Siliggy

http://thinkprogress.org/watch-the-arctic-death-spiral-in-this-amazing-video-b63486b99383#.y6ogew60z

The article was written by a Physicist; his article is about the changing of sea ice volume in the Arctic.

Quote:

"The sharp decline in Arctic sea ice area in recent decades has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a warming-driven collapse in total sea ice volume - to about one quarter of its 1980 level."

And:

"Unfortunately, what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic. The accelerated loss of Arctic sea ice drives more extreme weather in North America, while speeding up both Greenland ice sheet melt (which causes faster sea level rise) and the defrosting of carbon-rich permafrost."

Hi Sliggy,
Interesting that you claim physics behind algal cooling, yet show know links to peer-reviewed sources for it. The peer-reviewed stuff I've linked to shows algae cool by trapping CO2, dying, and dropping to the bottom of the ocean: effectively sequestering CO2. Not any of your hypothesis.

13 international studies have concluded that phytoplankton increase massively when iron filings are dropped in the ocean, and that on a larger scale this could lead to a correction of our climate emergency by massively reducing atmospheric CO2.

“The maximum possible result from iron fertilization, assuming the most favourable conditions and disregarding practical considerations, is 0.29W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[33] which is almost sufficient to reverse the warming effect of about 1/6 of current levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Science

I'm also confused as to why you clutter up your post about algae with references to oxygen and fungi. If you're going to jump in and claim a "massive" role in climate from algae, I think you need to slow down, take a few deep breaths, and try and try and actually prove that. We already know about oxygen and the annual dips in the Keeling curve, etc.

Lastly, what do you make of JF's claim that algae are destroying the ocean's food chain? I've linked to international studies that prove the opposite: that if we stimulate the base of the food chain so that later that year we get bumper salmon crops. 120 tons of iron sulphate can stimulate plankton / algae to grow to the point where you get a 100,000 ton return of salmon! More algae = more fish in this instance! Not all algae are 'bad' as you would paint them.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/120-tons-of-iron-sulphate-dumped-into.html

Max read what I wrote more than a week before his first comment and tries to teach it back using slightly different wording.

"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).Posted by Siliggy, Monday, 19 September 2016 7:03:07 AM
No need to fertilise, national parks all over the world are turning into deserts due to lack of human activity, blowing dust into the seas to fertilise them without the need of volcanic rock dust or comet tails to assist.

Plankton DMS cloud albedo cooling ("idea proposed by James Lovelock"). Yes thats right Max Green it is not my theory it came from one of the forefathers of your church.
New Scientist 22 July 1989. "Biology not pollution controls the clouds above the pacific"
" Last month however, Tom Wiggley, of the University of East Anglia , pointed out that since 1900 the northern hemiphere, where there is most sulphur dioxide pollution, has warmed less than the southern hemisphere (New scientist, science 10 June)."
"
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=TYqTls5lnGYC&lpg=PA32&ots=a4bE8f1SST&dq=NASA%20plankton%20cloud%20DMS&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q=NASA%20plankton%20cloud%20DMS&f=false
and
"The plankton try to protect themselves by producing a chemical compound called DMSP," " This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and changes into another substance called DMS."

DMS then filters from the ocean into the air, where it breaks down again to form tiny dust-like particles. These tiny particles are just the right size for water to condense on, which is the beginning of how clouds are formed. So, indirectly, plankton help create more clouds, and more clouds mean that less direct light reaches the ocean surface."
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html
Oh and here is some more about James Lovelock.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/01/james-lovelock-godfather-green-climate-change-religion-totally-unscientific/

Well then, we agree that plankton store CO2 when they die, cooling the planet. Which means you accept that CO2 warms the planet.

We agree that DMS may indeed cause clouds, which is still under study and I'm open to whatever they find, but there already seems to be a good case.

(Why JF thinks you're his ally in all this is beyond me. Why he calls on you to prove HIS case, that excessive algae WARM the planet and KILL the food web, is just plain weird.)

National parks need maintenance, but I hope you're exaggerating them turning into deserts. Our industrial agriculture destroys a lot of arable land each year, and is creating a real problem. We grow deserts by mismanaging those areas we *think* we know how to control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

Dust blown from the Sahara has always hit the oceans, well, in this climate phase. (Under a previous tilt in the earth's axis, the Sahara was green and allowed thriving proto-Egyptian civilisations to grow... until the tilt wound back again, and the deserts grew, forcing them to move to Egypt).

But. 13 peer-reviewed studies show that we COULD do with increasing iron fertilisation of the oceans to sequester about a 6th of our emissions. Just 1/6. That's not a silver bullet, but would help with climate change AND fertilise the oceanic food web, putting more food on the table. Personally I'm all in favour of locking away about a third of the world's oceans, especially hatcheries. It's the only hope they've got.

Sometimes the Carbon Cargo Cult (CCC) drop clues along the track.

Iron sulphate was dumped in the ocean reportedly by fly-by-nighters.

Ocean fertilization science is yet to be done.

If the results of the iron dumping are as touted by the cult, surely the science would have been done and the ‘huge’ catch repeated with great publicity.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/120-tons-of-iron-sulphate-dumped-into.html

Importantly the nextbigfuture story refers to iron dumping carried out 20 months before the story dated June 2014.
That puts the dumping date at 2012.

Immediately the following year, 2013, “the blob” was seen for the first time in known history.

A big toxic algae bloom then appeared and hit hard for the first time during spring of 2014 and in late 2014 the blob reportedly “blossomed”.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/17/us-west-coast-toxic-algae-bloom-largest-ever-say-scientists

That Guardian report goes on to say that heat is not the only factor spurring proliferation of the marine algae that produce the toxins, they also need a rich supply of nutrients, along with the right currents to carry them close to shore.

Is it coincidence nutrient dumping and algae and heat are all occurring one after the other in the same area of the ocean at the same time?

Wait, there is more. LOL.

Adult salmon in oceans DON’T eat algae.
Salmon at sea eat small fish, herring.
Populations of herring, pilchards and anchovy used for aquaculture fishmeal are now so devastated worldwide that salmon farmers are experiencing less oil in salmon because of need to reduce use of dwindling fish for meal. (posted previously)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37321656

The wild Atlantic salmon fishery is commercially dead; after extensive habitat damage and overfishing, wild fish make up only 0.5% of the Atlantic salmon available in world fish markets. The rest are farmed, predominantly from aquaculture in Norway, Chile, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Faroe Islands, Russia and Tasmania in Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercially_important_fish_species

2016 Salmon catch down 40%
http://www.adn.com/business/article/alaska-salmon-forecast-predicts-summer-harvest-will-be-half-last-years/2016/03/26/

Counting numbers of fish compared to counting tonnage caught, tells a very different and perhaps deceiving story.

United Nations FAO science involving AFFORDABLE protein food sustainability or not should be thoroughly questioned and assessed.

Siliggy,

Thank you so much for your effort and comments on the various threads. Being fair and honest has been mutually beneficial has brought our understanding to this stage. It shoe what a little teamwork can do.
If you think there is now enough on hand to put a paper together then I ask you to do that. I would be happy with a credit and your comment about the plight of seafood protein dependent people and need to get solutions underway urgently.

At this stage I think it would be a good idea if you copy down my contact details.
johncfairfax@gmail.com

Thanks again, Siliggy