Perhaps the most graphically disturbing piece of information in the climate arena is the assertion that sea levels will rise to a catastrophic degree. An Inconvenient Truth scared many people, and the sea level issue continues to worry them. The imagery from the movie is still etched in our minds and hearts. Imagery is powerful even if it is untrue. It lingers in the subconscious mind, where it can affect our ability to think critically and receive whole-systems information. We must be vigilant to prevent this.
In this show, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner clarifies many misconceptions about rising sea levels and offers a comprehensive understanding of this subject. Dr Mörner is highly qualified to speak on the matter. He was the former President of International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA). Under his charge, when INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, after deliberations and discussions at several international meetings, declared a possible sea level change of +5 cm ±15cm by the year 2100, it was based on a huge amount of world-wide data gathered by scientists from different parts of the globe.
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner got his Ph.D in geology in 1969, and has worked with sea level problems for 40 years in areas scattered all over the globe. As the head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, he worked with many different geological & geophysical problems. He organized two major international conferences: one on Earth Rheology, Isostasy and Eustasy in 1977 and one on Climate Changes on a Yearly to Millennial Basis in 1983. He has run several international field excursions through Sweedon and was President of the INQUA Commission on Neotectonics (1981-1989). He was President of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution from 1999-2003.
He headed the INTAS Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003). In 2000, he launched an international sea level research project in the Maldives. Among his numerous publications, one may note the studies on: the interaction among isostasy and eustasy, the oscillating regional eustatic curve of NW Europe, the changing geoid concept, the redefinition of the concept of eustasy, the dynamic-rotational redistribution of oceanic water masses, the interchange of angular momentum between the hydrosphere and solid Earth, and finally the new sea level curve of the Maldives with an absence of signs of any on-going sea level rise.
In 2008 he was awarded “The Golden Condrite of Merit” from University of Algarve (at an international sea level meeting in Portugal).
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner’s extensive hands-on experience and 40 years of mindful focus bring valuable context to the climate change debate. Is the IPCC giving us an accurate picture? Tune in and find out!
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
It's Rainmaking Time!™ is a show and a broadcast blog that showcases new solutions and discoveries, extraordinary projects, and compelling stories. Tune in!
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
Mark,
As you are a scientist, I dont have to tell you what a hypothesis is.
Now we all should know that the Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming theory is just that, an unproved hypothesis.
If you read IPCC WG1 AR4 http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html
for instance, you will find the whole thing is based on the assumption that the AGW hypothesis is fact, or so close to being a fact that it dosnt matter.
Now we have had little analysis on the consequences to ourselves from the reducing of CO2 emissions and transfers of wealth as being promoted by the IPCC, but as an economist I can tell you that they will almost certainly result in stretching western economies to a tipping point which mean economic collapse which will lead to widespread poverty and starvation.
If this is the case we had better make damn sure the AGW is a FACT before we do this to ourselves.
In fact the AGW hypothesis has a number of facts which disprove it. Some of these are discussed in my blog. Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.
Cheers
Roger
Mark,
I’m happy to hear that you’ve devoted so much of your life to science. I think that’s great.
However, you are still assuming: assuming that your admirable dedication to the objectivity of science is universal. I wish it were, but it isn’t.
Science is a field of study. Fields of study are not sentient and cannot regulate themselves. The onus to regulate any field of study falls upon the shoulders of practitioners in that field. Do you seriously suggest that you can vouch for the integrity of every single scientist or scientific organization in the world, especially in a budding field that is at least as prone to mistakes as any other budding scientific discipline?
The UN is not composed of scientists, and like any other political group, its purpose is to promote an agenda. Any scientific organization spawned from a political organization should be heavily scrutinized. Agendas are not objective.
Don’t feel bad that anyone is losing faith in NASA. Their data was used to support the argument that 2007 was the hottest year on record (*ever*), and when someone pointed out that their data was flawed, they corrected it silently when the ethical thing to do would have been to issue a press release or call attention to it another way. But they didn’t. That’s kind of a big deal.
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
If they want people to have faith in them, they should own up to their responsibility to be accountable.
“Much of the negative commenting on climate science on the internet and other media is political rather than scientific.”
Much of the commentary and funding rationale for climate science is political, PERIOD, and it has resulted in a skewed debate in which skeptics are (for better or worse) associated with supporters of intelligent design, a callous attitude towards life and the planet, and greed, to name but a few sweeping generalizations. Frankly, the institutionalization of climate change has made it practically impossible to get a balanced viewpoint or get a clear picture of all the factors involved.
I can tell you’re as passionate about these issues as I am. Please understand that when I say you’re putting too much faith in the official story, I mean it with the utmost respect.
“mark March 3, 2010 at 2:19 pm
When Dr Nils-Axel Morner publishes his claims in the scientific peer reviewed literature on climate change I will listen to him. This is how TRUTH in science progresses and it is its greatest strength.”
Mark has a lot to learn about the politics of the peer review process. [read climategate emails]
Here’s just one insight by Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT: “Science and Nature have both publically taken positions against publishing anything that opposes the notion of dangerous anthropogenic warming, while
publishing highly dubious science endorsing the notion.”
http://www.heartland.org/events/newyork09/pdfs/lindzen.pdf
Isn’t real science interesting? When Gore was pushing the carbon tax back in the early 1990s we in the political sphere called them “watermelons” not in a racial sense, but because they are “green on the outside and pinko on the inside”. When Gorbachev founded the Green Cross nobody cared. I love the Polar Bear story. Nothing better than Greenpeace getting zapped. Viva La France for ramming the Rainbow Warrior. Losers. Scammers. Preying on weak minded people. If people studied science in school anymore none of this would be happening. Idiots.
“There is no field of human endeavor that is more self regulating and more anti-corruption than science.”
This is not an assumption but a conclusion based on my life experiences. I have been involved with science since the 1960’s.
I have a B.Sc. majoring in chemistry and a Master of Education degree.
I have taught Science and Chemistry from 1975 until 2008.
My science teaching has been practical based with an emphasis on questioning the required science text and improving on it through the class’s collective understanding of the work. Student research using web sites required analysis of sources.
From 2005 until 2008 I was privileged to work along side many of Australia’s brightest young (aged under 40) scientists in my school and at workshops. I was amazed by the passion, dedication and principles of these scientists. It did not surprise me that four of Australia’s leading climate change scientists were prepared to lose their jobs to speak out on carbon dioxide emissions.(google CSIRO climate experts defiant)
I am dismayed that some Americans are losing confidence in NASA. In Australia the CSIRO is held in high regard (despite gross underfunding). Maybe googling CSIRO for information could be an alternative for Americans who have lost confidence in NASA.
Thank you for the informations dear Dr. Mörner, it’s very nice to learn from you.
Cheers
“There is no field of human endeavor that is more self-regulating and more anti-corruption of data than science.”
This is an assumption, and an honest look at NASA’s behavior over the last several years suggests that unwavering faith in scientific INSTITUTIONS – which are administered by people, not by an incorruptible system – is perhaps a bit misplaced.
Furthermore, there’s perhaps no field of human endeavor that is more SUSCEPTIBLE to corruption than government. That’s fairly obvious from an honest review of the American political process (Diebold voting machines?), which is itself compromised because industry has greater influence than civilians. Historically, industry has banked on questionable research, hiring third-party research organizations to find specific results; although the research org may have actually carried out the study multiple times, only the skewed version that supports the position of the funding party is published. Unfortunately, to expect government to behave any other way is a bit naive – they’re beholden to corporate interest themselves.
Please understand that I’m not arguing with you as to the rigor and validity of scientific method – rather, I suggest that you’re mistaking science for the institutions that claim to practice it objectively and honestly.
If you hold science in such high esteem, then do as a scientist would. Question everything (and everyone). Acknowledge data without bias until it has been ruled out by your own observation. Otherwise, you simply replace science with faith.
I left 2 words out of my last sentence.
There is no field of human endeavor that is more self-regulating and more anti-corruption of data than science.
Joe: Nearly all scientists complain about insufficient funding, including climate scientists.
Much of the negative commenting on climate science on the internet and other media is political rather than scientific.
There is no field of human endeavor that is more self- regulating and more anti-corruption than science.
OhGod,
Why dont you ask some of the scientists at http://www.petitionproject.org/
to review some of those papers for you.
At 31,486 scientists including 9,029 with PhDs, Im sure between them that they will be far more authorative than the few scientists associated with the IPCC can be.
Cheers
Roger
I like your interview with Dr Nils-Axel Morner.
Even more reveiling than I imagined.
I have put a link on my site to this page and I hope many people will enjoy your interview as I did.
To Dr Morner I say keep up the good work and you have my admiration for speaking up on this subject and being honest with your expertise.
My site at http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com analyses the AGW hypothesis in an entertaining but well referenced way that any lay person will understand.
A new page, currently under research, will analyse the dangers to ourselves from the economic repercussions that will flow on from the co2 reduction requirements and the transfers of wealth currently being asserted by the IPCC. A subject that has been featured very little so far.
Good Luck.
Roger
” declared a possible sea level change of +5 cm ±15cm by the year 2100″
Am I reading right or is that a typo?
Cheers
Roger
Mark, at this point I think it makes sense to consider the source. I wouldn’t be surprised if the IPCC community or other proponents of the official climate change story have been circularly peer-reviewing each others’ work (for full transparency, the peer review process should be open to scientists in a variety of related disciplines and of differing opinions). Corruption IS an option; after all, they have vested interests – for example, funding and credibility / reputation – in perpetuating the story.
In other words, heavily-funded organizations have a lot to lose, which is a reasonable basis for questioning their assertions. The people who’ve stepped up against them have significantly less to lose, and are presenting viable evidence to the contrary of the official story (whether or not it is correct, it is based on sound reasoning and should be considered). It’s silly (to put it mildly) for such a new field of science to have that much funding AND insist that compelling data from other historically proven scientific fields (i.e. physics & astrophysics) are essentially worthless.
Methinks it might be a good time to start looking at these issues from depoliticized points of view.
I have struggled through many hours of background reading since my last blog entry. I acknowledge Dr Nils-Axel Morner’s 7 listed achievements and congratulate him on them but what do I do now? The strength of science does not rest on one or even a few scientists but on a whole community of scientists currently engaged in the research.
The claim that sea levels are not rising over the last 50 years is not
supported by that community in the peer review literature. The present scientific evidence in the peer review literature is that sea levels are rising and rising at a greater rate than in the IPCC
forecast.
In reply to some of the comments:
1. I have published 200 peer-reviewed paper
2. I have given over 400 papers at major international meetings
3. Many of those were keynote papers
4. In 2008 I was awarded “the Golden Condrite of Merit” from Algarve University (at a major international sea level meeting) for my “irreverence and contribution to our understanding of sea level change”
5. 1997-2003, I was the leader of the INTAS project on Geomagnetism and Climate
6. 1999-2003, I was the President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution.
7. from 2000 on, the Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.
So, sorry for those who hope for someting different, I silmply know the subject.
Someone asked about papers in climet. Well, I have several through the years. Note the book in 1984 on “Climatic Change on a Yearly to Millennial Basis”, and, to pick a recent one, the paper just posten in Global and Planetary Change.
So, sorry again, I cover that subject sufficiently well.
Best wishes to you all – for as well as against
The Speaker & Author
mark: It seems that you do not realize that Mörner is an expert on SEA LEVEL CHANGE and that is what he talks and writes about. Sea level change is part of climate change excactly as are temperatures, precipitation, glacier behaviour, albedo, greenhouse gas forcing(s), atmospheric physics, chemistry, geology etc. etc. You wouldn’t really expect Mörner to publish on any of these subjects which are outside his expertise; would you?
Lars: Every scientist has published peer reviewed paper(s). Give me the name of one peer reviewed paper by Nils-Axel Morner in the area of CLIMATE CHANGE.
mark: Just because you are ignorant of the work of Nils-Axel Mörner does not mean that he has not published peer reviewed papers. Go check Google Scholar and learn about the more than 150 papers he has published during the past 40 years.
Oh fer christ sake folks.
We’ve got the following peer-reviewed studies:
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.pdf
–
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf
–
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/12/1115.abstract
–
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/jevrejeva_etal_1700/2008GL033611.pdf
–
ftp://ftp.ifm.uni-hamburg.de/outgoing/scharffe/BACKUP/paper/2009
–
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI2985.1&request=get-abstract
–
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038720.shtml
Using global data, all peer-reviewed studies that show Sea Levels rising on one hand. In the other we have THIS ONE GUY, with no peer-reviewed study, claiming all those other ones are false.
The onus is on you deniers to prove your science.
We will be doing a very interesting segment on peer review very soon. There are a few things the public needs to know about this area of establishing credibility and truth in science & academia.
When Dr Nils-Axel Morner publishes his claims in the scientific peer reviewed literature on climate change I will listen to him. This is how TRUTH in science progresses and it is its greatest strength.
Thanks for the great write-up. I only just learned of this site, but you can bet I’ll be back often.
I really enjoyed that- thanks!
When he got into talking about the science he loves, it was great.
Du er en helt Nils!
Aldri gi opp!
{ 4 trackbacks }