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.