Posted on 08/22/2010 9:47:29 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
So Barack “Canute” Obama really has lowered the sea levels?
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total FraudDr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR.
The seas are not rising and the sky is not falling.
There must be room in there for the marxists to find *something* to panic about.
*********************************EXCERPT ****************************************
EIR: What is the real state of the sea-level rising?
Mörner: You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. ... we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure.
That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970 ... There's no trend, absolutely no trend.... and then we go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that.
Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use.
... Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. ...So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in [the IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a "correction factor," which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer....
I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them—none—were sea-level specialists. They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing....Three of them were from Austria, where there is not even a coast! The others were not specialists. So that's why, when I became president of the INQUA Commission on Sea-Level Change and Coastal Evolution, we made a research project, and we had this up for discussion at five international meetings. And all the true sea level specialists agreed on this figure, that in 100 years, we might have a rise of 10 cm (3.9 inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm—that's not very much.
(Four inches of sea level rise in 100 years - plus or minus
four inches. Not exactly earth shattering.)
Thank you. I will replace the link.
I think his influence has been nil.
I didn’t mean that was necessary...just that some people have trouble with PDF links.
Oh, I understand. I hate PDFs. I don’t know how many times a PDF has locked up my system requiring a complete re-boot. I curse them! ;^)
OK...I usually handle them OK...but some don’t... as you say.
Good to see you, too, dear al baby! *smooch*
If the seas aren't rising, and yet global warming is melting the glaciers, then ... where is the water going? Are the lakes getting bigger? Are the water levels in the aquafers rising? The melting must result in water accumulating somewhere.
Or is it possible that, somehow there is no melting?
That would introduce yet another puzzle? How, despite the globe warming, is the frozen water not melting?
I think that history indicates that periods of climate-alarmism last about thirty years. That is how long it takes for short-term trends to reverse themselves and reveal the foolishness of the alarmists.
I suspect a new ice age coming on, real soon now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.