Sargassum: When life finds a way

If you want to befriend low status white males, your best shot tends to be launching your own esoteric climate change theory. And I should know. Trust me, I’ve been looking at this problem for the past two decades of my life, spending almost half of those years convinced there is no problem. But all the theories I ran into were disappointing and easily debunked. I had to jump from one theory to another, until in a moment of lucidity, I realized that if none of these theories hold up for very long (remember “it hasn’t warmed since 1998”?) then maybe the dominant narrative is just genuinely correct.

I’m not overly fond of humans as I see how humans treat animals, but nature has a special place in my heart. And so in a sense, the refusal of low status white males to accept that Gaia is dying has a hidden sense of nobility to it. As satan-worshipping pedophiles fly in private jets to Davos, Joe Sixpack from West Virginia, a retired coalminer, spends his days visiting obscure blogs to find the final piece of evidence that global warming is a hoax.

Every low status white male has his own unique theory on why global warming is a hoax. When I met up with some local ecologists in Rotterdam to stop some trees from being cut down, a middle aged LSWM birdwatcher proclaimed that all the digging in the Earth may just be causing a pole shift and thereby resulting in the global warming we observe.

Can you be angry at these people? No. You can be angry at the elite WEF pedophiles of the satan-worshipping variety, who refuse to lead by example, demoralizing the proles. In medieval times, the king led his troops and died with his people. I want Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab and Al Gore, to die with their people. Move to Uganda and buy a plot of land. Become a self-subsistent farmer, who will die of hunger or in civil war once the droughts become permanent. Lead by example. Leave no room for Mr. Sixpack’s cynicism. He has every reason to be cynical.

I won’t defend LSWMs for mocking Greta Thunberg. I’ve even seen LSWM media bash the founder of Extinction Rebellion, for buying “exotic fruit” (oranges in the supermarket). But the LSWMs are correct in the disturbing nature of elites traveling by private jet to conferences where they discuss how to keep the Earth habitable. And if the LSWMs had some intellectual integrity, they’d notice Dutch climate activists succeeded through activism at stopping private jets from landing at Schiphol, the Amsterdam airport.

And so today I want to throw you all a bone. Like I said, every LSWM has his own unique theory. Some LSWMs still peddle the idea that it’s all just fake because the measuring stations are subject to the urban heating effect. But we notice heating on the ocean too and that whole theory is dead.

Other LSWMs think it’s caused by the sun, but the nights are warming up faster than the days, so that doesn’t work either. A handful of LSWMs like Ethical Skeptic think it’s due to the Earth’s core. Some even seem to think it’s caused by fluorocarbons that caused the hole in the ozone layer.

There are also LSWMs who think we’re about to enter an ice age because solar forcing will decline, but that will barely make a dent in the amount of heating that we can expect in the decades ahead. The climate models are generally correct. The outcome we observe rarely deviates strongly from what we anticipated.

The only thing that would make a difference, is some sort of massive black swam, something nobody anticipated. If Pakistan and India sink into nuclear war next year, the resulting nuclear winter will turn global warming into a side-issue. Another potential black swan would be extremely rapid ice melt, as Hansen has warned could happen. This wouldn’t be great for humanity, as it would require tens of meters of sea level rise before the end of the century.

And so today I want to consider the possibility, of a potential black swan that nobody seems to be talking about. I want you to take a look at this:

Scientists Discover the Biggest Seaweed Bloom in the World | USF ...

What you witness here, is a new phenomenon, displaying exponential growth. The size of Sargassum blooms has increased by a hundred fold in recent years. The ocean is doing something very new, at least on the timescale of industrial civilization.

The ocean, is changing. In response to warming of the surface layers, influx of nutrients and periods without wind, Sargassum, a floating macroalgae, is spreading. It also benefits with increased growth speed from ocean acidification, the ongoing increase in carbon dissolved in our ocean. And if it genetically adapts, that faster growth may be boosted even further.

And Sargassum is a special weed. It floats at the very top of the ocean surface, reflecting light that would normally penetrate the water and cause our planet to accumulate heat. On the dark ocean, the amount of light reflected can be just 3% in the absence of clouds. And ocean covers 70% of our planet’s surface.

It seems that despite growing rapidly, Sargassum probably won’t be very good at sequestering carbon dioxide. However, it may prove to be very good at covering the ocean’s surface. We spend a lot of time worrying about the positive climate change feedback loops, like the death of the Amazon, the release of methane in the Arctic andsoforth.

But here we have a rare example of a potential NEGATIVE feedback loop, KICKING IN AS WE SPEAK, but very few people are paying attention to it. The Earth is using the dark ocean near the equator, to reflect large amounts of sunlight back into space. The Earth is in the process of terraforming itself, with an organism capable of exponential growth. And this organism is capable of very rapid exponential growth, because photosynthesis on the ocean’s surface is just much more efficient than on land.

It has been calculated that you’d need to cover 10% of the ocean’s surface with a highly reflective material, to fully compensate a doubling of atmospheric CO2. That’s 36 million km2. The biggest global Sargassum bloom seen so far, was 8,800 km2. So if we say Sargassum is reflective enough for what we want to achieve (coping with a doubling of atmospheric CO2), we’re at 0.2% of where we need to be.

But keep in mind, we had a 200-fold increase in 2011 compared to the preceding period. If we were to get another 200-fold increase, we’d be at 40% of what we need to cope with a doubling. And then we’re not yet counting any carbon dioxide sequestered by the Sargassum itself. Nor any carbon dioxide sequestered by the various animals that would expand their population in response to the spread of oceanic Sargassum forests. Large parts of the ocean are currently almost devoid of life.

If the world’s oceans were to become covered with Sargassum that would be a climate change black swan akin to nuclear war, something the models could not possibly account for. Are there physical limits you run into prohibiting this? Maybe, but I haven’t seen them yet. The Sahara alternates between periods of forest coverage and lifeless desert, so why can’t the ocean?

You won’t hear me argue that a Sargassum covered ocean wouldn’t cause trouble, but what has me disturbed is the idea that mankind could turn this planet into a lifeless desert, that we could kill the Amazon.

And keep in mind, we’re not just dependent on Sargassum. We have these guys too:

Phytoplankton affect planetary albedo too. Increase phytoplankton blooms and you reduce temperatures too.

The important thing to understand is that biological life has the general tendency to cause state shifts: An organism that rapidly multiplies often ends up changing its environment, in a way that facilitates its continued replication. Forests for example are capable of generating their own rain. And African elephants like to destroy small trees, preventing the savannah on which they live from turning into forest.

Well, what about Sargassum? It will attract fish, it will spread nutrients by fertilizing the top layer of the ocean when it dies and in sufficiently dense pads it can reduce the waviness of the ocean, thereby facilitating its own growth.

I think Sargassum generates the sort of conditions that favor Sargassum.

Keep in mind what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about a forest the size of Cyprus, that now just spontaneously emerges in the ocean, that was basically non-existent ten years ago. Is this how the Earth regulates itself? Forests on the bright soil to warm up our planet, forests on the dark ocean to cool it down?

Ask yourself, how much do we really know about how the ocean looked during previous geological periods? Not much, at least not compared to how everything looked on land. We know that everything goes to shit whenever large amounts of carbon dioxide suddenly enter the atmosphere, but you always have to keep one thing in mind: In the absence of humans, it’s very hard to get large amounts of carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere without a bunch of stuff going to shit all at once. Of course a lot of stuff dies when you get megatsunamis from decomposing methane clathrates.

And ironically perhaps, microplastics in the ocean create opportunities for life as well. There are just two places we know of with high concentrations of neustons, that is, life at the surface layer of the ocean: The Sargassum sea and the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The big challenge most life in the ocean faces is to find attachment points: To start growing, you need something to attach to. Floating plastic can do that job for some organisms.

Maybe, just maybe, life finds a way.


  1. Uh-huh… so you’re ready to admit that CO2 is literally plant food?

    (More plant food, more plants… you always did seem too smart to deny biology forever… unlike Al Gore, whose intelligence has been unfavorably compared to the common oak)

    Don’t start celebrating just yet, though. There’s another explanation for CO2 being unrelated to climate change that I’ve seen that needs a solid run-down by someone of your caliber.

    It’s the mechanism for the CO2 greenhouse effect, which involves the 10.2 micron IR line characteristic of CO2. (That’s also the operating wavelength of a CO2 laser. It’s a very strong absorption/emission line.) The CO2 greenhouse effect must saturate at some level, because there is only so much energy available at that wavelength. Supposedly, the atmosphere is about 90% opaque at that wavelength at CO2 levels that cause plants to starve, which means that there’s less than another 10% between current conditions and the horizontal asymptote at complete opacity.

    Put simply, the greenhouse contribution of CO2 is supposedly close to maxed out and has been there for as long as life as we know it has existed on Earth.

    Yet the warming continues, which means either the numbers don’t actually line up on this or there is some other cause, and we’ve been wasted our time having a big row over CO2 while the Earth careens towards catastrophe. Oops.

    Pox on every last one of those climate hypocrites who fly private jets while complaining about burning fossil fuels for their roles in this. You think Joe Sixpack is cynical now? See what happens if CO2 turns out not to affect the climate much after all.

    We may have wasted our chance as a species to intervene on climate change, if we ever had one.

    … and kudos to the environmental activists who managed to at least inconvenience the hypocritical bastards. Guess how widely that was reported in the USA? I read it here first.

    • >Uh-huh… so you’re ready to admit that CO2 is literally plant food?

      >(More plant food, more plants… you always did seem too smart to deny biology forever… unlike Al Gore, whose intelligence has been unfavorably compared to the common oak)

      I never disputed CO2 is plant food.

      Rather, I’ve always insisted that it’s a red herring.

      Honestly the problem is that people with an IQ below 130 shouldn’t have opinions on this subject matter.

      The CO2 saturation idea sounds nice, but AFAIK it’s based on a misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works. It doesn’t really saturate, because with more CO2 you simply increase the height at which the radiation leaves the atmosphere.

  2. 80% of CO2 emissions come from… oceans..
    we had historically much hotter and colder periods and now historically low CO2 level in atmosphere.
    Doubling of CO2 won’t have any important impact as this marginal effect gets quickly saturated, while radiation doesn’t do shit, it’s nearly only convection at work.

    Maybe it’s time to accept the reality of conditions we are long term living in on earth. Nature of earth’s nature.

    Next years and decades will be really challenging to your climatic convictions but eventually the direction is right, despite wrong idea about underlying causes and mistakenly hating humanity.

    we already figured mechanics behind cyclical glaciations and mechanisms of natural recovery (Gobi desert dust) so the biggest planet-caused doom will never repeat

    you seem not up to date with at least few good theories and mechanisms of climatic action, you don’t look deep enough anymore it seems

    you could construct a new extinction prophecising cult as you decided to identify with some kind of self isolationist marginal out group hating resentful marxism mentality already

    At least you will be high in it’s hierarchy as a new Marx or Lenin

    Is your B1, B6 and B12 status good?
    How about oxalates? All these plants are really deceptive things.

    What is your baseline breath pause?

    being low status less than average IQ white male but with ones of objectively best genes on planet well adapted to ancestral region conditions with still pure blood and still some own inherited ancestral land remains a great win and no reason to stress about anything (maybe except updated totalitarian centralisation schemes swallowing whole earth but somebody still need to work and dark mongrels, robots or AI won’t do it so it may be empty fear too afterall…) 🙂

    oh I may fear if dark mongrels have a better variability of immunity for general survivability but again in cold north they are aliens so not in advantageous position and I wish them best in their natural habitats

  3. My guess is the exponential growth of Sargassum is a result of fertilizer use and runoff into the ocean or some other industrial-scale human activity. This is the peak of the growth you are seeing, it won’t keep doubling.

    BTW, the physics of radiative transport in the atmosphere is well understood. But just like COVID and all those BS models, the same happens in climate science. The bottom line is that no one knows how to model non-linear complex systems. So ya Climate change is a hoax.

  4. This is fascinating! Before European colonisation of North America, there was a whole ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico, at the mouth of the Mississippi river, consisting of miles of floating logs and debris that had washed downriver– home to many kinds of fish, birds, and sealife. Interesting to think that the ocean might be able to grow something similar without even the river’s detritus.

  5. Quote: “I never disputed CO2 is plant food.”

    You only laughed about it.

    What you call “saturation idea” leads to a general problem with the field of Thermodynamics, which is one of the most unsure and most disputed branches of science.
    Therefore Thermodynamics is not suited for making groundbreaking decisions about our future.

  6. “The size of Sargassum blooms has increased by a hundred fold in recent years.” This is happening in a body of water named hundreds of years ago the Sargasso Sea. A trend since 2000 isn’t dispositive.

  7. As a very LSWM myself I believe that global warming is real. You can’t pump billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without changing its chemistry.
    But TPTB seem to only have bad ideas to “fix” the problem and the past three years of covid lies have made me cynical.
    Radagast, for some light reading I suggest “Under a Green Sky” by Peter Ward.

  8. ” The climate models are generally correct. The outcome we observe rarely deviates strongly from what we anticipated.”
    I hope these are not stochastic models like the C19 ones. We all know what happened there!

    Global warming, global cooling. Global warming, global cooling, Global warming, global cooling… It´s all in the cycles. They have ruled the universe since its conception and will continue to do so until the light is switched off (hey, another cycle).

    We are in a cycle which will bring a cooling trend. We can come up with as many theories/models as we want but the cycle will not be altered. Accept it and adapt.

    • Have you people ever heard of the steadily increasing luminosity of the sun, or are you just going to repeat this sort of dumbass low IQ low status white male shit forever?

      If something happened with a fainter sun 300 million years ago, that doesn’t mean it will happen again today. In fact lower CO2 levels are a planetary adaptation to an increasingly luminous sun.

      • I heard about the “faint young sun” problem, but it’s not proven fact, only speculation.

        Quote: “A wide range of possible solutions have been suggested and explored during the last four decades, with most studies focusing on higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, or ammonia. All of these solutions present considerable difficulties, however, so the faint young Sun problem cannot be regarded as solved.”


        Rintrah, the more other theories you have to invoke for your reasoning, the lesser convincing you are. And the reason for the collapsing rainforest was not the sun, it was the low CO2 level.

        • Alas, Rada tend to ignore lswm who have something to say (be it true or false) and provide arguments.
          I conaider him intellectual but still green and buthurt one. We are yet to see his qualitative output. For now he is just good entertainer. I come here for the laughs.

  9. The more I think about this, the more I see the upside. I poked around and found some articles showing giant heaps of washed-up seaweed on beaches in Cancun… and as a gardener, what I’m seeing is truckloads of nutrient-rich compost. One of the few opportunities to run the pump backward, on the inexorable loss of soil minerals into the oceans. Perhaps I’m missing the macro picture.


      According to this article, the current very large sargassum bloom correlates with cooler surface temps, and looking at the map– it’s the same region that gives birth to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coast of the US, so this could be very good news for the Caribbean/Gulf Coast/Atlantic coast hurricane zone this year. Higher surface temps = more and stronger tropical cyclone activity. I wonder how long the bloom will last– is it seasonal or longer-term? Is it self-reinforcing? Does it really depend on nutrient runoff from deforestation along the Amazon? (they seemed unsure about that)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.