ANOTHER Nail in the Global Warming Coffin

I found that in a none PDF form condensed.......at Not by Fire but by ice

Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud

*******************************************************************

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner interviewed for EIR

27 Jun 07 - Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR. Dr. Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president 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.

EIR: I would like to start with a little bit about your background, and some of the commissions and research groups you've worked on.

Mörner: I am a sea-level specialist. There are many good sea-level people in the world, but let's put it this way: There's no one who's beaten me. I took my thesis in 1969, devoted to a large extent to the sea-level problem. From then on, I have launched most of the new theories, in the '70s, '80s, and '90s.

Working in this field, I don't think there's a spot on the Earth I haven't been in! In the northmost, Greenland; and in Antarctica; and all around the Earth, and very much at the coasts. So I have primary data from so many places, that when I'm speaking, I don't do it out of ignorance, but on the contrary, I know what I'm talking about.

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.)

Then we went to the Maldives. I traced a drop in sea level in the 1970s, and the fishermen told me, "Yes, you are correct, because we remember"—things in their sailing routes have changed, things in their harbor have changed. I worked in the lagoon, I drilled in the sea, I drilled in lakes, I looked at the shore morphology—so many different environments.

Always the same thing: In about 1970, the sea fell about 20 cm, for reasons involving probably evaporation or something.

Another famous place is the Tuvalu Islands, which are supposed to soon disappear ... There we have a tide gauge record, a variograph record, from 1978, so it's 30 years. And again ... absolutely no trend, no rise.

You have Vanuatu, and also in the Pacific, north of New Zealand and Fiji— there is the island Tegua. They said they had to evacuate it, because the sea level was rising. But again, you look at the tide-gauge record: There is absolutely no signal that the sea level is rising. If anything, you could say that maybe the tide is lowering a little bit, but absolutely no rising.

If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere.

I have paraphrased and shortened this a lot.
Please see entire interview at:
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html

....................................

see updates....post #41.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,357366,00.html

The Coming and Going of Glaciers
A New Alpine Melt Theory
By Hilmar Schmundt

The Alpine glaciers are shrinking, that much we know. But new research suggests that in the time of the Roman Empire, they were smaller than today. And 7,000 years ago they probably weren’t around at all. A group of climatologists have come up with a controversial new theory on how the Alps must have looked over the ages...

Excerpt from post #41....also see link to PDF at post #31.....:

**************************EXCERPT****************************

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.

They’re dweebs! They’re wasting their lives away on nonsense!

That’s quite a five page document isn’t it? It should be the basis of criminal indictments directed at the IPCC itself and all of its contributors.

oh Boy....needs a thread...with all the keywords so we can go back to it!

See #43...#41 for full text and #31 for link to full PDF....

It is very clear ...by these minute examinations of the IPCC report that there was a very deliberate agenda....

NOT A MISTAKE>>>AN AGENDA!!!

It's nice being vindicated, in the sense that I was calling AGW corporate/government corruption ten years ago (with supporting data tracing the money). Still, it's annoying that, even now, conservative pundits really don't seem to get the whole picture.

Although the "scientists" involved in this scam were of low quality, brainwashed, and influenced by grant money, this is NOT a matter of ideology. Would that it were that simple! No, they were carefully screened and installed in their positions by people who knew exactly what they were doing, and for whom: bag-men for the agents of a global fascist conspiracy. They wrote the reviews, allocated the grants, paid the bills, and made occasional "suggestions." Until we start going after these little creeps, acquire testimony, and construct a paper trail as to who directed this little scam, we won't even get started removing the multi-layered protection around the oligarchs of this world.

It is the thugs at the IMF who are the agents for real power, because the license to issue carbon credits was effectively to be the power to issue a global currency. These high-priced-bag-men should be arrested and subjected to "enhanced interrogation" if necessary. Once these punks start to sing, then we can take down the real power. If America has anything to offer the world, the military power with which to effect such an investigation would make a dandy gift to the world.

Even then, the real problem will not be apparent: The acquisition of democratic power with which to socialize a commons under police powers. Unless and until the people learn to recognize their own greed in this picture, they will be just as easily led by the nose right into the web of the next scam, effectively constructing their own prison whim-by-whim. Effectively, anthropogenic global warming was a moral problem that started in the covetous hearts of nearly every one of us.

Limited government was what precluded the exercise of that democratic power against the unalienable rights of individuals. Few recognize just how precious and essential those principles are because they do not understand how they function in operation. It is that which we must teach.

>>>It is very clear ...by these minute examinations of the IPCC report that there was a very deliberate agenda....

>>>NOT A MISTAKE>>>AN AGENDA!!!

I think that is undeniable.

Thanks for the comment and ping, respectively.

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!

Your reply should be a stand alone post... Great stuff there.

Searching for sea level rising...Found this from University of Colorado...frightening Graph ...(which of course is it's purpose ):

************************************

Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the studies of global climate change. The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Long term sea level variations are primarily determined with two different methods. Over the last century, global sea level change has typically been estimated from measurements by long-term averaging. Alternatively, satellite altimeter measurements can be combined with precisely known spacecraft orbits to provide an improved measurement of global sea level change.

Since August 1992 the satellite altimeters have been measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. The TOPEX/POSEIDON (T/P) satellite mission provided observations of sea level change from 1992 until 2005.

Jason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm. The latest mean sea level time series and maps of regional sea level change can be found on this site. Concurrent tide gauge calibrations are used to estimate altimeter drift. Sea level measurements for specific locations can be obtained from our Interactive Wizard. Details on how these results are computed can be found in the documentation and the bibliography. Pleasecontact us for further information.

If you see the last part of the interview with Sen Inhofe,...he quietly says this all started with the UN...and the effectively says that this was a maneuver to increase funding since the US Congress was always getting nasty about witholding funding whenever they were trying to do something Congress didn't agree with.