Be realistic.

Climate has obviously been changing from wet to dry since the time the ancient city of Petra was thriving with a running water supply.

Turtles are starving due to fish population devastation that is also causing Australia to import over 70 percent of its fish consumed or processed for animal feed meal annually.
Somewhere near $2m BILLION worth and the ABC cannot even afford $2 Million to keep Radio Australia short wave on air.
What a disgrace.

Coral is dead or dying almost everywhere and algae can be seen causing that similar to how aphids can be seen causing leaf damage and plant death.

Mangroves are also in sewage and land use nutrient overload/pollution inundated ecosystem currents like seagrass food web supply nurseries are.

Warm ocean currents are known to be higher in the centre where the warmth is greatest, as would be the case with blobs of water.

Does data exist showing water warmed by underwater volcanic vents or by increased algae plant matter that has absorbed solar heat that would not be absorbed if that algae was not present, in contrast to SST data?
So much for ocean warmth and sea level rise data.

Why is the total nutrient load from various point sources flowing into GBR waters not being measured and assessed in association with northerly flow of the Australian east coast Sediment Dispersal System?

AGW data is very incomplete and so is news of the real state of the world ocean environment.

You present alternative truth JF.
I obtain my information from scientists.
For example, it was DR Bowman who identified the fact that climate change was behind the pencil pine and king billy pines being hit by fires. The particular habit does not regenerate, the groves of trees had been in the highland area for thousands of years.

Volcanic action and algae is a nonsense.

The warm currents in the Arctic are around 70 metres below the surface, they impact on sea ice when there are storms causing upwelling. In 2015 an Ice Breaker took data during winter and they were able to assess the impact of upwelling during storms. Sea ice melting was not found when there no storms.

The mangroves that died were in an isolated spot where effluent is not a problem; you made unfounded assumptions, as you did with other situations.

Ant,

At least I present the truth.
I feel sure you would have been a flat earth believer and disciple.

The government of Japan obtained information from scientists, to build a nuclear power plant in a Tsunami region.
The Australian government obtained information from scientists to import cane toads.
Of course there is good science and incomplete science, especially science involving AGW and CO2 emissions.

Of course ancient trees and forests are being destroyed by change in climate just like trees and possibly forest were destroyed adjacent to the ancient city of Petra. Trees there would have provided firewood for warmth and cooking.

I think volcanic vents underwater heat the water similar to how milk is heated by a coffee machine. Are you saying there are no underwater ocean volcanic vents?

When might you be able to comment on algae and associated warmth under arctic sea ice?

Ant, have another look.
Amplified Arctic warming by phytoplankton;
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/19/5921

Apart from upwelling there are also surface currents made up of fresher water loaded with nutrient and driven by wind.

As for mangroves, they have to be in sediment and nutrient habitat in order to grow.
Nutrient from human sewage and land use is travelling vast distances, I reiterate driven by wind.

Ant, do you have evidence from your scientist/s proving there is no anthropogenic nutrient whatsoever where your mangroves are located. Where is that location anyway?

JF Aus

A geoengineering technique discussed is to drop iron fillings on sea water to develop extra phytoplankton to draw in more CO2. You continually misrepresent what science research is saying.
You can discuss phytoplankton till the cows come home, it remains wrong.

Try variation between troposphere and stratosphere in relation to what is happening in relation to temperature. How are photo plankton managing to impact here?
The Southern Hemisphere has less land mass than the Northern one and therefore should warm more quickly by your reckoning ... it doesn't, the opposite is true. etc

JF, your "alternative facts" do not make sense scientifically.

http://youtu.be/ox5hbkg34Ow

Ant,

I deal with ecoengineering. ecological engineering. For example in the fed govt Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper - Supporting Information, I have suggested harvesting northern wet season water and running it to help sustain farming as well as the water starved Coorong in SA that is supposed to help feed ocean biodiversity.

Yes, iron stimulates phytoplankton growth but in my opinion iron alone is not enough.

Iron was spread in the NE Pacific Ocean but I think there was concern about impact of that iron, for example on coastal ecosystems.

Ant, are you qualified to say my discussion about phytoplankton remains wrong? Can you be specific and state exactly what is wrong and why, such as by referring to some scientific evidence?
No you cannot do that.

I am not qualified to speak on troposphere and stratosphere but I can say ocean dominates control of weather above. Therefore I assume ocean chemistry is linked to chemistry of atmosphere.
Phytoplankton produces some cloud that impacts albedo that I think in some way impacts troposphere and stratosphere. Yes or no?

Yes the southern hemisphere is warmer, it has the SW Pacific Islands and more sunlight, in comparison to the northern hemisphere that is virtually inundated with cloud that creates shade and cooling.

The opposite is not true as you say, Ant.
And what "alternative facts" are you talking about?

As for your last post link, "what did we know and when did we know it"?
Climate science - geoengineering apparently did not know about increase in warmth linked to anthropogenic increase in ocean algae plant matter in addition to ocean natural algae mass.

I suggest study the leading text of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, scientific paper, at the PNAS link I posted above.
It states, quote, "..... such biogeophysical impact is still not considered in many climate projections by state-of-the-art climate models, nor is its impact on the future climate quantified. (end quote).

Ant, is that the "alternative fact" - "that does not make sense", you are referring to?
Posted again: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/19/5921

JF Aus

Photo plankton were said to be dying in a study of the Indian Ocean I referred ages ago due to warmth.

As per usual you have put the cart before the horse with the referral you provided.

Once again you are stating much the same as you have for a few years. I'm not going to waste my time saying anything further.