The Ocean Thermometer

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” by Viv Forbes and Helpers. 
Please pass on. We rely on supporters to spread the word.

The Carbon Sense Coalition  

10 December 2013


A print friendly pdf of this newsletter can be found at:

The Ocean Thermometer reveals
Global Warming Lies

The UN IPCC and others with a vested interest in the global warming scare have not bothered to check what sea level evidence says about global temperature changes.

Sea levels are very sensitive to temperature changes, and the oceanic indicators are currently reading “steady”.

So are all other thermometers.

Apart from bubbles of heat surrounding big cities, the thermometers and satellites of the world have not shown a warming trend for 17 years. This is in spite of some inspired fiddling with the records by those whose jobs, research grants and reputations depend on their ability to generate alarming forecasts of destructive global warming.

To explain this absence of warming on Earth’s surface, the warmists now claim that “the missing heat is hiding in the deep oceans”.

This sounds like a water-tight alibi, hard to disprove because of our inability to measure “average ocean temperature” directly.

However, the ocean itself is a huge thermometer – all we have to do is to read the gauges.

Most liquids expand when heated, and this property is used in traditional thermometers. They have a glass reservoir filled with liquid (usually mercury) and a graduated scale to measure any thermal expansion of that liquid.

Oceans have the essentials of a global thermometer – the huge ocean basins are the reservoir, sea water acts like the mercury, and tide gauges on the shore-line (or satellites) measure changes in sea water volume.

Two factors, both dependent on global temperature, are the main causes of any general rise in sea levels – how much ice has melted from land-based ice sheets like Greenland and Antarctica; and the expansion of sea water volume as ocean temperature rises.

Therefore changes in average sea levels are sensitive and accurate indicators of changes in average global temperature.

There are of course some locations where tectonic movements mean that the land is rising or falling relative to the sea, but these areas are easily identified and should be ignored in determining actual changes in sea levels.

Historically, sea levels (and global temperatures) rose steeply as the great ice sheets and glaciers melted as Earth emerged from the last ice age. Sea levels rose by 130 metres in just 10,000 years but they have been relatively stable for the last 7,000 years.

The sea level thermometer was higher than today during the Roman Warm Era, and lower than today when the Little Ice Age ended about 160 years ago. There has been no unusual spurt in recent years, proving conclusively that there is no significant extra heat going into the deep oceans, and no global warming hiding there.

If you would like to read more on sea levels and global temperature:

Sea levels and temperature changes over the centuries:

Historical evidence of changing sea levels as global temperatures changed:

Sea levels rising more slowly since 2004:

UN tells lies about sea levels:

UN/IPCC exaggerates sea level forecasts:

Sea levels not rising now:

Official Exaggeration of Sea Level rises in Australia:

Sea level rises - Predictions vs Measurements:

Rising Sea Level is not the main threat to Pacific Islands and Atolls:

Graph of sea levels in Kiribati, home of an islander claiming to be a "climate refugee".:

All you ever wanted to know about global temperature trends:

The long Central England Temperature Record:

The Environmental Multinationals have lost their Way.

Many groups have much to lose as the theory that humans are driving dangerous and accelerating global warming is progressively exposed as science fiction. Those in most danger are the multinational environmental empires and the politicians who have supported them.

Once upon a time the World Wildlife Fund was mainly about saving wildlife – now its pre-occupation seems to be how to destroy the coal industry in order to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the gas of life, and the additional carbon dioxide is known to be fuelling the green revolution which has caused increased growth of all green things. WWF is thus now anti-green.

Greenpeace also has forgotten the green bit and is now more interested in saddling us with a tax on carbon, the key element of all life.

And instead of working for refugees, Oxfam was prominent among the dozens of “charities” acting more like stop-work agitators at the climate grabfest in Warsaw. (Yes it was a grab-fest – most of the attendees were there hoping to grab a big heap of cash from a few western bunnies for “Climate Compensation”.)

See: Green groups walk out of UN climate talks

And how do Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club accept the massive environmental destruction caused by thousands of bird-killing bat-killing wind turbines with their spider-webs of roads and transmission lines? The wind mania will collapse as soon as its subsidies disappear. Who is then going to clean up their mess? Will we see volunteers from FOE dismantling derelict windmills and rehabilitating their access tracks and transmission lines and towers?

Solar Panels Frying Birds Along Major Migration Path:

Wind Turbines slaughter rare birds:

Image Source:

And why should these economic vandals be assisted by tax concessions while they spend much of their time and energy locking-the-gate on activities that could generate tax revenue such as exploration, mining, grazing, land development, irrigation, fishing, tourism and forestry? Green extremists have lost sight of their once-worthy aims to now become forces of pointless obstruction and destruction of all human activities.

And why should the CSIRO be funded lavishly by tax payers while they waste billions trying to prop up failing climate theories, models and scares?

The ice caps have not melted, the oceans are not overheating, sea levels are just fluctuating, the polar bears are thriving and the Sahara is regaining vegetation. It is foxes and cats that are destroying native wildlife, not drilling for gas. And real human pollution of the oceans, rivers and atmosphere gets little attention while green dreamers in parliament are focussed on maintaining the carbon tax.

Acknowledgement to cartoonist, Steve Hunter at:
(PS. Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Gas and Big Government have been quite stingy lately with grants to Carbon Sense so Steve has not been paid. Send us some subscriptions or we will both starve.)

All manias unravel, and the climate mania has started down this road. Already supporters are jumping ship as the reaction accelerates.

Politicians too have played a dangerous game with energy supplies.

The icy tentacles of yet another cold winter are once again sneaking down from the ice-covered Arctic and causing shivers on the northern plains of Europe and America.

Sometime soon, on a still winter night in Northern Europe, snow will drift down silently, covering the German solar panels with a cold white blanket, and quietly surrounding the motionless British wind turbines like skirmishers ahead of the invading vandals. Green power will fail, the lights will flicker, the heaters will go cold, and some people may start to recognise that reliable heat, light and power from coal, oil, gas and nuclear is humanity’s greatest asset after all.

Next morning, the BBC will report the record high temperature reached at Marble Bar in summertime Australia.

But later in the day, awkward questions will be asked in Parliament.

And, at the next election, heads will roll.

Viv Forbes
December 2013


  1. UAH measure of lower troposphere warming in last 17.0 years, via satellite: +0.17 C

  2. Cherry picking, David?

    It's easy to cherry

    He says a lot of stuff, but never proves any of it.

  3. How is it cherry picking to correct the article with actual data?

    1. Roy Spencer of UAH - Our Version 5.5 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2013 is +0.18 deg. C, a large decrease from January’s +0.50 deg. C. (click for large version):

    2. You think one data point is more important than 17 years of it? That's just dumb.

    3. Like the 17 plus years of global cooling, David.

      Use the (UN)skeptical (UN)Science's Trend Calculator for RSS satellite temps from 1997 to date.

  4. My comment was about the amount of warming in the last 17.0 years, not in a few months.

    1. Ocean? or Troposphere?

      And to again quote Quark...."He says a lot of stuff, but never proves any of it. "

    2. So, David, +0,17C in 17 years and you're still afraid of and/or believe in global warming? How about accepting the global warming scare is dead.
      Dead as in dead as a doornail. Dead as in dead on arrival. Come join the skeptics. You seem a reasonable guy. Admit that the evidence is proving AGW wrong and that the science of global warming is fatally flawed.

      Just accept your mistake and join the club.

  5. Nonsense. Whatever gave you the impression that surface temperature has to increase monotonically each and every year?

    93% of the trapped heat goes into the ocean, and it is warming strongly, as new data confirms:

    Ocean heating may even be accelerating.

    1. Great, skipped through the surface without any significant warming - one day it will pop out and say BOO!

  6. The ocean surface is warming too.

    Ocean circulation carries heat down in the North Atlantic, where is takes a millenia or two to surface again.

    The data clearly shows ocean warming is taking place. So apparently whatever ideas your or Morano have about it are wrong.

    1. "The data shows...?" You are obviously not a scientist, David.

  7. Trying to change the subject?

    I never said I was a scientist -- just someone who usually makes the (common) mistake with the plural of the word data.

    So let's talk about the data, instead of about my grammar.


    2. I never said I was a scientist

      Really, David? From your own website:

      I have a B.S. in mathematics and physics from the University of New Mexico, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in physics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

      Unless B.S. means Bachelor of Science and not your common or farmyard BS, you are implying a whopper.

    3. I have degrees in science, I do not now do science, viz I am not a scientist,

    4. Therefore, not being a practicing scientist, you forgot the difference between datum and data?

    5. Geoff, you seem interested only in arguing, and being hostile in the process, instead of discussing science. So I'm bowing out. Good luck.

    6. OK, David, off you go back to your denier blog. Cheers!

  8. GWPF is wrong, and their work isn't peer reviewed, and they have no scientific credibilty at all.

    Do you have any science to offer?

    1. David, an ad hom is your only reply? Did you read the GWPF piece? Did you see the data and any peer-reviewed papers in the GWPF piece?

      Are you - as Quark Soup described - ""He says a lot of stuff, but never proves any of it. "

  9. If you have science, you can present it here. GWPF is a group of people paid to issue propaganda, denying the science. They have no credibility whatsoever.

    1. IPCC is a group of people paid to issue propaganda, denying the science.

      They have no credibility whatsoever.

  10. David, if you are too stupid to read that report with the data and quoting peer-reviewed papers, then you are not welcome here.

  11. Stop it. Obviously I am not too stupid to read that report. I am, however, too smart to take it seriously.

    GWPF simply has no credibility -- they do not present the science honestly. So it doesn't matter what they link to or cite -- they cannot be trusted to do so honestly, without an agenda.

    I'm a science journalist. I don't waste my time on information that has very low value.

  12. Censoring comments is the only way blogs like this stay in business.

    It's how most denier blogs operate. Tells you a lot.

  13. Question too hard for you, David?

  14. So? Bengtsson is entitled to his opinion. Where is his peer reviewed paper on the subject?

  15. Where is your answer to my question or was it too hard for you?

  16. Now David, try to keep up, it's not difficult.

    David: It's how most denier blogs operate. Tells you a lot.
    ACS: What is a denier blog?
    David: (Nothing)
    ACS: Question too hard for you, David?

    1. Obviously too hard a question for David.

      As an example, David, is this what you mean by "Censoring comments is the
      only way blogs like this stay in business.

      Anonymous said...
      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
      3:29 PM

      Anonymous said...
      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
      3:36 PM

  17. Poor old David Appell. Heat couldn't stand the heat (or the lack of it) and has retreated to his denier blog. So long, loser.

    Here's what you missed:

    Stay in your world of ignorance, David.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!