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.