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.