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