WTF?

Argo is an international program that measures water properties across the world’s ocean using a fleet of robotic instruments that drift with the ocean currents and move up and down between the surface and a mid-water level.

Each year the American Meteorological Society (AMS) puts out a publication on the state of the climate.

The AMS analysis uses 5 different sources all of which use ARGO data.

This analysis is presented in the ARGO website and shows a clear ocean heat content anomaly in the top 700m of the oceans.

That is, it indicates a constant increase in ocean heat content in the top 700m.

The ARGO website also presents analysis of its data that shows constant increase in heat content in lower depths as well.

Not unexpectedly, analysis of AGRO data also shows a rapid increase in temperature at all depths to 2000m.

Prof Dietmar Dommenget, a climate scientist and modeller at Monash University, said in April this year “the signal of human-caused global heating was much clearer in the oceans.”

And, next it will be found that the oceans are not warming.

Given the money that is being made out of climate lying, and the fact that the media has become an instrument of opinion rather than reporting, believing nobody is the way to go these days.

There is no climate emergency. We are not going to 'boil'; so, get on with your lives and the crooks will be revealed eventually.

Dear WTF?,

NAASA in answer to the question - "Is the ocean
continuing to warm?"

Tells us that:

"Yes, the ocean is continuing to warm.
Notably, all ocean basins have been experiencing
significant warming since 1998, with more heat
being transferred deeper into the ocean since 1990."

"To date, the ocean contains 90% of the heat from
human-induced global warming and the year 2020
was the warmest ever measured for the global ocean."

That is garbage Foxy. I guess NASA have to push this garbage to assure their funding, if in fact they have actually claimed it.

There is absolutely no evidence to prove any heating is from mans activities, it is all assumed conjecture. In fact even the theory of global warming holds any water it is recognised that CO2 could only increase the temperature by a fraction of one degree. It requires that less than one degree to trigger "tipping points" to get to even one degree.

I guess you believe the "scientist" who claimed CO2 was making fish left handed. Some will believe anything if it suits their narrative.

The water of the northern GBR is cold at this time !

Dear Hasbeen,

The following link from NAASA explains:

http://climate.naasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-warming/#

Well not a single link from WTF. As best I can work it out, his 'analysis' comes from an article in the Guardian!!

Argo doesn't, strictly speaking, find 'warming'. It finds changes in the Ocean Heat Content which is not exactly the same thing. Of course, short-term changes don't really prove anything except in the fevered minds of the alarmists. During the early century 'pause', we were told that any analysis covering a period of less than 30 years was mere noise. Argo has been going for less than 30 years.

An interesting theory as to why the surface temperatures seem to under-going a spike at the moment. In January 2022, there was a gigantic underwater volcanic explosion from a mountain called Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai volcano. Initial calculations were that it ejected 146 trillion grams (yep, trillion with a T) of water vapour into Earth's stratosphere. That's about 10% of the water already present in that atmospheric layer. Subsequently that's been upgraded to a 13% increase in the stratosphere's water vapour content.

Those versed in CO2 scare campaigns won't know that water vapour is a much more efficient greenhouse gas than the dreaded CO2. Additionally, NASA advises that "the excess water vapor injected by the Tonga volcano, on the other hand, could remain in the stratosphere for several years" and that " the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat".

Of course, this gigantic explosion isn't much talked about and its climate effect is totally ignored by the MSM. After all, you can't blame mankind for the explosion or the water vapour in the atmosphere, and if you can't blame man, its just not worth discussing.

It took man 150 years to eject enough CO2 which according to the alarmists caused a c. 1c increase in temperatures. It took nature one day to achieve the same effect.

Just on things climatic...

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist John Clause said "I believe that climate change is not a crisis," and "described the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation."

He made the comments after the IMF had cancelled a talk he was slatted to give in July. I can't imagine why he was cancelled </sarc>

"[H]e argues that climate is primarily set by what he refers to as the "cloud cover thermostat," a self-regulating process whereby more clouds start to enshroud the Earth when the temperature is too high and vice-versa. Although he accepts observations showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, he said he believes that gas's effect on heat transfer is swamped by a great natural cloud cycle."

Natural cycle? See above.

Nobel Laurette scientist? I thought there was a consensus on climate change.

Dear Hasbeen,

So you don't like NAASA?

Perhaps CSIRO might do better:

http://blog.csiro.au/future-ocean-warming/

Dear Individual,

The Great Barrier Reef Foundation tells us that already
marine heatwaves have triggered four mass coral bleaching
events on the Great Barrier Reef in just seven years reducing
shallow water reefs by as much as 50%. Coral reefs can
recover from bleaching over time but only if temperatures
drop and conditions return to normal.

http://barrierreef.org/the-reef/threats/climate-change#

Oh dear mhaze,

Over blowing things again? This time by omission it seems.

The full quote is: "In contrast, the Tonga volcano didn’t inject large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere, and the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat. The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects."

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere

It 'won't be noticed' but somehow not reporting on it to your satisfaction is a capitol offence.

You're right SR. I should have said the effect would be temporary.

OH WAIT...I did say it was temporary but may explain the recent temperature spikes. Still suffering those comprehension skills SR?

But then I should have said the effect would be small.

OH WAIT....I did say it was a small effect but may explain the recent temperature spikes. Still suffering those comprehension skills SR?

"It 'won't be noticed' but somehow not reporting on it to your satisfaction is a capitol [sic] offence."

Not a capital offence. Indeed exactly what I'd expect from the current media.

WTF?

mhaze says: "Well not a single link from WTF. As best I can work it out, his 'analysis' comes from an article in the Guardian!!"

I find this rather strange as on Tuesday 01/08/2023 states "And the Argo project is showing only minor warming at depths and indeed cooling in plenty of locations."

This information does not match that from the ARGO website so I don't know where mhaze is getting his information from.

So mhaze (incorrectly) mentions ARGO without any links.

I specifically state that the information comes from the ARGO website and the American Meteorological Society website is easy enough to find.

As I have mentioned many times before it does not matter who reports on primary information - anyone can find that information for themselves.

Hello Foxy and hasbeen,

I think I am correct in remembering that hasbeen has told us that in the past he flew fighter jets.

I'm happy to be corrected on this.

From the NASA website: "That first “A” in NASA stands for aeronautics—the science of travel through the air. It’s as much about you flying on airplanes and arriving safely at your destination as it is about astronauts flying in space. NASA’s roots go back to the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, established to “supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight.” Wind tunnels, flight testing, and computer simulations are among NASA’s many tools for research on those problems.

Today’s entire aviation industry relies on technology rooted in NASA research.

I wonder why hasbeen is so reluctant to embrace all of NASA's research.

The safe operation and functioning of fighter jets was and is dependant on NASA research.

The problem WTF is that neither the Argo website nor the AMO says anything like " it indicates a constant increase in ocean heat content in the top 700m."

So I thought you might have had access to some different data. Obviously not. Just a different way of making the same assertions.

Dear mhaze,

No I meant capitol.

And no you specifically claimed the eruption would have a noticeable effect. A full 1 degree Celsius in fact.

"It took man 150 years to eject enough CO2 which according to the alarmists caused a c. 1c increase in temperatures. It took nature one day to achieve the same effect."

However the modelling said: "The model calculated the monthly change in Earth’s energy balance caused by the eruption and showed that water vapor could increase the average global temperature by up to 0.035°C over the next 5 years."
https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming

Overblown really should be your middle name.

Oh modelling said that? Well that seals it then. </sarc>

Elsewhere NASA said the effect would last two years, not seven. So upshot is no one knows.

But, SR, if you don't want it to be true, then obviously it isn't.

Oh and no contrition for claiming that I'd omitted that the effect would be small and temporary when I had specifically done so? The level of integrity we've come to expect from SR.

Dear mhaze,

Mate you didn't "say" anything of the sort. All you did was present an incomplete quote from NASA.

What you did in fact claim was this: "It took man 150 years to eject enough CO2 which according to the alarmists caused a c. 1c increase in temperatures. It took nature one day to achieve the same effect."

It is this which is demonstrably false yet no apologies from you.

Overblowing without contrition has become a bit of an art form for you it seems.

"It is this which is demonstrably false yet no apologies from you."

Its not demonstrably false. You saying its false doesn't demonstrate its false - in fact usually the opposite.

The fact is that there appears to be a temperature spike in the NH which may well be explained by the massive increase in water vapour. Models aren't of much value here since they aren't designed to measure changes in water vapour.

This is so typical of SR. He sees something he doesn't want to be true, runs off to try to find someone (anyone) who'll sooth his jaded demeanour, and when he sees something (anything) that sorta, kinda supports his views, determines that that is the only answer.

The fact is that no one knows what the effect of this monumental increase in super-heated water vapour will be and we won't know for several years. But somehow SR knows - no really he does!.

Meanwhile we see headlines saying scientists are baffled by the recent rapid increase in temperatures.

The point here isn't the quantum of the increase but that natural forces massively outweigh human forces as regards all things climate. eg "Scientists discover three new hydrothermal vent fields on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge" spewing out water hot enough to melt lead. This heats the ocean and then vents to the atmosphere to add to the greenhouse gases.

Yet the gullible still think its all down to our SUVs

WTF?

mhaze says: " neither the Argo website nor the AMO says anything like it indicates a constant increase in ocean heat content in the top 700m."

The ARGO data was examined by 5 different sources.

The data has been collated and graphed by the AMS.

Both ARGO and the AMS present this data in graphic form on their websites (not, mhaze, on the home page. You have to use the drop down menus).

The graphs show a constant increase in ocean heat content.

We know this because we have the ability to interpret information presented in graphs.

A grade 6 student could articulate that there was a constant increase in these graphs even if they did not know what information was actually being presented.

While both these organisations don't use the exact phrase "indicates a constant increase" mhaze wants to make this an arguing point.

The term used by ARGO to describe this constant increase is anomaly.

We know it is a constant increase because the graph shows a constant increase - that's why graphs are drawn so that we can interpret from them.

Usually mhaze wants to argue using deflection and semantics.

This latest effort is just plain denial.

Well provide a link to the graph. That's all I've been asking for.

mhaze - use the drop down menu on the ARGOS home page.

WTF?

mhaze it was you who mentioned the ARGO project back on 1 August.

If you did not get that informaton from the ARGO website where did you get it from?

So no links from WTF....pretty much what I expected. We all know what's going on here.

As to my previous mention of Argo...I got it from here: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-9/

WTF?

Yes we all know what's going on here mhaze.

Nobody is going to hold your hand through this.

The information is there. It is easy to find.

One more time just for use - use the drop down menu from the primary information source the ARGO website.

Extra bonus hint - the topic is ocean warming.

Same old denialist behaviour.

WTF?

mhaze your link takes us to a website that I quoted from on a previous discussion back on 31 July.

In that link there is a graph that shows some of the same detail as the ARGO graphs.

Have you found it yet?

OK WTF, you shot your mouth off making claims that you hoped were right but which you couldn't and can't support with actual data. You claim the data exists but refuse to provide it.

Anyone with a modicum of integrity would either supply the data/link or own up.

Now you are trying to hide the error by referring to other things. There is nothing in the link I provided that supports your claims.

Oh by the way, did you know the third planet in the Alpha Centauri B system is made out of strawberry yoghurt. Oh you want proof? Well its on the NASA website but you'll have to find it yourself - no hand holding here.

Foxy, WTF? there was a time when NASA & particularly the CSIRO were very useful organisations doing important & very useful work. That was the time before the lefts long march through the institutions & their need for tax payer money bastradised them into a mouthpiece for what ever they were told to say.

Only full card carrying members of the useful idiots religion could possibly believe what they say these days. Hell NASA even need private enterprise to launch their satellites today.

WTF?

mhaze

On a discussion thread I started on 31st July relating to ocean warming I provided some information provided by the IPCC 6th Assessment report.

You responded with: " And the Argo project is showing only minor warming at depths and indeed cooling in plenty of locations. You can't build a scare campaign on that, so the IPCC, while mentioning the Argo data, hurries to skip over it."

I begin this discussion by referencing information found not only on the ARGO website but also the AMS website.

mhaze cannot find the information from the ARGO website so suggests the information does not exist even though he initially references ARGO.

Where did he get his information from then?

Well he supplies a link to guess what? - The IPCC 6th Assessment report.

I indicate to mhaze that this website also contains graphical data that reflects some of the AGROS graphical data.

mhaze respons that it does not exist.

mhaze you have referenced both the ARGO project and the IPCC 6th Assessment report to try to back your opinion.

Both of the AGRO wesite and the IPCC 6th Assessment show clear graphical representation of increased ocean warming.

But mhaze cannot find it.

Just because you cannot find information provided by your references does not mean it does not exist.

You reference both AGRO and IPCC and you cannot navigate through them to find information.

Deflection, semantics and denial. I'll add poor research skills as well.

Hello Hasbeen,

Your last post is a little unclear to me.

NASA can get funding from government(the tax payer) which you seem to think is problematic.

NASA can get funding from private enterprise which you seem to think is problematic.

Where else can they get their money from?

WTF?

mhaze

Actually NASA says:'Earth is composed of four main layers, starting with an inner core at the planet's centre, enveloped by the outer core, mantle, and crust.

The inner core is a solid sphere made of iron and nickel metals about 759 miles (1,221 kilometres) in radius. There the temperature is as high as 9,800 degrees Fahrenheit (5,400 degrees Celsius). Surrounding the inner core is the outer core. This layer is about 1,400 miles (2,300 kilometres) thick, made of iron and nickel fluids.

In between the outer core and crust is the mantle, the thickest layer. This hot, viscous mixture of molten rock is about 1,800 miles (2,900 kilometres) thick and has the consistency of caramel. The outermost layer, Earth's crust, goes about 19 miles (30 kilometres) deep on average on land. At the bottom of the ocean, the crust is thinner and extends about 3 miles (5 kilometres) from the seafloor to the top of the mantle."

See how easy research is?

So you are wrong - again.

WTF?

mhaze I misread your post.

Obviously I thought you were talking about Earth.

So that information while correct does not relate to your planet.

However NASA has categorized exoplanets into the following types: Gas giant, Neptunian, super-Earth and terrestrial.

So not your description.

WTF,

Way out of your depth. Making stuff up, refusing to provide evidence. etc etc. Not a good look.

You wrote: "mhaze respons [sic] that it does not exist."

That's not what I said at all. I said there was nothing there that supported your claims. There's plenty there that supported mine. Making stuff up again.

"Obviously I thought you were talking about Earth."
So you 'thought' I was saying the Earth was made of strawberry yoghurt. Wow!! I really should stop doing sarcasm - it flies over the heads of the dull. But its so much fun.

WTF?

mhaze - do you see how it works? I misread and corrected myself.

That's integrity at work for you just there.

So your flippant, deflective claim is easy disproved using the website you referenced. See how easy it is? Just a sad attempt to fail at proving a point.

You are only a few mouse clicks away from finding the information that I did.

I suggest you learn how to use all the functions of search engines and the layout and navigation of websites including their drop down menus.

In future I suggest that you take a little time investigation the information provided by the organisations that you want to reference.

So quoting from the link you provided in an earlier post:

"The heat content of the global ocean has increased since at least 1970, and will continue to increase over the 21st century (virtually certain). The associated warming will likely continue until at least 2300, even for low-emissions scenarios, because of the slow circulation of the deep ocean."

You can see this graphically in the accompanying graph.

WTF,

You made specific claims about ARGO's data. ARGO started in 2000. Relying on a quote that talks about 1970 is utterly beside the point. There was no ARGO in 1970. Do try to keep up or at least be internally consistent in your increasingly inane claims.

Earlier, I formed the working assumption that WTF was in fact a previous poster called ant who also called himself Tony153. ant had finally decamped the group after making a series of claims which he couldn't hope to support with any data. WTF seemed to be a bit more switched on than 'ant' so I figured I was wrong to link the two.

Alas, I've now revised that opinion. Its the same pattern of inane claims that are unsupported by any data, followed by attempts to obfuscate the error.

Welcome back ant.

WTF?

I quoted from a site you provided - the IPPC site.

The information from here backs up what I have been saying.

"The heat content of the global ocean has increased since at least 1970, and will continue to increase over the 21st century (virtually certain). The associated warming will likely continue until at least 2300, even for low-emissions scenarios, because of the slow circulation of the deep ocean."

ARGO provides a graph of the ocean heat anomaly for the 1960 with its own data overlaid.

It then provides detailed graphs that the AMS has put together from 5 different sources all of which use the ARGO data.

Here is a quote from the ARGO Project - "The top panel shows the ocean heat content anomaly in the top 700m using five different data sources, all of which use Argo data. The second half of the top panel shows the ocean heat content anomaly for the deeper ocean based on repeat hydrography."

This information is easy enough to find.

ant? Talk about inane claims.

Deflection, arguing semantics, denial, failure to research, flippant easily debunked claims and now triggered into false identification.

What a mess.

Shamed ya into it?

OK here we go.....

This is the very first graph on the page you refer to... http://argo.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/361/2020/05/nclimate2872-f5.jpg

It shows three anomaly graphs for three regions:
1. 20S to 20N - this shows no real change in temps in the decade covered although a slight increasing trend. Certainly no "constant increase in ocean heat content" as you falsely asserted.
2. 60S - 20S - this shows an overall positive increase trend although again the rises are NOT constant which was your claim.
3. 20N -60N - this shows a declining OHC overall as well as a declining trend. OH dear. How does a declining trend convert in your mind to a "constant increase"?

There are other graphs on the page but they cover periods outside the age of ARGO and, even if they do include ARGO data, there's no way to know where, when and how.

Oh dear WTF/ant. It would have been so easy to reword your original post to accurately reflect the levels of uncertainty about all this deep ocean data and trends. But you wanted to convey certainty that the data doesn't support.

WTF?

shamed? Let's call it me offering you a helping hand.

You understand what anomaly means don't you?

Using this graph the anomaly exists in the 60 - 20 degrees south.

Not much change in the other two so there are not anomalies.

They even put in a line of best fit to help you.

Now you should be able to see what a graphed anomaly looks like compared to little or no change.

Now comes the good part: mhaze says" There are other graphs on the page but they cover periods outside the age of ARGO and, even if they do include ARGO data, there's no way to know where, when and how."

But the ARGO program clearly states in reference to Figure 3.6: "The top panel shows the ocean heat content anomaly in the top 700m using five different data sources, all of which use Argo data."

We also know where, when and how - it's in the panel under Fig 3.6.

You are incorrect again.

It is obvious to me that you are just acting here in bad faith.

As an aside:

mhaze has stated " so the IPCC, while mentioning the Argo data, hurries to skip over it."

And also:" "And the Argo project is showing only minor warming at depths and indeed cooling in plenty of locations."

The IPCC link you posted references ARGO 14 times - hardly a skip over.

The IPCC link you posted references :

minor warming at depths and indeed cooling in plenty of location -0 times
plenty - 0 times
minor warming - 0 times
slow warming - 1 time
cooling - 27 times
warming - 344 times

Cooling in one area is overshadowed by warming in others hence the quote from your link "...translates into more ocean area with statistically significant warming trends and less area with statistically significant cooling trends."

It is quite clear to me that you cannot deal with factual information that opposes your world view.

Keep and eye out for my next comment thread and we'll see if you can do better.

Deflection, arguing semantics, denial, failure to research, flippant and easily debunked claims to try to prove a point and triggered into false identification.

What a mess.

It seems to me that ant is living rent free in your head.

I did have quip about mhaze, ant and Dissociative identity disorder but I'll save it for another time.

"You understand what anomaly means don't you?"

I do but clearly you don't.

The graphs are graphs of the anomaly. Every data point on all three lines is an anomaly. Comments like "Not much change in the other two so there are not anomalies." clearly show a complete misunderstanding of the data because these two lines are graphs OF THE ANOMALIES.

I'll help you out here (but this is the last time, OK). In climate science (and most other statistical fields for that matter) an anomaly is the difference between the actual score (in this case OHC) and some determined mean. Pretty much every temperature record you see is a graph of the temperature anomalies. Why do I think you won't get this?

You quote, without understanding ""The top panel shows the ocean heat content anomaly in the top 700m using five different data sources, all of which use Argo data."

Yes it uses ARGO data but not solely ARGO data. How could it since that data starts well before the start of the ARGO project. So they use other data, obviously, but how is it used, how much is used etc. We don't know therefore can't draw conclusions. Well you can draw conclusions but they aren't valid since they're based on a complete misunderstanding of the data.

The data in these graphs is so bad for WTF's original assertions its little wonder that he tried to hide it. Somehow, even though he misunderstood the data, he understood enough to know that he needed to try to keep it hidden.

WTF?

Deliberate misrepresentation from mhaze.

mhaze states " they use other data, obviously, but how is it used, how much is used etc."

But we do know who used the data (if you want to check the validity of the referenced sources then either find their studies or try contacting the researches involved. The researchers are clearly identified.

I'm sure they'll help you out.

That can be a little project for you.

Restating my position (yet again):

Keep in mind I asked you to show where you got the ARGO information from (because at that stage you could not find the ARGO website even though you were mentioning ARGO) you linked to IPCC.

A thanks from you would be appropriate here.

ARGO states :""The top panel shows the ocean heat content anomaly in the top 700m using five different data sources, all of which use Argo data."

You provide a link to the IPCC site.

The IPCC site states ""...translates into more ocean area with statistically significant warming trends and less area with statistically significant cooling trends."

So using ARGO data and older data it is clear that there is "more ocean area with statistically significant warming trends and less area with statistically significant cooling trends."

My position all along.

Deflection, arguing semantics, denial, failure to research, flippant and easily debunked claims to try to prove a point, triggered into false identification and now misinformation.

What a mess.

"So using ARGO data and older data"

Phew, we got there. We've gone from "[ARGO] indicates a constant increase in ocean heat content in the top 700m" to Argo AND OTHER DATA shows cooling and warming trends. A long from from a constant increase.

As we've seen (well not you because you clearly don't understand what an anomaly is) but as those of us who understand the stats see, ARGO shows no warming trend or only a very minor trend for most of the world's oceans. A long way from a constant increase, n'est pas?

So we got there, WTF. But it was exhausting and I don't intend to drag you kicking and screaming to the truth every time you head off on a tangent.

WTF?

Dear of dear here we go again.

mhaze you certainly cannot interpret from graphs so to make things easy for you I will use quantitative data.

And just for you I will point out that when we read quantitative information from graphs there is a degree of estimation involved.

So don't get your nickers in a twist and argue that a value of approximately 170 should in your mind be 167 and that that in some way is significant.

So using the mathematical concept of differentiation we are able to estimate rate of change.

Using the ARGO graphs that show there most recent AGO data it is easy.

Of the 5 sources presented I'll use the MET Office Hadley Centre. This shows rises and falls but an overall trend upwards.

Using dy/dx we get (170 - 0)/(2020 -1992) = 6.1 ZJ/year.

Now if you think that some of this data is old and therefore can be discounted feel free to use more recent data from say 2010 -2020 or wherever.

Now because the 6.1 is positive this means that the number is increasing.

Because this rate of change is positive that means that the energy input is increasing.

Over the time interval on the ARGO graph the rate of change is 6.1 ZJ per year.

Now if you want to despite what I've said please contact one or all of the sources to see if this agrees with their data.

I'm happy for you to forward them my calculations to the researches for comment.

Now using your provided link from the IPPC.

I'm assuming that you the missed graphs in Cross Chapter Box 9.1 (look at me helping mhaze navigate his own references.)

This contains more information collected both prior to and during the ARGO time frame (please don't let that confuse you) but it does have some pretty colours to help.

I'll let you do the calculations.

Probably best for you to use the start and end dates as using shorter time frames (particularly using more recent data) will actually show acceleration.

Maybe I should have used the expression constantly increasing change.

I'll update my mhaze list with confused.

He doesn't understand the concept of anomalies, probably the simplest and most fundamental statistic concept in all of climate science, but he's going to teach me how to read a graph.

That's so cute.

WTF?

So where does this bring us back to?

If numbers and graphs are difficult let's restate in words.

"The heat content of the global ocean has increased since at least 1970, and will continue to increase over the 21st century (virtually certain). The associated warming will likely continue until at least 2300, even for low-emissions scenarios, because of the slow circulation of the deep ocean."

"...translates into more ocean area with statistically significant warming trends and less area with statistically significant cooling trends."

Now the important phrases and words here are "statistically significant" and "trends".

The IPPC uses the the scientific analysis of ARGO data as well as historical data to reach these conclusions.

ARGO data just happens to be the most recent way that data is collected supplementing previously collected data.

The statistically significant warming trend continues upwards.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/11/wa-activist-charged-over-woodside-protest-says-police-pointed-gun-at-him-day-before

Fossil fuel activist drives a fossil fuel powered car.
These people must be a chromosome short or something.