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.