World leading sea level expert Prof. em. Nils Axel Mörner presents some stark examples that show how the IPCC and climate activists are wildly exaggerating their claims of rapid sea level rise.
12th IKEK: Nils Axel Mörner – the Kattegat and others among test areas for sea level
Prof. em. Nils Axel Mörner auf der 12. IKEK München, Bild EIKE
Mörner studied the Kattegat Sea between Denmark and Sweden. In this region sea level has not increased as announced by climate alarmists, but instead decreased. The actual oceanic increase in the past 125 years can be estimated as modest at 0.9 mm per year.
Stockholm’s tide record is the second longest in Europe; the mean long-term change in sea level is a decline of 3.8 mm per year. The country itself is rising 4.9 mm per year due to the post-glacial rise of the continental landmass. The difference of 1.1 mm per year is the true oceanic component.
Nova Scotia: sea level 700mm higher back in 16th century
In addition to European locations, Mörner also looks at the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. He has just returned from the Ouvéa area off Nova Scotia. In the 17th century, the sea level was 70 cm higher, as confirmed by immutable geomorphological facts.
At that time, the “Little Ice Age” with larger glaciers prevailed in the Alps (as Professor Patzelt showed). How could more liquid water be present at the equatorial area at the same time?
Video of the lecture (in English!) by Prof. em. Axel Mörner at the 12th IKEK in Munich.
The phenomenon thus proves that the IPCC is wrong.
In warm times, the sea level does not rise globally. The reason for this is the so-called rotational eustasy of the planet: In the north, the volume of water increases a bit, at the equator it remains about the same.
Sea level at Fiji Islands, Maldives, Goa has dropped since 1950s
Also other islands or coastal regions show a sea level change, such as the island Ouvéa, also the Fiji Islands, the Maldives and Goa in India. Here, too, the oceans sank around 1700, rose around 1800 and sank again after 1950.
Global sea level changes followed the moon’s tidal super cycles, which in turn stem from the large solar cycles. The sun also affects the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic, which brings warmth to Western and Northern Europe. At maximum solar activity, the Gulf Stream flows northeast and sea level rises. During a solar minimum, the Gulf Stream flows from east to southeast and sea level drops to the north.
“CO2 no factor”
Mörner emphasized that the solar cycles and gravity of our neighboring planets, the solar wind and the moon, determined our climate and our environment. The carbon dioxide greenhouse effect has no place.
IPCC climate science in part “anti-scientific nonsense”
With his presentation in Munich, the speaker wanted to send a message to the world climate conference COP24 in Katowice / Poland, which took place shortly after the EIKE conference. That message is: “Some of their statements fall into the area of anti-scientific nonsense. The polar ice does not melt so quickly and the sea level does not rise in a short time. ”
Mörner recommends observing physical laws and the evidence from nature for the procedure of determining sea level.
30 responses to “World Leading Ocean Expert Calls Sea Level Rise Claims By Climate Scientists “Anti-Scientific Nonsense””
CO2 varies like this?
I give him right.
So easy to prove with German stations in the North Sea.
Always refreshing to hear from experts who provide some logic and reason to balance the alarmists’ claims. The CAGW meme is getting tiresome.
It is getting tiresome. But that’s not an excuse to retire from the debate. If anything, we need more pushback from sites like this every time some ridiculous new CAGW claim gets cited by the media. It’s easy to chuckle at some of the most outlandish statements and say to yourself, “there they go again”. No one likes all the personal attacks that invariably get launched at you when you post a more balanced opinion, but as we can see in the ‘Green New Deal’, these people have infested the halls of government and we are about to lose the argument in spite of the horrible quality of the science.
They are wrong, wrong, wrong on the science, but the green policies are coming anyway if we don’t start publicly pushing back with rational and reasoned responses on sites that real people actually look at.
For me the key message is at 20:55 to 21:30, where he explains that apart for solar effects there’s NOT one factor governing the way climate changes but a mix of dependent factors and how they relate to each other. The oceans and seas are a major factor but they are not alone.
The rhythms of the sun sets the beat of climate/environmental changes, many other interacting factors sets up what will happen as a consequence of the solar changes.
This is in stark contrast to the cAGW advocates ridiculous supposition that atmospheric CO2 levels are the governor of how climate changes. CO2 levels are not a major player in climate change, and never have been as seen by the evidence of today and of history.
There is no empirical evidence that CO2 changes the global temperatures or the climate, CO2 is just climatically insignificant. CO2 is good feeding feeding plants, for greening the planet, for making animal life so much easier to survive. And it is this planetary greening (from having more CO2) that eventually affects the climate.
Google Morner water dowsing
Google “ad hominem”
Sir Hugh Dowding saved Britain during WWII. Without his brilliant organizational skills and talent for strategy, she might have lost.
He believed in fairies.
And he seems to have foreseen the threat that joining the EU posed for the UK.
Personally, I don’t see what an otherwise talented person’s idiosyncrasies have to d with anything. In fact, the more brilliant someone is, the more likely they are to be a bit odd.
Now, did you have a point, or are you just trolling with your irrelevant comment?
You mean like this result https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-review-of-dowsing-evidence-for-and-against.60054/ which basically concludes that the case in not proven or disproved.
Quite a few water companies have employees that dowse for water (and leaks) because they often give rapid and accurate results.
From the very reliable UK Daily Mail.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5106097/Water-company-engineers-using-dowsing-rods.html (Reliable? Reliable for what? 🙂 )
“During a solar minimum, the Gulf Stream flows from east to southeast and sea level drops to the north.
Was this explained further in the talk? I haven’t yet watched it.
It may be that if not so much warm water flows northeastward (as current maps show), then colder denser and less volumetric northern-sourced water moves into the area.
I’d want to see a map of the Gulf Stream flowing from east to southeast and an explanation of how that works.
Yes John, that is a worry for us living in the north east of socialist Scotland.
I too would like an explanation of that hypotheses. Worrying if so, as we approach a grand solar minimum.
[…] No Tricks Zone – World Leading Ocean Expert Calls Sea Level Rise Claims By Climate Scientists … […]
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
From a transcript of his witness testimony.
Does that mean sea levels would rise? Certainly.
Does that mean we should try to stop that? NO – if for no other reason than we haven’t the ability to either cause or prevent it. Better just to plan for the possibility, and save our resources for when they are needed most.
World leading sea level expert Prof. em. Nils Axel Morner presents some stark examples that show how the IPCC and climate activists are wildly exaggerating their claims of rapid sea level rise. Morner studied the Kattegat Sea between Denmark and Sweden. In this region sea level has not increased as announced by climate alarmists, but instead decreased. The actual oceanic increase in the past 125 years can be estimated as modest at 0.9 mm per year.
Look at these two graphs of global sea level, 1. from NASA satellite radar and 2. non-NASA data from dozens of tide gauges worldwide, averaged and corrected for land motion …
From simple visual inspection of these graphs, do a quick and easy mental calculation of the average rate of sea-level rise in any, say, 10-year period since 1960 (i.e. elevation gain divided by number of years). Also, note that both curves increase in steepness with time (again overlooking the minor oscillations lasting two years or less), i.e. the rate of rise is accelerating.
Now, do you still unquestioningly accept the Swedish self-appointed sea-level expert’s belief (sic) that world sea level is hardly rising at all (<1mm/year)? And the rate of rise isn't accelerating? So the world's atoll populations have nothing to fear from sea level? The science says otherwise. Or do you, like him, accuse NASA of faking the data?
Please note also that geologists have proven that, in the last interglacial about 100,000 years ago (prior to our current Holocene interglacial of the last c.10,000 years): (A) the world's atolls were all underwater at times, and (B) metre-scale sea-level oscillations occurred, including at least one c.3-metre rise in less than 50 years. There is also abundant global geological and archaeological evidence that world sea level rose about 3 metres within 100 years in the 4th-5th century (e.g. google Romano-British Transgression; start of Dark Ages), satisfactorily explaining (at last) why Anglo-Saxon boat people abandoned their man-made dwelling mounds on the tidal flats of today's Low Countries and migrated en masse to Britain, shaping the future English nation. All of this pre-dated mankind's industrial CO2 emissions, needless to say.
Our Swedish sea-level expert says his "observational facts" outweigh the NASA charts. But his "facts" are nothing of the sort: they are merely a geophysicist’s INTERPRETATIONS (emphasis intended, not hysteria) of geological (sedimentological) and/or geomorphological, shore-related features (perched terraces, notches, etc.), moreover almost all imprecisely dated (radiocarbon accuracy +/- 50 years at best; one or two better dates from archaeology), often badly eroded, and of inexactly known elevation relative to the formative high- and low-tide level. I strongly recommend you track down and read some of his papers (note the calibre of the journals). Talking to more geologists would also be beneficial.
I do agree with our man that CO2 is blameless.
Lastly, the great Dowding wasn't a scientist. I'd believe in fairies too, and water dowsing, and a god, if I saw any of these things demonstrated under scientific scrutiny.
New Science: 89% Of The Globe’s Islands – And 100% Of Large Islands – Have Stable Or Growing Coasts
Pacific Ocean Tide Gauges Of 100+ Years: ‘Both The Relative Rate Of Rise And Acceleration Are Negative’
So, the Roger Higgs wants us to think that the world has nothing to fear from climate fraud? Auditing their crooked books says otherwise.
@ Roger Higgs
He is an expert acknowledged by his peers; as in highly published and former head of his department for 14 years.
1. – Morner is not alone in his assessment.
2. – Yes, NASA/NOAA do cook the books.
…on sea levels.
And don’t forget that former NASA scientists say current NASA crew is wrong about cAGW.
I trust the tried-and-true old breed, not the new kids on the block. (No, I’m not calling them names to discredit them. I’m calling them names because they have discredited themselves.)
You try to show Moerner wrong by citing evidence from a source that is questioned by highly credible critics, and continue to slander him in order to strengthen your argument, without ever addressing what he gets wrong. You are as slippery and dishonest as SebH.
Finally, that’s a pretty weak strawman argument you advance about Dowding, that he’s not a scientist. So what?! That wasn’t my point at all. I was merely illustrating that a brilliant and successful person shouldn’t be dismissed because of irrelevant idiosyncrasies, as you attempted to do with Morner. But you can’t deal with the point I was making. You have to try to deflect and confuse the issue. Are you and SebH related, other than being activists trying to advance the same agenda, regardless of the facts?
Tony Heller mentions the problem of relying on NASA’s current activists, and how those activists are opposed by those real scientists who went to the moon. just as I pointed out.
So, it’s not only me who’s opposed to the Velveeta the NASA con artists are trying to pass off as real cheese. Or, perhaps a better comparison, since Velveeta has some real cheese in it, would be the vegan soy based “steak” they are trying to sell us.
Mr. Higgs uses the argument from authority that we shouldn’t question NASA’s graphs because NASA is great and Moerner’s conclusions are “interpretations.” We’ll, if he thinks NASA’s graphs he posted, that are based on heavily adjusted data and a warmist mindset, aren’t “interpretation,” he’s only fooling himself.
I guess with Nova Scotia is meant New Caledonia.
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
I am just a curious person who long ago learned to question authority, after several demonstrations that big organizations can often be wrong, and we need to use common sense to figure out what is really happening. In the current CAGW scenario of the polar ice caps melting and flooding the low land near the oceans I see several problems. The Arctic ice cap is already floating in the ocean, so it’s melting is immaterial to the level of the ocean. That leaves the Antarctic Continent of ice that is above current sea level, but it’s climate is EXTREMELY cold. There is a peninsula of the continent that sticks out into the southern ocean, and the edge of the continent where it meets the ocean, but these areas seems to me to be the ONLY parts that could, and do melt. There are volcanoes erupting under that ocean so the water temp is above freezing, BUT the AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURE is 59 degrees BELOW ZERO F! HOW can 5 degrees F melt that Continent of ICE?
Greenland had to have been warmer when the Vikings were there and built settlements. So if this is a recent development and North America wasn’t underwater then, why would it be underwater now? This is absolute garbage that is being pushed by the educational establishment and the media.
From ‘Study shows that Vikings enjoyed a warmer Greenland’ ( https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-02/nu-sst020519.php )
So apparently Greenland warmth (when the Vikings first got there) may have just been one of these normal chaotic episodes, a spurious outlier anomaly of warm weather/climate.
And there is the problem with the UN-IPCC version of climate, from it’s spurious ideas of CO2 warming it extrapolates climate effect across the planet. There is no global climate, there is only local climate, with regional climate change.
From what I understand, the whole point of Prof. Nils Axel Mörner lectures and ideas, are that oceanic level changes are not uniformly global but dependent on location and are part of the Earth’s reaction to solar cycles and variations.
Here’s another recent video featuring Prof. Nils Axel Mörner voicing again that the UN-IPCC is wrong and explaining why, https://youtu.be/W1PS9-oOfRw , and his paper here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260961987_Planetary_beat_and_solar-terrestrial_responses .
I’m not sure how atolls are created. I was told that they were built up on volcanic cones by coral fragments accumulating and this continued as the sea level rose. More fragments building on to the atoll. I must be out of date I suppose.
Good. However, the explanation leaves out the very important role of the Parrot Fish.
[…] notrickszone.com Feb. 13, 2019 […]
John Ray recently posted this to his Greenie Watch blog.
Worry warmits. No catastrophe in sight there.