[Doe Eyes]

Four months ago I read a report that deep ocean warming hadn’t altered much.

Scientific American has become politicized, so I no longer credit them with veracity.

So you consider an increase of 0.1 degrees to be an exaggeration?

[DB]

I consider it completely meaningless.

[Publius6961]

So you consider an increase of 0.1 degrees to be an exaggeration?

No.
More like a coincidence or random chance. Others have addressed that.
Repeatability is meaningless unless location and other parameters are tightly controlled.

[SatinDoll]

I don’t believe them.

[Justa]

Was the 135 y.o. equipment calibrated before using its numbers? Was the same methodology, dates and locations used for the readings? If not the comparison IS meaningless. The fact that it is reported as “135 years of records” is a clue-to-the-skew. It is in fact two years of records using wholly different equipment and methodologies. Ergo it is nonsense.

[palmer]

If the 0.1 increase "at depth" is real, it means that the earth is sequestering heat in the deep ocean where it is gone forever (i.e. a thousand years or so). Think about what would happen if that water, now warmed from 1.0C to 1.1C (just above freezing) came back to the surface. It would cool the atmosphere much more than "global warming" from CO2 could ever warm it.

IOW, any increase in the deep ocean temperature is a good thing, it means that CO2 warming is negated.