“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.