An example of important climate change research hidden, lest it spoil the media’s narrative

The big lie of the mainstream media narrative of climate science is that the issue is settled.  This is one in a series of articles showing the rest of the story, which is slowly seeping through the cracks into public view.  At the end are links to the FM reference pages about science, linking to a wide range of research, and other resources.

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’“, The Telegraph, 28 March 2009 — “The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.”

About the author (from Wikipedia):

Mörner is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, having retired in 2005. He was president of the International Union for Quaternary ResearchCommission on Neotectonics (1981-1989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003).

For more information about this, see these articles by Anthony Watts at Watts Up with That, including links and pictures:

Links to some of Dr. Morner’s publications

Excerpt

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’“, The Telegraph, 28 March 2009 — “The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.”  Excerpt:

If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC’s favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a “corrective factor” of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they “needed to show a trend”.

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an “expert reviewer” on the IPCC’s last two reports, he was “astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one”. Yet the results of all this “deliberate ignorance” and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.


Originally published at Fabius Maximus and reproduced here with the author’s permission.

3 Responses to "An example of important climate change research hidden, lest it spoil the media’s narrative"

  1. Rmone   May 22, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    The IPCC is about politics not science. Thanks for confirming with facts what should be obvious to everyone.I am a Democrat in the United States. For the past 20 years I believed global warming was caused by CO2. Now I’m not so sure. After taking an objective look at the wellspring of man-made global warming theory, the United Nations’ Climate Change 2007 report, I think the fix was in. Whereas the report should have considered all possible global warming culprits then narrow the field, it instead removed from consideration the possibility that natural forces might drive global warming. It is little wonder that the report pinned the blame on CO2 when in their own words (p. 95), “The topics have been chosen for…assessing…risks of human-induced climate change.” The mission statement should have read, “Topics have been chosen for assessing risks of human-induced and NATURE-INDUCED climate change.” It was politics not science. Remember, the UN sponsored the Kyoto Protocol. They have a vested interest in demonizing CO2. For more reasons why we should not trust UN reports seehttp://energyplanusa.com/ipcc_reports_dont_pass_smell_test.htm

  2. redleg   June 4, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    The actual science on global warming is quite simple: the planet is warming and has been doing so very slowly since the 19th Century, but the increase is accelerating. There is also a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations that go back to the 18th Century and the increase is also accelerating. Does this mean that the CO2 increase has caused the temperature increase? Not necessarily. Does an increase in CO2 make it more difficult to release heat through the atmosphere? Yes. Could one of the many possible effects of a global increase in temperature be sea level rise? yes.When you are dealing with a global phenomenon, it is important to realize that local effects may contradict the large scale pattern.In general, it is also important not to confuse effects with causes.Whether or not global warming is caused by combustion of carbon-based fuel does not make the measured global temperature increase in the last century any less real. Look at the push to limit CO2 as someone with a persistent cough would limit their exposure to smoke. It doesn’t matter what caused the cough – smoke makes it worse.Finally, examine the source. The article is not a peer reviewed scientific journal citing careful research. It is a mainstream media publication that quotes one scientist and interviews some locals. Science is a preponderance of evidence using tests that can be independantly replicated. There are always outliers and naysayers that must exist to push the envelope. Every once in a great while one of these contrarians is actually right (Darwin – Wallace, Wegener, etc), but they are few and far between.