ultimate planetary albedo moderator, REFLECTING 90% of the sunlight. Once that melts, the ocean under the Arctic can ABSORB 90% of the sunlight, increasing the warming of the oceans and melting of Greenland. What's algae going to do compared to that?

Once again, MORE ALGAE = COOLER PLANET! It's that simple.

Historians will have to record the truth about humans blatantly ignoring nutrient pollution and algae killing the ocean of planet Earth.

How can any decent human being ignore nutrient pollution killing people and biodiversity of our planet.
Look at the date on the following report and consider the state of the marine environment and impact on society since then, now in 2016, all ignored by OUR ABC.

http://www.theecologist.org/trial_investigations/1220194/how_our_growing_appetite_for_salmon_is_devastating_coastal_communities_in_peru.html

There are security and environment and socio-economic grounds for a Royal Commission into collapse of sustainable and affordable and available protein food supply, nutrient pollution linked to cloud precipitation and change in weather, also devastation of coastal ecosystems, deterioration of ocean health, and political motives involving cessation of state of the marine environment (SOMER) studies, as well as justified reason for silent removal of fish from the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Damage from nutrient pollution is known but is generally ignored. Yet in
Scotland, November 2000:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1355936/Pollution-from-fish-farms-as-bad-as-sewage.html

Algae has since increased noticeably.

Deniers of new information about the world beneath the surface of the ocean should not ignore virtual rainforests of plant matter beneath Arctic ice and offshore from Antarctica.

There is need for a big wake up.
Arctic warming is being amplified by algae?
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/19/5921

Can AGW science prove sea ice only melts from the top down?

Land and sea plant matter appears linked to climate and all likely links should be measured and assessed in UN IPCC associated climate science.

Urgently.

“How can any decent human being ignore nutrient pollution killing people and biodiversity of our planet.”
How can you type that sentence, unless you’re a troll? (Slaps hand to forehead).
Where have I ignored it? Why are you attempting childish emotional manipulation? What has salmon got to to with algae? You’re so bad at reading the reports you link to that I’m not even going to open that link: without reading it, I’ll assert that it’s all about OVERFISHING destroying ecosystems. The headline in the link kind of gives it away?

http://www.theecologist.org/trial_investigations/1220194/how_our_growing_appetite_for_salmon_is_devastating_coastal_communities_in_peru.html

Instead, FERTILISING THE OCEANS and INCREASING THE ALGAE HAS INCREASED THE SALMON! So far from DYING of “nutrient pollution”, SALMON LOVE IT!

“120 tons of iron sulphate of fertilization into the ocean boosted fish catch by over 100,000 tons - We get a lot of fish and solve the CO2 climate problem
agriculture, canada, fish, food, future, geoengineering, materials, oceans, united states
Facebook Twitter linkedin google Reddit
About 20 months ago, an American businessman conducted a massive ocean fertilisation test, fertilizing around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate off Canada's coast, it has emerged the Canadian government may have known about the geoengineering scheme and not stopped it. Satellite images confirmed the claim by Californian Russ George that the iron has spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 square kilometres. Now it appears that the fish catch in the area was boosted by over 100,000 tons.”

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/120-tons-of-iron-sulphate-dumped-into.html

So NOT ONLY does algae help SOLVE global warming, it helps GROW the fisheries were are over-depleting!

How can any decent human being ignore the BENEFITS of nutrient pollution to the vast majority of our deep oceans where there are hardly any algae feeding hardly any fish, because we keep overfishing it.

The summary: “Iron sulphate dumping returned over 100 times the value in fish in one year versus the cost of the dumping” That's iron dust, not sewerage or fish farms, which I have already admitted sadly destroy LOCAL waterways!

As for your last link on climate change, YES!

“The warming-induced sea ice melting and the corresponding increase in shortwave radiation penetrating into the ocean both result in a longer phytoplankton growing season in the Arctic. In turn, the increase in Arctic phytoplankton warms the ocean surface layer through direct biological heating, triggering additional positive feedbacks in the Arctic, and consequently intensifying the Arctic warming further. Our results establish the presence of marine phytoplankton as an important potential driver of the future Arctic climate changes.”

I’ve already said EXACTLY THIS! NOW YOU’RE GETTING IT! CO2 melts the ice, THEN once the ice is gone the oceans are warmer and THEN you’re already in an Extinction Level Event where the oceans will have a lot more algae. AFTER the damage is mostly done! Oh, and the algae will contribute an extra 5th to the Arctic warming. But what’s the CAUSE! WHAT COMES FIRST? WHO DUNNIT FIRST? As usual, you forgot to READ your own link!

I suggest take a good look at what has been written in the first paragraph @ Max Green, Monday, 10 October 2016 5:39:21 PM.

I am asked, "What has salmon got to to with algae?"

The link I provided is about human health and whole ecosystems paying the price.
The report is dated 1st Dec 2008.
http://www.theecologist.org/trial_investigations/1220194/how_our_growing_appetite_for_salmon_is_devastating_coastal_communities_in_peru.html

Be sure the situation has worsened worldwide since 2008.

The Ecologist report continues about waste nutrient feeding algae linked to dead zones, oxygen depletion, impact seagrass.
And the UN warns of threat to fish stocks, but it's all been allowed to continue quietly, gagged by major media especially at news editorial level of the publicly funded Australian ABC.

From experience I find reporters are interested but not editorial bosses.
Why is that so?
Why is local Australian nutrient pollution being allowed to continue to destroy the already devastated ocean biodiversity food web on which marine animals and even neighbouring Pacific Island human beings depend for essential protein?

Why would anyone put in writing they will not read linked relevant information about collapse of food sustainability and chronic poverty?

I wonder about motives and if people with rebellious and jealous or know it all attitudes are in government.

Many scientists keep silent for fear of victimization and loss of livelihood resources. At least one leading scientist has publicly stated that he advises his students not to engage in AGW debate.

No wonder seafood dependent coastal people and whole nations and fish shop owners are now struggling to find adequate affordable fish.
And why Australia has to import over 70% of it's fish product including to feed aquaculture.

There is definitely need for a Royal Commission into why the true state of the marine environment and wild seafood sustainability and impact on cloud and climate is being gagged in Australia and worldwide, and why the United Nations is not broadcasting truth of the State of the Marine Environment (SOMER) WORLDWIDE.

It's not just CO2 that should be queried in UN science.
There is need for awareness and solutions to nutrient pollution feeding algae.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/19/5921

JF Aus

I posted this reference sometime ago, it is a mega report about the health of Oceans, it is referenced with hundreds of citations.

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

ant,

I remember that post of yours with that IUCN report and I think I responded saying it was about focus on CO2.

I just looked briefly again.
The intro begins about looking beyond CO2 and coral reefs but all to soon focus seems back on coral with no mention whatsoever about nutrient pollution and need to harness nutrient to reduce the load going into the ocean ecosystem/s.

My first contact with the IUCN was in 1982 when the Duke of Edinburgh was President and said he had sent my communication to the IUCN.
About 18 months later I received reply but no request for to take matters further.

In 2012 I attempted contact with IUCN about warmth in algae and received reply, in part including the following:
" As a marine ecologist and a member of the International Society for Reef Studies I can assure you that the tropical marine research community and the marine conservation community are aware of the linkages between organic pollution, eutrophication, associated impacts on phytoplankton, filamentous algae and macro algae and their ranges of impact on hard coral and seagrass communities."

I suggest to you, ant, they think they know all but they do not know all.

I do not have an academic degree but I have long term first hand experience.
I did not get a Phd from studying and writing a paper, for example about the intestine of a guppy.
I have general knowledge of substance.
I will not get egg on my face because I will not talk about matters I do not know about, and I have pride and integrity.

Government has to awaken.
For example on last night's ABC TV Catalyst program about coral devastation on the GBR there was not one mention of what is feeding all the algae covering all the old dead limestone coral.
That algae cannot exist like that without adequate nutrient.
The GBR is downstream in the Australian east coast sediment dispersal system, downstream from major city sewage nutrient load dumped daily.

It's not coal or farmers killing the GBR, it's nutrient pollution.

Algal blooms are a problem in some hatcheries along the coasts, but they’re a LOCAL environmental problem, and your own article places them much further down the list by mentioning overfishing first.

Once again, your link demonstrates my argument. (Which I knew it would, which is why I didn't bother to read it last time!) There is no conspiracy of silence about the oceans dying, I see it all the time. The most serious problem seems to be overfishing, which your article is primarily about - to feed our salmon farms. Then our CO2 is acidifying (CO2) the ocean, and our plastic is also destroying the ocean. I'd hazard a guess that plastic replacing phytoplankton at the micro-level is more serious than the very serious problem of algal blooms and dead zones along the coasts, mainly because the algal blooms are so localised while the overfishing & plastic & CO2 acidification problems are global in scale.

Then there’s this: “Peru’s Pacific waters contain a vital fishery and one of the world’s most biologically productive coastal ‘upwelling’ ecosystems. Coastal ‘upwelling’ occurs when deep oceanic currents collide with sharp costal shelves and force nutrient-rich cool water to the surface. The nutrients support the proliferation of phytoplankton, which in turn provide sustenance for enormous schools of anchovy and other marine animals.”

Read every word again. Phytoplankton in the right balances are GOOD for fisheries! Just as 13 international studies have said. The majority of the ocean is POOR in nutrients.

I've read so many of your articles but I fear you're just an annoying little internet troll, because you do not seem to read any of mine. I dare you to just GLANCE at this map! Look for YELLOW. Yellow is your argument. Dark and light blue are mine! See the difference? The yellow is ridiculously low, under 1%.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

Face it.
Algal blooms are not the PRIMARY killer of the oceans. Overfishing is, then probably acidification because it hurts the base of the food chain, then probably microplastics. After that? Probably algae in certain local fisheries. But globally? Overfishing wins, every time.

@ Max Green, Wednesday, 12 October 2016 11:44:50 AM

Max,
Those who wrote that link article have not done the research I have done and therefore are likely not aware of new information not yet documented and peer reviewed. So their view likely does not include understanding of seagrass nursery devastation worldwide and small-fish dependence on those nurseries. Whereas I studied that dependence in 1982.

There is definitely silence about the east coast of Australia sediment dispersal system alongshore/longshore current transporting dissolved sewage nutrient overload-pollution into GBR waters and impact on GBR biodiversity.

Why does it have to be a conspiracy, agreement, when there are many financially desperate scientists willing to be politically correct to obtain research resources and income to feed their families.

Timing: World fish depletion was occurring prior to salmon being farmed en-masse. Example: I filmed Victoria's fairy penguin unprecedented starvation in 1982

I am well aware of Peruvian fisheries. Peru holds the world record catch of fish for any country, 12.3 million tonnes of anchovies in one year. That caused the population to crash.

Anchovy have a short life span but breed prolifically - if nursery habitat is available. And it's not. It's devastated worldwide, so much so in 2016 there are not enough anchovy to breed food for farmed salmon to eat, or to keep feeding sea birds and whales and tuna.

Yes the right balance. LOL. David Suzuki once told me, "find the balance".

I previously looked at the sea surface temp map you refer to but often I don't reply because of your ad hom waste of time inaccurate useless insults.
However......

The first thing I notice is the high level of heat (yellow) flowing westward off the west coast of Mexico down Panama way.
I also see a high level in the Gulf of Mexico where the worlds biggest algae inundated dead zone is located.

Then I ask myself how was that overall ocean temp data measured, because as someone pointed out recently, satellites do not actually measure the ocean surface, and thus there is that SST anomaly in AGW science.

“Max,
Those who wrote that link article have not done the research I have done”
Are you whining about the article YOU submitted? Can I please ask you to grow up and actually READ the articles you submit here and NOT submit them until they actually support your argument? Please? Your own sources are so predictably on my side they bore me. And now you’re going to plead special knowledge from your own research? Unless it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, then my counter argument is that I’ve also got special knowledge. A little gnome told me.

“The first thing I notice is the high level of heat (yellow) flowing westward off the west coast of Mexico down Panama way… where the worlds biggest algae inundated dead zone is located.”
I’m not debating that oceanic dead zones are a problem, because they can occur on the coasts in areas that would be fisheries. I’ve already agreed dozens of times. Where we disagree is your ridiculously child-like notion that less than 1% of the ocean’s area that has algae can produce 4 Hiroshima bombs per second worth of ADDITIONAL heat to this planet. 4 Hiroshima bombs ever SECOND, of EVERY MINUTE, of EVERY DAY.

That’s what CO2 does. As a climate argument, it’s one of the most unjustifiable and bizarre arguments I’ve ever heard. The high algal bloom areas are insignificant, petty even, when discussing things like GLOBAL WARMING!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

TIMING…. 1982
Overfishing has been around for a long time, and not always in association with salmon! Are you really this obtuse?

You’re timing is out by a century! “While big fish were the mainstay of net and hook-and-line fisheries from the middle ages to the early 19th century, they declined rapidly with the spread of trawling, especially when steam power was added in the 1880s and 90s.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/20/fish-are-dying-but-human-life-is-threatened-too

Oops! That looks like OVERFISHING is the culprit.

“There is definitely silence about the east coast of Australia sediment dispersal system alongshore/longshore current transporting dissolved sewage nutrient overload-pollution into GBR waters and impact on GBR biodiversity.”
No there’s not you tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist! I just listened to a MAJOR report on the ABC radio about the runoff from banana farming and how agricultural runoff is harming some of the reef. Major. Report. On. The. Radio. Got it? You should get a smart phone and get a podcast app and subscribe to the ABC environment shows. Maybe watch Catalyst a little, because you’re sounding completely uninformed.
Here’s video. It’s awful. But again, while a real LOCAL problem, it’s got NOTHING to explain global warming or GLOBAL fisheries collapse. This is a local collapse.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/rivers-of-red-threaten-great-barrier-reefs-future/6723280

If we fertilise the right phytoplankton, we can make an enormous food chain that increases wild salmon and sequesters carbon to FIX global warming.

Hey JF,
Check this map. It doesn't just have algae, it has the *actual* dead zones mapped out. Huge isn't it? Like, the whole Pacific Ocean and Atlantic, with all those fish just wiped out. Oh... wait... it's less than 1% again. (Slaps hand to forehead).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)#/media/File:Aquatic_Dead_Zones.jpg

But this graph shows the REAL reason the oceans are dying.
100 MILLION tons of seafood a year, and since the 1980's, this has nearly doubled including Aquaculture. Given about half the aquaculture globally is fed from bycatch, at a rough guess that's an additional 40 MILLION tons of seafood a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#/media/File:Global_total_fish_harvest.svg

2 QUESTIONS FOR YOU:
1. WHAT'S KILLING OUR OCEANS?
A/ 140 MILLION tons of sea life extracted at industrial scale
B/ far less than 1% of the oceans having dead zones?

2. WHAT'S WARMING OUR PLANET?
A/ CO2 being at 400ppm, adding an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second according to the known laws of physics?
B/ FAR less than 1% of the oceans having algal blooms that cannot, according to the laws of physics, be demonstrated to add anywhere near that insane level of extra energy to this planet.

Max Green,

I wonder if you are using a false name that is not a pseudonym and if you are losing the debate here, because you seem excited again, you are increasing the useless stupid waste of time ad hominem.

Re your post: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 9:48:19 PM
Some good worthwhile and informative articles are not completely correct because they are missing some information, as is the case with the one I posted that you refer to.

Yes I have special knowledge, sometimes, just like other people do, it comes to me from actual observation of phenomena not seen or experienced by other people.
I am not indicating I have observed aliens or split an atom.
As for peer review, gravity has not yet been duplicated - for peer review, yet gravity exists and is fact as I have said to you previously.

You asked me to look at the YELLOW so I looked. There is no ocean dead zone west of Mexico but there is heat as I pointed out to you.
Why Max, do you suppose that heat is there and not everywhere globally at the same time as expected if added CO2 was warming the global atmosphere?
What is causing that heat there?

As for your 1% of the world ocean having algae, I do not know your source of that figure. Nevertheless look at it like this.
A hot air fan heater can warm an entire house but I think the thickness and length of the electrical element would be LESS than one percent of that whole house area.

You keep on and on about the Hiroshima equivalent radiation from an extra 4 bombs per second hitting Earth, but again, you have already been informed 1,900 equivalent bombs hit Earth every second.
So I ask you again, what actual damage does the extra 4 do? You never answer that.

Not all the globe is warm today, Max, it’s very cold in Sydney today

Max Green,

Overfishing?
There is no scientific definition of overfishing.

Scientists previously estimated the world ocean could supply 200 million tonnes per year but the recorded total never exceeded 100,000 tonnes.
These days about 50 million tonnes is produced in aquaculture pens.

Landlubbers see fishing boats on the surface and fishing gets the blame, however science to date has always known there have not been enough humans on Earth to consume all the fish that oceans WERE capable of producing.

Fish multiply in trillions and it’s food availability and predators that keep fish populations in balance. But now small fish seagrass nursery ecosystems are devastated to the extent hundreds of millions of seabirds have VANISHED as science says, starved to death in lay terms.

The ABC is not a truthful source of marine information. It is known the eastern alongshore current of Australia transports heavy sand and dissolved nutrient from at least SW Victoria to Fraser Island. Sediment Dispersal System information is missing from ABC reporting about damage to the GBR.

Sand sediment falls over the shelf at Fraser.
Dissolved nutrient in the dispersal current flow cannot just stop at Fraser Island, it continues northwards into the GBR lagoon but that is not included in GBRMPA science or ABC news.
GBRMPA jurisdiction is one problem, politics.

There is science about the dispersal system.
A postulated eddy at the top of Fraser Island appears capable of picking up the nutrient load and pushing that load further into the GBR lagoon, some reaching Cape York.
A Royal Commission should look into reason for absence of that sediment dispersal system in GBRMPA - UN science.

As for the GBR story on Catalyst this week, algae covering already dead coral is obvious but nobody even indicated what that algae is feeding on, keeping it alive.
I think sewage nutrient pollution is keeping that algae alive.

Rivers-of-red? There is no local red soil seen on the GBR because the GBR is 40nm offshore.
I think the “goopy stuff” is from coral including killed by algae.
Too-hard-basket.
They-don’t-know.

Dr Miles seems honest.

“Overfishing? There is no scientific definition of overfishing”.
Wrong! Now I know you’re ignorant of the seas. There are a number of definitions and conventions. Not heard of the HCR? Really? And you want us to believe you know something about the oceans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#Harvest_control_rule

“These days about 50 million tonnes is produced in aquaculture pens”
Well, if you EVER looked at the links I provide you’ll see it’s a LOT more today, and about half that is sustainable (not drawing on ocean by catch) but the other half does draw on ocean by catch. Which was the point of the article YOU linked to about Peru — are you seriously not remembering all this? It was YOUR article!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#/media/File:Global_total_fish_harvest.svg

“Landlubbers see fishing boats on the surface and fishing gets the blame, however science to date has always known there have not been enough humans on Earth to consume all the fish that oceans WERE capable of producing.”
Absolutely unverifiable piffle, hogwash, tripe, and all that. Look at the wiki above. Read the definitions. You’re WRONG WRONG WRONG! I’m simply not going to be lectured to by the world inside your opinionated and self-focussed brain that has no respect for the world outside your opinionated and self-focussed brain, the world of data. I am simply NOT going to read ANY and ALL post of yours that do not link to credible sources. You have utterly failed to demonstrate anything you say. There is only ONE sane answer to both the questions I asked in the last post. A. You have picked B. Fail.

Your insistence that well under 1% of the oceans cause climate change and the oceanic food web to die is not just eccentric, it's tinfoil hat territory.

Max Green or whatever your real name is, you are a classic case of what you say is what you are.

Have you ever been diving?
Can you swim?

You have banged your own head [as you so often say] too much.

I will not be replying to you anymore.

JF Aus

Earlier you stated:

"It's not coal or farmers killing the GBR, it's nutrient pollution."

What about the far reaches of the GBR where nutrient pollution is not an issue?

In relation to fish stocks; globally they are down, whereas in Australian Commonwealth waters they are basically in good shape.
Check out super trawlers and the damage they have done to fish stocks overseas.

Thanks for providing the PNAS reference; though it is clear you do not fully comprehend the study.

Thermoclines apparently have something to do with the break down of sea ice and ice sheets. Wave action between strata of water bodies is being investigated:

http://scripps.ucsd.edu/projects/arcticmix/

Quote:

" The Arctic is a strange place oceanographically, an up-side down version of the normal ocean in that the surface water is cold and fresh while lurking below is a reservoir of warmer, saltier water, heavier than the surface layer due to its high salt content. One hypothesis in a rapidly-changing Arctic is that increasing open water allows storms to mix this deeper ocean heat upward through the generation of undersea beams of energy called ‘internal waves’, in turn melting more ice. The peculiar nature of the Arctic is what makes a hypothesis of a positive climate change feedback based on vertical mixing possible."

That's a great point Ant.

JF asserts that nutrient pollution alone is killing all the fish or interrupting their breeding grounds or *something.* (Who really knows? The story seems to change. But he is only happy as long as he is yelling "The algae! The nutrients! The oceans are DYING and nobody but poor old me cares or understands!")

But 99% of the oceans are nutrient POOR.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

So what's the difference? As you said: some areas are off limits to fishing, and those fisheries tend to recover.

ant,

It’s the total of the nutrient loading that sometimes amounts to an overload, nutrient pollution.

As eastern Australia wind driven alongshore current energy flows north, nutrient input from all sources along the way add to the nutrient load.

The total of that load can vary because some nutrient is taken up along the way by plankton and marine plants. Incoming tides and onshore winds push and draw nutrient loaded surface into bays and estuaries, where there was once prolific plant life especially including relatively rare seagrass nurseries.

Water transporting the sediment mostly exits the GBR lagoon at Cape York, therefore if the flow has picked up nutrient along the way it is likely the nutrient load could be most elevated in the Cape York area. However nutrient dependent near coast plant life including plankton, increases northwards. The GBR lagoon coast does not have ocean waves to drive a strong alongshore current, but SE winds push surface water against the coast.

Importantly, the actual GBR is well offshore away from inshore waters and associated sediment that includes solid and dissolved nutrient matter.

If you look down on the whole actual GBR it can be seen the southern reef is wider than in the far north, and I think that formation is due to the once natural nutrient flow arriving fresh from the south, weakening as supply becomes depleted northwards.

Now I am not anti-progress when I say this.
Massive excavation and re-suspension of estuary seabed resulted in historically unprecedented elevated levels of dissolved and solid nutrient matter going into the GBFR lagoon at the more than usual northerly elevated nutrient source at Gladstone.

I think the unusually elevated total nutrient load is continuing to feed algae now living atop that northerly dead coral. Some of that algae appears older than just from early 2016. More established.

There is also significant nutrient flowing into the Coral Sea from Arafura Sea SURFACE waters pushed ESE during the northern monsoon season.

The total of the nutrient load is not just from farmers or just from coal and gas shipping channels

Ant, I fear you're just feeding the troll and wasting your time. JF's just not interested in science. The voices in his head are just too loud.

It's another post that is conspicuously bibliography-free

Siliggy,

Where are you? f.y.i.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924796304000211
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064507002044

Ah, he linked to some science! But such a narrow sample. Here we are discussing what on earth could POSSIBLY be harming most of the globe's fishers, and so JF focusses on ... the Labrador sea?

"an arm of the North Atlantic Ocean between the Labrador Peninsula and Greenland. The sea is flanked by continental shelves to the southwest, northwest, and northeast. It connects to the north with Baffin Bay through the Davis Strait.[3] It has been described as a marginal sea of the Atlantic.[4][5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrador_Sea

I repeat: It's MARGINAL. It's not even a large fraction of the Atlantic, let alone the mighty Pacific.

Anyway, we already saw a much more compelling argument from your earlier source that indicated plankton could become a FEEDBACK worth an extra 20% of warming! But of course, being a FEEDBACK it is AFTER the event. What event? CO2 induced climate change, involving all the known laws of physics. Imagine that, if you can? ;-)

You're proving my point for me again: you've got NOTHING on the WORLD'S oceans and why MOST OF THE PLANET'S fisheries are in decline. High algal areas are under 1% of the world's oceans, but we're removing over 150 MILLION TONS of sea life a year. Gee, I wonder what's killing the oceans? ;-)

This is a great show by the ABC, and is well worth 90 minutes of your time. It discusses the SUPER-greenhouse that caused the world's oceans to die, and pretty much MOST of the oceans to be covered in algae! The oceans DIED! Ironically, it greatly benefits us today by creating the raw biomass that made oil. It's a long story, but the bottom line is this: we really don't want climate change because the oceans might go anoxic and die, filling with cloudy algae. So I am concerned that our entire oceans don't fill with algae, I really am. Because it would mean we had ALREADY failed on climate change!
http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

J F Aus here are two links that will both interest you. Max Green is good at explaining stuff so after reading this first one he may be able to put in writing exactly how wrong he has been.
Algae from coral may change rainfall in QLD.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-14/how-the-great-barrier-reef-coral-impacts-rainfall/7928714
It may even happen without algae.
https://powerglobal.us/2016/04/29/massive-global-cooling-process-discovered-as-fraudulent-un-climate-change-enforcement-framework-sells-out-national-soveriegnty-on-a-global-scale/

ant,

Apologies for delay answering the points you raised. The OLO 350 word and 4x24 hr post limits sometimes create writing and editing problems as you would know.

I am wondering where you got the impression fish stocks in Australian Commonwealth waters are in good shape. What scientifically is “good shape”?

When I saw that super trawler arrive I thought they don't know what the state of fish stocks are in Australian waters. Then I began to think they might be covering their way to load millions of dollars of toothfish from Antarctic waters.

Toward the mid 80’s I met the father of a respected and experienced fishing family at Eden on the NSW south coast (waters that supertrawler later wanted to fish). I did a 4 Corners interview with that fisherman. The ABC called the program "Learn To Eat Shark". LOL. Now sharks are devastated too.
It is said the NSW towns of Eden and Bermagui used to be covered with fish, but not anymore, those towns now commercially dead.

Commonwealth waters are defined by a legal boundary, not biologically involving ecosystems.
Australia is now importing over 70% of fish product used annually, exporting high value abalone and aquaculture product but virtually no wild fish, definitely no big tonnages like previously.

Almost every Australian town used to have a fish shop selling Australian fish but not anymore.
At 1982 roadshow film screenings I experienced a tough NSW fisher-woman stand up crying because of the family losing their boat and house due to collapse of fishing income to pay loans. That lady said government fisheries had advised to buy bigger equipment to survive.

Look at the price of local fish. LOL. $40 a kilo for NSW snapper for example. And 100 grams of aquaculture salmon at $6.00 amounts to $60 per kilo, i.e $100 to $200 for one fish.
Fresh local fish used to be cheaper than meat, now it's the opposite, worse in most countries overseas.

Continued………….

Cont’d…….

While diving in 1970 overseas (pre-supertrawler) I wrote about local fresh fish costing 3 times more than frozen imported fish, writing to explain that diving there was boring.

Australian history records Sir James Kirby and his mate fishing for the weekend off Sydney, returning with over 400 pounds of snapper. These day’s that’s about 200 kilo at $40 per kilo, $8,000.00 just for a weekend amateur fishing. LOL,
Show the fish in Commonwealth waters now. We could earn a fortune.

Yes, super-trawlers and apparent damage overseas, but it is the food web supply nurseries that are supposed to feed the wild fish including in Commonwealth waters, and worldwide those nurseries have had a virtual hysterectomy.
Nobody fishes for seagrass.
Nutrient overload feeds algae epiphyte growth that shuts down essential photosynthesis, killing seagrass leaf.
Small food-web fish are seagrass dependent. Seagrass depends on water quality.

There are no food-web nurseries in Commonwealth waters. Tuna in Commonwealth waters depend on food dependent on sheltered coastal seagass nurseries.

The bigger fishing boat idea was to reduce cost of fishing effort and overheads.
While It appears big boats caused the depletion, and sure they had impact on already devastated stocks, there has not been enough food for fish and consequently populations have collapsed due to unsuccessful breeding.
Hungry animals do not breed successfully. Fish are not immune to starvation.

Ask older coastal fishermen where the flocks of diving seabirds have gone, flocks that used to dive on common and numerous teeming schools of small fish, with big fish underneath chasing small fish to the surface. Ask them the old timers, ant.

Read into the State of the Marine Environment Report, (SOMER) (Zann), about 50% loss of seagrass on the NSW coast alone. Queensland has never had such a study so the whole SW Pacific Ocean ecosystem including in Commonwealth waters has not had a SOMER study.

The UN appears ignorant of the situation. Perhaps ignorance with intent, I do not know.
A Royal Commission could settle fact of the situation/s.

Siliggy

I had to laugh at your second reference in relation to isoprene it was discussed when the research was first published here on Onlineopinion, Braebart had written about it. One of the studies authors had to repudiate the message that deniers were pushing. Isoprene has very little impact on climate. Your reference is complete garbage. When the volume of sea ice in the Arctic is a quarter in 2016 of what it was in 1980; and, a day or so ago they had not had snow at Barrow, Alaska; the powerglobal reference is farcical.

In relation to the ABC, the scientists interviewed were in the process of establishing a hypothesis.

JF Aus

In relation to fish stocks, I heard an interview on the radio a couple of days ago; the comments were about Commonwealth waters, not State waters. Waters beyond where most recreational fishermen would go. Egg counts of small pelagic fish showed there had been a small drop in numbers; but, not enough to be concerned about. The question is wherever the super trawler nets fish, does that have an impact on local sports fishing? What about the by catch; the super trawler has been netting protected species.
Blue fin tuna and mako sharks are threatened species overseas through over fishing, there a good stocks in Australian waters.

Oh sliggy, ye of little comprehension.

JF Aus is proposing that algae CAUSES climate change and oceanic dieoff. Instead, when we investigate maps of algal blooms we find it is mostly bays and rivers and limits its damage to less than 1% of the oceans. It cannot explain GLOBAL warming and GLOBAL oceanic dieoff.

Your article actually just ASSUMES global warming from CO2, and that algae may end up being a local weather FEEDBACK from CO2 caused global warming.

>>"With the increase in temperature of the ocean, if it doesn't die, the composition of the reef will change for sure, which will influence the emissions of the DMS," Professor Ristovski says. "If we don't have the reef, we'll have less of these cloud seeds and we could have different rain patterns."<<
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-14/how-the-great-barrier-reef-coral-impacts-rainfall/7928714

Did you catch that? They just ASSUME warmer oceans. Why? Because CO2 is trapping 4 Hiroshima bombs per second, every second, of every minute, of every day, according to KNOWN physics! OLD physics! TEXTBOOK physics.

But according to people like you, it's all a conspiracy. What. A. Joke.

Summary: the algae that is part of the coral on the GBR is NOT an algal bloom, it's MEANT to be there. The DMS would seem to COOL the local region, not warm it. These are in stark contrast to JF's 'proposition' that algal blooms due to nutrient overload are WARMING the planet and killing the oceans. I have supplied peer-reviewed science that more phytoplankton in the oceans would COOL the planet and STIMULATE GROWTH in the oceans.

Get it now?

Siliggy,

“CO2 Cargo Cult” would be a better description.
I was just about to say that GBR atmosphere research appears climate change orientated, resourced from climate change funds. It’s like the cargo pilots give only to the impoverished researchers who say whatever they have to say in order to get delivery.

How will GBR coast-based researchers identify which gas is from coral algae and which gas is from algae in the GBR lagoon?
They do not identify and compare nutrient pollution from farmers and nutrient from city and town sewage.

I suggest look into gas precipitating pinpoints of cloud.

_____________________________________________________________________________

ant,

In the 80’s I was caught innocently taking photos of a huge stern trawler net in the yard of the Lakes Entrance fish processing company. I was approached by the plant manager who asked what I was doing and he then took me inside the plant and showed me everything being smashed and broken up and destroyed and closed down.
I asked why and was told, “because of a lack of the resource”.
I knew at the time that plant had been Australia’s most diversified fish processing plant.
It began with scientific estimates of 100,000 tonnes of anchovy and pilchards available per annum.
That figure was later revised to 50,000 tonnes but the plant never processed more than 10,000 tonnes.
Yet mass starvation of penguins was occurring.

Most local canneries have gone. Towns sit commercially idle.
I suggest contact the Imlay Magnet and ask them to send copy of “Conflicting views on fishing”, January 16, 1986. Genuine history.
I suggest give the (news tip) link to this OLO page, because this is also about fish populations not breeding up again, and collapse of professional and amateur fishing tourism industry employment and income on the whole NSW south coast.

Never forget protein deficiency malnutrition and associated increase in NCD among seafood dependent Pacific Islands people linked to migratory fish devastation in the “Australian Commonwealth” ecosystem.

N.B Historically low levels. Rumour is that it’s due to “overfishing”.
http://www.spc.int/en/information-technology/news/1057-conservation-is-key-to-maximising-benefits-from-oceanic-resources.html

Overcome CO2 cargo cult obsession.
Focus on world ocean health solutions.

JF said:
"Overcome CO2 cargo cult obsession. "
And who just a few pages back was claiming they didn't deny climate science, or the KNOWN and ESTABLISHED physics of greenhouse gases? ;-) Yeah, you're not a troll. Not at all! ;-)

"Focus on world ocean health solutions."
We are, which is why we want to stop overfishing.
It's why we also want to move to clean energy, to stop and ocean acidification and warming, which can cause the super-greenhouse effect and even cause the algal oceans you so fear. The peer-reviewed science basically says you've got it entirely back to front.

Global warming CAUSES super-algal oceans, not the other way around.

JF Aus

Siliggy provided a nonsense reference in about isoprene; which provides an exceptionally minor positive feedback to climate change. Here is a much more major negative feedback in relation to the Northern Atlantic Ocean:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/10/q-a-about-the-gulf-stream-system-slowdown-and-the-atlantic-cold-blob/

The SE of the USA already has blue sky floods; see where that fits into the AMOC.

Its all a bit more complicated than algal blooms, watch the video. Algae is not mentioned as it is non-issue.

A further reference previously provided:

http://scripps.ucsd.edu/projects/arcticmix/

It makes me laugh, JF Aus when you write ...."Overcome CO2 cargo cult obsession."

Bye

But Ant, JF has this whole *theory* worked out (in his head) and we're all bad people because we don't care about the oceans BECAUSE we don't follow his lead and believe his theory.

Emotional manipulation around a circular argument, or what? ;-)

Sorry JF, but after googling and googling about this, "Computer says no!"

J F Aus
"Scientists believe that phytoplankton contribute between 50 to 85 percent of the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere. They aren’t sure because it’s a tough thing to calculate."
That 85% being correct then its 5&2/3 times as much as everything else on the planet including all the worlds forrests.
http://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-oxygen
Plankton climate effect is massive.
Each year the CO2 levels have a nearly sinewave cycle because of there being more land in the northern hemisphere (The fungus termites farm produces more CO2 than humans). This is mainly just showing the change in that possibly 15%. The 85% draw down does not change as much. The Cape grim data having less sine wave amplitude than the Mlo data.
Mlo in column 4 here at 407.7 PPM in May but 6.67PPM lower in September.
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Less nonplankton sinewave here.
http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/
Photoplankton oxygen is produced from lovely life giving CO2. Endothermic photosynthesis absorbs energy. This energy from the sun. More plankton equals more cooling because this energy is water at the depth that visible (photosynthesis wavelength) light will not heat if stopped by alge.
However the endothermic reaction may be inefficient. Algae may warm stealing heat from depths and reflecting longwave back radiation up again to nullify CO2. Still think the sum is cooling. With shallow water you may have warming. DMS clouds from plankton will be more prolific when there is greater UV. This changes with the solar cycle without TSI change because more UV just means less other wavelengths.
The earthshine experiments showed global cloud albedo change 20 times more powerful than theoretical man made change in Watts/M^2. So the massive amount of plankton required for upto 85% of all oxygen could be responsible for more effect than man.

I doubt you paid much attention to the two Metathesiophobic zealots deliberately confusing the issues here with statements that are contrary to reality. Just in case the above are some clues to the true massive scale of the effects of algae.

Siliggy

http://thinkprogress.org/watch-the-arctic-death-spiral-in-this-amazing-video-b63486b99383#.y6ogew60z

The article was written by a Physicist; his article is about the changing of sea ice volume in the Arctic.

Quote:

"The sharp decline in Arctic sea ice area in recent decades has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a warming-driven collapse in total sea ice volume - to about one quarter of its 1980 level."

And:

"Unfortunately, what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic. The accelerated loss of Arctic sea ice drives more extreme weather in North America, while speeding up both Greenland ice sheet melt (which causes faster sea level rise) and the defrosting of carbon-rich permafrost."

Hi Sliggy,
Interesting that you claim physics behind algal cooling, yet show know links to peer-reviewed sources for it. The peer-reviewed stuff I've linked to shows algae cool by trapping CO2, dying, and dropping to the bottom of the ocean: effectively sequestering CO2. Not any of your hypothesis.

13 international studies have concluded that phytoplankton increase massively when iron filings are dropped in the ocean, and that on a larger scale this could lead to a correction of our climate emergency by massively reducing atmospheric CO2.

“The maximum possible result from iron fertilization, assuming the most favourable conditions and disregarding practical considerations, is 0.29W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[33] which is almost sufficient to reverse the warming effect of about 1/6 of current levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Science

I'm also confused as to why you clutter up your post about algae with references to oxygen and fungi. If you're going to jump in and claim a "massive" role in climate from algae, I think you need to slow down, take a few deep breaths, and try and try and actually prove that. We already know about oxygen and the annual dips in the Keeling curve, etc.

Lastly, what do you make of JF's claim that algae are destroying the ocean's food chain? I've linked to international studies that prove the opposite: that if we stimulate the base of the food chain so that later that year we get bumper salmon crops. 120 tons of iron sulphate can stimulate plankton / algae to grow to the point where you get a 100,000 ton return of salmon! More algae = more fish in this instance! Not all algae are 'bad' as you would paint them.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/120-tons-of-iron-sulphate-dumped-into.html

Max read what I wrote more than a week before his first comment and tries to teach it back using slightly different wording.

"CO2 encourages more planckton over the vast oceans. The extra photosynthesis is an endothermic chemical function( It takes in energy). It stores energy that otherwise would have been heat into the life cycle enhancement of the oceans. Then as the abundant extra living things reach the end of their lives after breeding, many fall to the bottom of the ocean. At the bottom of the ocean they have sequestered CO2 and energy together thus cooling the planet and storing the CO2 for future OIL (natural renewable energy).Posted by Siliggy, Monday, 19 September 2016 7:03:07 AM
No need to fertilise, national parks all over the world are turning into deserts due to lack of human activity, blowing dust into the seas to fertilise them without the need of volcanic rock dust or comet tails to assist.

Plankton DMS cloud albedo cooling ("idea proposed by James Lovelock"). Yes thats right Max Green it is not my theory it came from one of the forefathers of your church.
New Scientist 22 July 1989. "Biology not pollution controls the clouds above the pacific"
" Last month however, Tom Wiggley, of the University of East Anglia , pointed out that since 1900 the northern hemiphere, where there is most sulphur dioxide pollution, has warmed less than the southern hemisphere (New scientist, science 10 June)."
"
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=TYqTls5lnGYC&lpg=PA32&ots=a4bE8f1SST&dq=NASA%20plankton%20cloud%20DMS&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q=NASA%20plankton%20cloud%20DMS&f=false
and
"The plankton try to protect themselves by producing a chemical compound called DMSP," " This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and changes into another substance called DMS."

DMS then filters from the ocean into the air, where it breaks down again to form tiny dust-like particles. These tiny particles are just the right size for water to condense on, which is the beginning of how clouds are formed. So, indirectly, plankton help create more clouds, and more clouds mean that less direct light reaches the ocean surface."
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html
Oh and here is some more about James Lovelock.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/01/james-lovelock-godfather-green-climate-change-religion-totally-unscientific/

Well then, we agree that plankton store CO2 when they die, cooling the planet. Which means you accept that CO2 warms the planet.

We agree that DMS may indeed cause clouds, which is still under study and I'm open to whatever they find, but there already seems to be a good case.

(Why JF thinks you're his ally in all this is beyond me. Why he calls on you to prove HIS case, that excessive algae WARM the planet and KILL the food web, is just plain weird.)

National parks need maintenance, but I hope you're exaggerating them turning into deserts. Our industrial agriculture destroys a lot of arable land each year, and is creating a real problem. We grow deserts by mismanaging those areas we *think* we know how to control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

Dust blown from the Sahara has always hit the oceans, well, in this climate phase. (Under a previous tilt in the earth's axis, the Sahara was green and allowed thriving proto-Egyptian civilisations to grow... until the tilt wound back again, and the deserts grew, forcing them to move to Egypt).

But. 13 peer-reviewed studies show that we COULD do with increasing iron fertilisation of the oceans to sequester about a 6th of our emissions. Just 1/6. That's not a silver bullet, but would help with climate change AND fertilise the oceanic food web, putting more food on the table. Personally I'm all in favour of locking away about a third of the world's oceans, especially hatcheries. It's the only hope they've got.

Sometimes the Carbon Cargo Cult (CCC) drop clues along the track.

Iron sulphate was dumped in the ocean reportedly by fly-by-nighters.

Ocean fertilization science is yet to be done.

If the results of the iron dumping are as touted by the cult, surely the science would have been done and the ‘huge’ catch repeated with great publicity.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/120-tons-of-iron-sulphate-dumped-into.html

Importantly the nextbigfuture story refers to iron dumping carried out 20 months before the story dated June 2014.
That puts the dumping date at 2012.

Immediately the following year, 2013, “the blob” was seen for the first time in known history.

A big toxic algae bloom then appeared and hit hard for the first time during spring of 2014 and in late 2014 the blob reportedly “blossomed”.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/17/us-west-coast-toxic-algae-bloom-largest-ever-say-scientists

That Guardian report goes on to say that heat is not the only factor spurring proliferation of the marine algae that produce the toxins, they also need a rich supply of nutrients, along with the right currents to carry them close to shore.

Is it coincidence nutrient dumping and algae and heat are all occurring one after the other in the same area of the ocean at the same time?

Wait, there is more. LOL.

Adult salmon in oceans DON’T eat algae.
Salmon at sea eat small fish, herring.
Populations of herring, pilchards and anchovy used for aquaculture fishmeal are now so devastated worldwide that salmon farmers are experiencing less oil in salmon because of need to reduce use of dwindling fish for meal. (posted previously)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37321656

The wild Atlantic salmon fishery is commercially dead; after extensive habitat damage and overfishing, wild fish make up only 0.5% of the Atlantic salmon available in world fish markets. The rest are farmed, predominantly from aquaculture in Norway, Chile, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Faroe Islands, Russia and Tasmania in Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercially_important_fish_species

2016 Salmon catch down 40%
http://www.adn.com/business/article/alaska-salmon-forecast-predicts-summer-harvest-will-be-half-last-years/2016/03/26/

Counting numbers of fish compared to counting tonnage caught, tells a very different and perhaps deceiving story.

United Nations FAO science involving AFFORDABLE protein food sustainability or not should be thoroughly questioned and assessed.

Siliggy,

Thank you so much for your effort and comments on the various threads. Being fair and honest has been mutually beneficial has brought our understanding to this stage. It shoe what a little teamwork can do.
If you think there is now enough on hand to put a paper together then I ask you to do that. I would be happy with a credit and your comment about the plight of seafood protein dependent people and need to get solutions underway urgently.

At this stage I think it would be a good idea if you copy down my contact details.
johncfairfax@gmail.com

Thanks again, Siliggy

Siliggy,
I don't get drunk or get off my face on other drugs and so I cannot account for the very obvious errors in my post above.
It should read;
......beneficial AND has brought......
Plus; It SHOWS what a little teamwork can do.

The salmon fishery is more complicated than mere over fishing:

http://www.adn.com/alaska-news/article/decline-king-salmon-rooted-sea-state-biologists-say/2012/06/24/

http://fishbio.com/field-notes/the-fish-report/mystery-alaskas-chinook-salmon-decline

http://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/science-unsure-of-cause-for-salmon-decline-in-yukon-river/article_38a95f14-58e2-11e6-829c-73b131965758.html

Quote from last reference:

"Plankton blooms need both daylight and sea ice, which the tiny plants use to anchor themselves. If the sea ice is gone by the time the sun is strong, the bloom is delayed and weakened.

"Where the ice is already gone and the sun's shining down, the bloom takes longer to happen and in some cases doesn't seem to provide the big energy boost that propagates through the system."

Others suggest that new species migrating into the area as the climate changes may introduce new competition or even new predators."

http://www-tc.pbs.org/emptyoceans/educators/activities/docs/Salmon-Scavenger-Hunt-fish-fate.pdf

The last reference lists:

Overfishing
Fish Farms
Dams/Dikes
Forestry Operations
Farming
Mining for gravel
Water use ...growth of settlements
Hatcheries
Invasive species
Natural predators
Global Warming

http://watershed.ucdavis.edu/scott_river/docs/reports/Preston_Fedor.pdf

Prior to the last El Nino there were articles about how some species of salmon were not travelling up rivers to spawn due to the temperature of fresh water in areas South of Alaska. It is quite a complicated matter; issues are different from one area in comparison to another, overfishing having been just one part of the matter.

JF,
The iron dump caused an algal bloom of 10,000 square km’s off the coast of Canada. This is an area of 100 by 100km. It occurred about 500km north of the American border in 2013.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2012/10/rogue-geoengineering-to-create-algae.html
The areas you are complaining about are *already* known oceanic dead zones with their own reasons for local algal blooms and occurred 2 years later. The record breaking salmon run was 2013, your article is 2015. Comprehension, much?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/17/us-west-coast-toxic-algae-bloom-largest-ever-say-scientists
Also, I cannot believe someone as wonderfully familiar with the oceans as you obviously are complained that salmon don’t eat algae. It depends what you’re calling algae! I googled it, and salmon eat “ zooplankton, and larval and adult invertebrates. In the ocean, salmon eat smaller fish, such as herring, pelagic amphipods and krill.”

What do you think zooplankton eat? What about krill? ;-) Stimulate phytoplankton, and the zooplankton will thrive. It’s called the oceanic food web. Look it up.
Salmon might have less omega 3’s, but again you’re arguing from correlation, not causation. Overfishing is doing the primary damage to the ocean’s health, with local algal pollution remaining a serious local concern for some hatcheries. But again I emphasise, they are *local* concerns. 99% of the ocean is completely under-nourished. That’s WHY dumping iron dust WORKS in the first place, which you have conceded.
Also, while there is still debate at the political and UN level, the science of ocean fertilisation *has* been done. Again, if you EVER bothered to read ANY of the links I supply, you would know this. 13 studies have been carried out by international groups. It’s called Wikipedia. Try it. It won’t hurt – unless of course you’re too attached to what’s already inside your own head to risk it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
The salmon numbers in 2013 were enormous and significant given how undernourished and overfished the ocean is. Read the government report. Hiding behind tonnage is just that: hiding. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/pdfs/commercial/ADFG_pr_salmon_harvest_exvessel_10-12-13.pdf
Lastly, why are you thanking Sliggy? He has disproved your central hypothesis that algae cause global warming. Don’t hate me: I’m just the messenger. Comprehension, much?

Max Green Says "National parks need maintenance, but I hope you're exaggerating them turning into deserts."
Nope.
This mans argument is at 90 degrees to the discussion here. He is a CO2 climate change believer but I have heard back from skeptic and warmist alike from many people after watching this that "it changed them".
How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change. Allan Savory
http://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI (1,299,765 views)

After watching this you may like to reflect upon the situation where people are trying to ban cattle from places where wild buffalo once roamed.

J F Aus
There are many anti nuke activists who say the blob is caused by Fukushima. It worries me to think of what may happen if these anti nukes found themselves stuck in an elevator thanks to wind turbines with some warmists. They may blame the warmists for creating the situation that allows nuclear generation to continue. Could get like a convention room double booked by the flat earthers and hollow earthers or a group of moon hoaxers sitting in a restaurant next to a table of "alternative 3" fans.
"“Dead animals litter California beaches… Alarming phenomenon” — “Graveyard of washed-up sea life” — “Influx of malnourished sea creatures” — Experts: We’re really starting to worry… The animals are starving to death… Covered in sores… Stunted growth… Weak immune systems (VIDEOS)"
Type "Algae" into the search box on the right near the magnifing glass here. http://enenews.com/
Will get back to you after looking for more info on the albedo of plankton. That finding about the radiative balance charts ignoring back radiation being reflected again by plants etc is a huge mistake on the part of the warmists. It could show the numbers to be all fake with a resultant shortfall of heat rather than a gain.

It is not correct to generalize by stating, “plankton blooms need both daylight and sea ice”.
This green algae bloom mass can be seen flowing in current under sea ice, not adhered to the ice.

Plankton blooms occur worldwide and depend on balanced nutrient being present, not just sunlight.

Yes, world ocean fish populations are more complicated than to be devastated by mere over fishing.

The Alaska News however refers to “sound fundamentals” and “whether Alaska king salmon are going hungry”, and that at the same time runs from Californian waters are the best in years.

From my point of view ocean change is occurring.
It’s like change between sunshine and rains.
Sometimes clouds are loaded with moisture resulting in flooding rain.
Sometimes underwater there are literally clouds of nutrient resulting in too much algae causing ocean dead zones or epiphyte growth that destroys already dwindling seagrass food web production for the year, somewhere.

In Moreton Bay Queensland in 2000 Lyngbya algae destroyed 30-40 sq km of seagrass and associated small fish production for the year.
When ALREADY emaciated mutton birds arrived migrating from ALASKAN waters to Tasmania they were unable to find adequate small fish.
Consequently mass starvation of those mutton birds immediately began extending along coast stretching from Queensland to South Australia and Tasmania.
Wildlife experts in four states were reported shocked by severity of the mortality.

That Lyngbya cyanobacteria algae suddenly appeared and bloomed immediately downstream from deep dredging and dumping of elevated nutrient spoil into Gold Coast northerly flowing alongshore current.

There are over 4,000 species of algae, some invasive that take up available nutrient and oxygen and food required by other biodiversity, sometimes more in one area than others. Patchy impact.
Alaska News reports, “patchy distribution of resources in the ocean”.

Algae is not inundating open oceans generally as could be expected if caused by excessive common CO2.

Algae blooms can be seen giving off warmth leading to precipitation.
Pinpoints of cloud can be seen forming above algae.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40716

Small fish that salmon eat are devastated worldwide.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37321656

Nutrient pollution is the problem, not CO2.