ant,

You say, "warming water is the reason for the spread of Noctiluca, Tasmania being a good example."

I say algae must have adequate supply of food/nutrient in order to spread, and nutrient overload pollution is now common.

As for warm EAC water, what evidence do you have showing how that warm EAC water reaches into the Derwent River Tasmania where the Noctiluca algae is spreading?

Be sure there is plenty of sewage and land use nutrient pollution food for algae in the Derwent River, but in my opinion there is no warm water in there from the EAC.

JF Aus

Making assumptions in relation to the warmth of the waters of the Derwent River? What influence the EAC has at the mouth of the Derwent River and near environs neither you nor I can say without data.

You have a particular opinion about algae; JF Aus, that does not match what scientists are saying. I have wasted much time in relation to this matter reading references you have provided, scientists often note that warmth is a precursor to algal blooms which go against your opinion..

As mentioned previously, Professor Hughes states categorically that pristine coral as well as areas where there has been sedimentation were equally bleached as much as each other. It debunks completely your assumption about sediment ( Science on RN radio). Another assumption you pushed.

ant,

Data data data data is what you turn to, ant.
I repeat to you, there is no data to show how gravity is formed, yet gravity exists.
Do you understand, ant? Data is not essential to establish fact?

It was you who raised the issue of Noctiluca algae from more southerly EAC warm water being in the Derwent River. So how did that algae get into the cold water Derwent River?

Without data I can say warmth from the EAC does not extend into the Derwent River. I know as a Pro 5000 dive card holder that the EAC has high visibility underwater and the Derwent River has low visibility underwater.

I have not heard any scientist provide science against my opinion, have you?

My opinion is that natural nutrient and warmth is a precursor to natural growth of algae, and, that increase in sewage pollution proliferated increase of algae is a precursor to increase of warmth.

A view about sedimentation does not debunk my view about dissolved nutrient. Explain what you mean, if you can.

What assumption did I push about sediment? Answer. Don't run away or hide behind another subject you have read about.

I dare you ant, to find any scientific reference to Professor Hughes and dissolved nutrient being transported north in the Australian east coast sediment dispersal water current.
You won't find any such reference.

I will concede defeat and even agree with your AGW nonsense, if you ant can find such reference. LOL

AF Aus
Listen to Professor Hughes, I gave a reference, you should be able to pick it up by pod cast.
Temperature off Maria Island is measured which is not far off the mouth of the Derwent.
It is complete bs about the far North of the GBR being impacted by effluent.

I do believe in evidence, JF Aus, not assumptions.

When stating non membership of a political party your response was “… nor do I have any ambitions whatsoever to be a politician.” An assumption/comprehension problem made without any evidence .. wrong. Science relies on more than speculation, assumptions, opinions ... it relies on hypotheses being shown to be true with data.

Your alternative truth relies on nothing but sophistry, wrong assumptions with great helpings of bs. I'm not going to waste any more time in responding.

ant,

You not responding any further is your way of avoiding questions you cannot answer. Anyway you have been a great antagonist. Thank you.

Try to understand.
Water temperature at Maria Island not far off the mouth of the Derwent River is blocked from reaching into the Derwent due to northerly flowing alongshore current along the east coast of Tasmania. And Noctiluca algae cannot swim.

As for effluent, where do you think Australian east coast effluent goes after it is dumped in rivers and ocean waters?
Anyway, I have not said effluent reaches the far north of the GBR, but I do say dissolved nutrient from effluent reaches that far, whereas sediment from effluent would settle and become sediment much closer to sewage outfalls.

You raised political party membership and I replied with my view. One day I may join a political party, to help progress integrity and constructive innovation. But I have no intent or even desire to become a politician. It seems you have assumed something else.

This is a definition for hypotheses. "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation".
"Limited evidence", ant. Then comes science, hopefully real science, not BS science.

ant, you say "without any evidence".
I have provided you with scientific evidence of sediment transport current reaching from Bass Strait to Cape York, and I repeat, Professor Hughes does not include that current and associated nutrient in his assessment of nutrient in GBR waters.
Your claim otherwise involves sophistry.

I invite you, ant, to prove any BS from me, do it, I welcome it.
Why is it so that you cannot produce any science or other evidence to prove any of my comments BS or wrong?

Come on ant, give AGW CO2 a rest for awhile and perhaps briefly focus on other phenomena. Your investigative skill could be of great value to science and business and employment and humanity.

Attention: Don Aitkin

Don, I trust you understand.
I have continued my view and discussion on your article thread here because most weather and climate in Australia at the end of 2016 and continuing, is influenced by weather and climate flowing from the Indian Ocean.

My focus in part is change to biology and chemistry within ocean water and that focus provokes thought about warming of atmosphere over Australia. That warmth coming in from the Indian Ocean is even known to sometimes split the skin of white grapes grown in WA.

Cheers,

John C Fairfax.