ant,

That report, Ocean Warming - Conclusion 1.11 states, "Ocean warming is a complex issue that we are still striving to fully understand".

Yet at 2.2.5 Conclusions it states, ...there is observational evidence ecosystems are responding to changes in regional climate caused predominantly by the warming......

Pollution gets a mention but not any specific type of pollution.
Why is science generalizing?
Why not study sewage nutrient pollution dumped daily from 7.3 billion humans into water ecosystems?

ant, that IUCN Oceans Report right from the start is all about CO2 being the cause of warming.

But agreed, there are critically serious problems with the state of the world ocean environment on which all people depend for rain and affordable food supply from land and sea.

I think the IUCN - Ocean Warming report is a report primarily from the carbon faithful.

It is however inevitable that one day the carbon people will realize anthropogenic nutrient pollution is proliferating ocean algae causing increase in regional ocean temperatures above natural levels.

When realization occurs about algae plant matter in oceans there will be no sea surface temperature anomaly and less confusion about global temperatures

MHAZE has dried up and disappeared because I posted evidence that the Working Group paper actually models different things at different levels: global, or regional, and sometimes global is the correct perspective, and sometimes regional is the correct perspective.

“There is also a global to regional perspective, assessing the extent to which not just global mean changes but also spatial patterns of change across the globe can be attributed to anthropogenic and natural forcings.”
P872

“Consistent with previous Assessments and the majority of the literature, this chapter adopts this conservative emphasis. It should, however, be borne in mind that this means that positive attribution results will tend to be biased towards well-observed, well-modelled variables and regions, which should be taken into account in the compilation of global impact assessments (Allen, 2011; Trenberth, 2011a).”
P878

You wouldn't want urban heat island effect just smoothed into the global models, would you? Want taken into account? Try bottom of page 878 for REGIONAL discussion on that.

“Third, forcings omitted in some global climate model simulations may be important on regional scales, such as land use change or BC aerosol. “
P899

“10.7.2 Changes of Past Regional Temperature
There is also substantial literature suggesting solar influences on regional climate reconstructions, possibly due to circulation changes, for example, changes in Northern Annular Modes”
P919

Bottom line? You CHERRYPICKED, then lied, then simply re-asserted the same cherrypicking. It's no big deal. It just means we know not to take anything you post seriously. You're just another one of 'those' people we sadly bump into on the internet. Not a biggie at all.

JF AUS LIES AGAIN! The following map shows the VAST majority of the earth's oceans to have less than THREE HUNDREDTHS of a GRAM of algae per CUBIC METRE OF WATER! That's only 0.03 grams / M3!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

What you have to prove:
1. What was the original algae load in the oceans?
2. What is the anthropogenic algae load?
3. How much warming does X% extra of algae contribute to the oceans?
4. How evidence is there that algae can warm the oceans? How many watt's per gram? Where are the studies that show how much warming algae do?
5. How can you demonstrate that algae add an extra 4 HIROSHIMA BOMBS per second? (Same as 3 Christmas light globes per square metre of the earth's surface).
6. Along with hiding their ability to generate VAST amounts of heat, do algae also hide Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? (Hint: algae simply CANNOT generate that amount of heat: GET A LIFE!)

Here's a thing: Joseph Fourier discovered CO2's heat trapping properties back in the 1820's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History

What political agenda or conspiracy was controlling him to deceive the world? What about the fact that every physics on the lab can DISPROVE your whacked out mind-job of an algae theory, and PROVE the raw physics of CO2? How did this vast conspiracy survive the Napoleonic wars, and then continue through WW1, WW2, the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union, the re-unification of Germany, etc.

Even the MYTHBUSTERS are in on this 'conspiracy'? They demonstrate it in a crude experiment in their lab.
Mythbusters: 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Another experiment: watch the candle at 90 seconds in! Candle demo only goes for a minute.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

CO2 traps heat! The amount is measured in the Radiative Forcing Equation, and equates to an EXTRA 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. Yes, the earth receives a lot MORE energy per second. But that energy balance was equal. This is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs worth prevented from leaving the atmosphere.

The flea posted a link to what he calls “science”. This is the first paragraph of the pathetic rubbish to which he has linked:
“The scale of ocean warming is truly staggering with the numbers so large that it is difficult for most people to comprehend.” Even the flea could not be so ignorant as to mistake that for science, but he has wasted my time looking at it, and that satisfies his urge to be an ignorant pest.
You have the gall to talk about “science”, flea, when you have no comprehension of what the word means, and continually demonstrate your ignorance.
You have been asked for your qualification in science before, flea, and in your usual uncivil, pig-ignorant manner you ignore the question. I ask you again, flea, what is the qualification which is the basis of your tenuous presumption that you can speak about science as if you know what you are talking about, when you obviously do not.

The flea said:” You did not understand what I meant.”. You do not know what you mean, flea, so how would anyone else?
For example, you say I make:” meanlingless commentary. Thomas stated much the same thing in a more colourful way ; you made aggressive comments against Thomas, you coped it back.”
So do you say that bigmouth repeated my meaningless words in a lively way? The meaningless commentary by me was made interesting by bigmouth when he repeated it?. You refer to my truthful comments about bigmouth as “aggressive”Should I be untruthful about his abysmal behaviour, in your judgment, and not describe it accurately?
What did I “cop back”. I told the truth about bigmouth, and he told lies about me? He did not “mirror” my behaviour in any way. You are a very poor communicator, flea, and a very muddled thinker.

Leo

In the past you have stated you are a retired lawyer and acknowledge you have no science qualification. We know that some lawyers develop a criminal history due to misappropriating funds. As a result, it becomes easy for people to say that all those employed as a lawyer are corrupt, tell lies, or create a hoax; it gets pretty grim for lawyers. Especially when those employed as lawyers pride themselves in the work that they do. It becomes harder when groups are paid to rubbish all those involved in working in the law field.
Also, those paid to rubbish lawyers are encouraged to create a climate where people generally are encouraged to be critical of lawyers.

The work lawyers do is highly involved and not really well understood by people in general. Clearly, in such a situation lawyers would be bewildered by the uncalled for criticism. Especially when those doing the criticism have little knowledge about the specialised field of being a lawyer.

Another way to get the concept across is to suggest you go to the short article on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, the nicer version goes along the lines of people believe they have knowledge in an area; yet, do not understand the areas they have no knowledge in. For example, what can you tell us about Astro Physics, Glaciology, Atmospheric Physics, Oceanography without going to google.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/06/the-dunning-kruger-effect-why-the-incompetent-dont-know-theyre-incompetent.php