WAP:

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract

Antarctic generally, East and West:

Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses; Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David;

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495

Greenland:

http://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/53654

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/11/21/G34843.1.abstract

Oh damn, missed Agro's riposte; and it's obvious he's been up burning the ecologically sustainable midnight oil for his research.

Anyway, my last post clears up both Agro's and Luci's concerns about ice.

Now OHC; first surface temperature:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/trend

That graph is not by me but based on the ARGO measurements since 2003, the most accurate measurement. Let AGRO argue with that!

OHC to 700 meters which is where 99% of the heat resides:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-700m-v-2000m.gif

David Evans has graphed the ARGO data for both the 700 and 2000 levels; at 700 meters the warming is not statistically significant; at 2000 meters it apparently is but with the proviso that the ARGO measurements at that level are EXTREMELY sparse. Here are the respective trends from 2005:

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/figure-36.png

The trend is expressed in Joules, which sound enormous but when translated into temperature equivalent are vanishingly small:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HeatContentEQ_C-500x322.png

A couple of other things since Agro has tried really hard. SST is clearly declining which begs the question of how the heat bypasses the surface and gets to the lower depths. Trenberth suggested wind variation causes this:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

Have the winds been more variable:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSR-E-ocean-surface-wind-anomalies.png

And Agro would have us believe the science is settled. Good old Agro.

cohenite, you didn’t disappoint did you.

Tell me that you understand the difference between ice extent and ice mass? Please do.

It is mass that is important for increased sea levels when ice melts.

For the Antarctic there are some differences in data between methods used; however, GRACE is likely to be more reliable than laser altimetry as it covers the whole of the Antarctic. See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183 This is where a bit of understanding of science and its methods comes in handy.

So for ocean heat balance, rather than go to the data you go to blogs. Why would anyone do that? Unless of course they don’t like what the data says.

Start with Woodfortrees. Why did you pick 2003 for SST? Why not 2000? This is why http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000/trend

Once the data is in place, it all looks a lot less interesting doesn't it? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/trend

Then graphs of trends since 2005. Why choose 2005? Is that because the trends won’t be significant over such a short time period? Probably.

So, the climate is changing AGAIN. What are you planning to do about it ? Pay more tax so that the Greens & Politicians can travel more, contributing more to the change.
Last time the climate changed it actually turned out pretty good what with all that ice gone & everything growing nicely ? Admittedly a few land bridges got inundated but we learnt how to overcome that. It'll be interesting what the next challenge will be, warm clothing or more air conditioning ? Mother Nature will know & do what's best for her. It's irrelevant to her what a few billion silly mutts think.

Well that little post tells me all I need to know about you Agro.

Just for the record, AS I SAID, I chose 2003 because that was when ARGO commenced; measurements before ARGO are crap.

And your little trick, Agro, of combining the trend with the point anomalies graph softens the tend line, an old trick.

You're not an honest broker Agro; but then if you were you wouldn't support AGW.

Individual
Unfortunately mother nature is indisposed at the moment and is unable to attend her normal duties due to choking on our fumes and the muck we are dumping in the water.