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.