Numerous people on OLO have witnessed previous comment about whether or not warmth in ocean algae has been measured and assessed in AGW and Kyoto and IPCC science.

Those same people and perhaps others might now consider some independent insight as to climate science knowledge at this time.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/algae-accelerate-arctic-warming-18929

P.S
I am out in a remote area of the Pacific and will comment here when internet connection is possible.

' morning JF Aus,

Kyoto is a treaty to agree to mandatory co2 reductions, nothing to do with science.

The IPCC is an assessment panel, they do not do scientific research of any description, they review scientific papers and pass their opinions to the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), which likewise has no scientists, just bureaucrats.

If youl'd followed the links in the article by the author Lemonick at the warmist site Climate Central, back to the original abstract, it addresses the issues of photosynthesis of phytoplankton and only asks the question about researching this topic in relation to AGW. It makes it clear that this research has NOT been done but proposes such.

Lemonick then does the Chinese Whispers on it and weaves in the usual alarmism.

Any impact by Algeal bloom on AGW comes under the heading of " natural variability" which the IPCC admits in their AR5 Science Report, "their inability to predict this ‘natural variability’ and the resulting ‘hiatus’ is due to the failure or unreliability of climate models”. So the IPCC can't factor it even if you think they should.

A good assessment of this article is by N. Cook On April 29th, 2015;

"The choice of years for the “average” includes the 1970’s, the coldest in modern times in the Arctic. This is the way tp insure the 2 degree “increase” in Arctic temps and “makes the Arctic the fastest warming area on earth”. Typical manipulation of data you find in these “global warming Studies.

"The warming of the area (and probably cause of the blooms) is the ocean currents which are warmer are in a natural cycle. (See El Niño/LaNina). Warmer water moderates air temps. See Gulf Stream and UK). None of this had anything to do with CO2 nor man."

Given that the IPCC, in their AR5 WG1 science report states, that there has been “a 15 year ‘hiatus’ in global warming”, warming has paused and the IPCC can't factor natural variability, this puts you post in the trash can where it belongs.

You are in the remote Pacific, please stay there.

in many cases gw seems to be very much a 'moral' cause taken up by people who have rejected true morals. Thats why many actors and actress's jump on the bandwagon. Quite hysterical to hear the 'experts'tell you with such confidence what the climate was like 10000 years ago. Climate science is equivelant to soothsaying in many cases. Just ask Tim Flannery or Al Gore. You get paid whether you are right or wrong.

Is any branch of science anywhere near 'complete'? What does a complete branch of science look like, anyway? I'm a keen student of the history of science, and I've never come across a branch of science where the scientists have discovered all there is to know, packed up their laboratories and retired to become hairdressers. There are always new discoveries to be made.

Spindoc, perhaps considering pedantic spindoctors I should refer to AGW and Kyoto and IPCC associated science.

And Toni, the science was complete enough to introduce new tax that has cost a lot of people in more ways than one.

I think the skeptics about everything will one day need to accept humans are causing impact on climate somewhere sometimes, but not globally all at the same time.

'morning JF Aus,

When next you get an internet signal in your "remote pacific" location, perhaps you could put something together that refutes the IPCC statements I provided?

Medical science is incomplete but we still base our health policies on it: health policies that cost a lot of people in more ways than one. In my opinion, this is a good thing.

Public policy is always based on incomplete science because we don't have any complete science (I'm not sure such a beast even exists). Whilst this is obviously an imperfect situation, I contend that it is preferable to basing public policy on no science at all.

Science to put humans on the moon for the first time, was completed. Science to produce many life saving medicines was completed, so too was the science of splitting an atom for the first time.

spindoc, put some sense into why plant matter in oceans was not included in IPCC claims about co2 causing AGW, instead of knocking the individual.

'morning JF Aus,

" spindoc, put some sense into why plant matter in oceans was not included in IPCC claims about co2 causing AGW, instead of knocking the individual."

I just did JF, Such matters are part of "natural variability" and as admitted by the IPCC,

Any impact by Algeal bloom on AGW comes under the heading of " natural variability" which the IPCC admits in their AR5 Science Report, "their inability to predict this ‘natural variability’ and the resulting ‘hiatus’ is due to the failure or unreliability of climate models”.

So why do you ask me to put some sense into categorical IPCC statements? Write to them and ask the question.

"Science to put humans on the moon for the first time, was completed."

No it wasn't. Science to put humans on the moon for the first time was physics. And if you think physics is a complete science then you're a barking lunatic.

"Science to produce many life saving medicines was completed"

No it wasn't. That's biological/medical science, and if it has been completed while I wasn't paying attention I have a question on behalf of a friend:
How do we cure - not treat, but cure - type 1 diabetes?
A question on behalf of myself:
What is the cure for male pattern baldness?
And a question on behalf of humanity:
What is the cure for all types of cancer?

"so too was the science of splitting an atom for the first time."

And we're back to physics. See above comment about people who think physics is a complete science and their relative sanity.

A word of advice: you'll have more luck snaring a unicorn or jabberwocky than you will finding a complete branch of science.

Public policy has never been based on complete science and it never can be. The best we can hope for is that it will be based on the best science as we currently understand it: which doesn't mean it won't be misguided or just plain wrong. I still contend that this is preferable to basing it on no science at all.

Is climate change a "branch of science" on its own or part of meteorology, earth science and/or atmospheric science?

Are scientific studies and projects never completed because they are included within the research of a particular branch.

I think the above discussion includes some comparing apples to pears.

"Is climate change a "branch of science" on its own or part of meteorology, earth science and/or atmospheric science?"

Dunno.

"Are scientific studies and projects never completed because they are included within the research of a particular branch."

I don't understand your question. Could you try rephrasing it?

"I think the above discussion includes some comparing apples to pears."

You are the first poster to mention either apples or pears. I suspect this is a cheap ploy to attempt to confound discussion. I know it's difficult to stay on topic when there are apple pies to bake and ripe pears to poach in a spiced rose syrup, but let's try to keep this topic focused on the completeness of climatology and save our cooking tips for a different thread.

What was "the science" that former PM Gillard and others referred to when they introduced carbon
(tax) pricing?

If you 'dunno' what I was talking about in my previous post Toni, there's no point continuing a discussion with you.

"What was "the science" that former PM Gillard and others referred to when they introduced carbon
(tax) pricing?"

Climatology: a branch of science about which I know little and care less.

"If you 'dunno' what I was talking about in my previous post Toni, there's no point continuing a discussion with you."

Because I'm not the Delphic Oracle and I don't possess all worldly knowledge? Why don't you just google it? I'm sorry to disappoint you, ToryPussy, but I don't know everything. I'm pretty good when it comes to physics and chemistry, but my geology is woeful. I do, however, know a thing or two about the history of science, and about scientific methodology.

As your knowledge is in chemistry, Toni, what change may likely occur to chemistry of ocean if nutrient overload occurred causing historically unprecedented proliferation of algae in ocean ecosystem waters?
Would any such change be deemed natural and is the science of chemistry complete enough to know?

Well excuse me for not playing your game Toni. However calling me a ToryPussy is a bit rich coming from a man who spells his name like a girl.

'Well excuse me for not playing your game Toni.'

That's alright mate, we don't all get the chance to play ice hockey. It's just a fortunate accident of geography in my case.

I'm told that lawn bowls, croquet and golf are still fun for people like you... those who don't have access to ice rinks.

"However calling me a ToryPussy is a bit rich coming from a man who spells his name like a girl."

Don't take it personally, princess. I always contract 'Conservative' to 'Tory', and I've seen enough of the world to know that all hippies are pussies.

Cheers,

An(Toni)o Lavis

"what change may likely occur to chemistry of ocean if nutrient overload occurred causing historically unprecedented proliferation of algae in ocean ecosystem waters?"

Had to look that one up. Spent some time looking through my old textbooks, because they are more reliable than the internet.

'Quantitative Chemical Analysis' offered no information. Neither did 'Inorganic Chemistry'or 'Physical Chemistry'. 'Spectroscopic Methods in Organic Chemistry' wasn't helpful, nor was 'Molecular Symmetry and Group Theory'. My biology textbook might have something useful to say about algae, but it would be cheating to consult a biology textbook on a chemistry question. So once again I am forced to say dunno. You might have more luck asking an environmental chemist.