At http://phys.org/print393574680.html … a giant algal bloom in the Southern Ocean may tell us something about how the chalk of southern England formed. Chalk is one of the mysteries of geology. It is known what it is made from – the shells of microscopic algae (coccoliths). These shells are generally broken and in a state of disrepair and the major theory is that they have been eaten and the shells deposited as detritus that has fallen on to the sea floor. However, in most cases the chalk is exceedingly pure – white as white can be and hundreds of feet thick. How can sediment on the sea floor stay in such a pristine condition over millions and millions of years.
In a catastrophist scenario one can speculate outside the box. Instead of the sea floor slowly being raised above sea level to become the chalk geology of southern England and NE France, might it all have happened somewhat quicker and more dramatically – involving the production of huge algal blooms. The study in Global Biogeochemical Cycles (a GSA journal) is concerned mainly with the global carbon cycle (and the effect of algal blooms on the oceans) which is all part of CAGW funded research. The oceans are full of these organisms and they fix carbon – but coccoliths depend on three key ingredients (nitrate, silicate, and iron, but not too much of the latter). In this instance, the study was done in waters surrounding the Antarctic.
Another study that involves the Antarctic is at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/20/sci… … but for a more honest assessment see http://phys.org/print393741519.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-09-scientists-ocean-fossils-mountains-future.html) … but this one concerns the Pliocene (much later than chalk formation in the Cretaceous). There was a warm period in the middle of the Pliocene that is attributed to the usual demon, rising levels of co2 (carbon). Geology has adopted several prehistoric global warming events that probably have nothing to do with co2 and all to do with catastrophic events of some kind. The Washington Post is highly pro-CAGW (a bit like the BBC over here) for quite unfathomable reasons as they are supposed to be a newspaper of the well educated (as opposed to a rag of the uneducated oiks). The similarity is that in both news organs the CAGW hype is always broadcast aloud and is never questioned (oh for the days of investigative journalism and the end of the promotion of propaganda). The implication in this piece is that global sea levels were much higher in mid-Pliocene as a result of global warming, as a result of marine organisms found on mountains in Antarctica. The extrapolation involved here is that high sea levels in Antarctica are supposed to be global in extent (without proof in the field). What the marine organisms show (if it is evidence of higher sea levels rather than a massive tsunami event) is that earth's geoid may have been somewhat different to that of today – with the ocean waters distributed differently. In a nutshell this epitomises the role of global warming on the production of scientific articles nowadays. Only CAGW is put into the equation – and every other explanation is studiously ignored. The key is funding.