OT: sea level 'rise' hmmmmm....

From an interview in 2007.

Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud


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

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

For other scientists who disagree with the idea
of human-caused global warming
See Climatologists Who Disagree
http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm

.

Relevant Pages