Dr. 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.
“Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [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” in an area of Hong Kong that had been subsiding, or sinking.
Morner says that the claim that salt water invasion of a fresh water aquifer indicated a sea level rise ignores the more likely cause due to draining the aquifer for the pineapple industry.
Sea level in the Maldives actually fell during the 70’s according to Morner, but the area is cited as evidence of a sea level rise. He accuses Australian global warming advocates of knocking down a tree on one island to attempt to prove sea levels were rising.
Telegraph article here
Full interview here
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Morner has been rebutted comprehensively by 4 EXPERT studies from different groups
He’s goofed on his TOPEX data analysis – errr what analysis
Instead of staying professional he’s been let go out of INQUA but has still been running round pretending to represent people he does not – says heaps in itself
Check Warwick Hughes blog – implications he made up his video presentation on the tree nonsense – even Louis was taken aback
Korgano 30/4/2007 at http://www.climatebrains.com has summarised the early papers before Church et al. (2006) – added below.
Korgano STARTS:
I have thoroughly checked Morner’s work as well as the work of all nine who cited his work (including Kench – who does not support Morner) and several others, and now I am completely unconvinced that the sea level is falling at Maldives. It is either rising, or one could say as Kench et al. said “ The region’s sea level history remains uncertain”. None of the papers I read (other than Morner’s) support Morner’s conclusion that the sea level is falling. Woodworth directly address the evaporation explanation and rejects it. Here are some statements, but one has to read the whole paper to get the complete picture. It is very difficult for me to believe that the sea level is falling after reading these reviewed journal publications combined with all the other current news reports.
Woodworth PL
Have there been large recent sea level changes in the Maldive Islands?
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 49 (1-2): 1-18 NOV 2005
“…..A number of met-ocean data sets and regional climate indices have been examined, at least one of which would have been expected to reflect a large sea level fall, without any supporting evidence being found. In particular, a suggestion that an increase in evaporation could have caused the fall has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Without any real evidence for a hitherto-unrecognised process which could lead to a sea level change as significant as that proposed by the fieldwork team, one concludes that a rise in sea level of approximately half a metre during the 21st century, as suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…”
Woodroffe CD
Late Quaternary sea-level highstands in the central and eastern Indian Ocean: A review
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 49 (1-2): 121-138 NOV 2005
“…Regardless of minor past fluctuations, most reef islands in the Maldives are particularly low-lying and appear vulnerable to inundation, and extracting a more detailed sea-level history remains an important challenge….”
“…Mörner et al. (2004) appear to base much of their narrative of past sea-level change upon their interpretation of the morphology of reef islands. They postulate a series of levels shown schematically in their Fig. 2, representing, they claim, stepwise coastal evolution, including a higher storm level, a sub-recent level now vegetated, and an older and higher island surface….”
“…implied, by Mörner (2004). If there had been such a sea-level fall, then those microatolls that had grown up to the limit of coral growth prior to the fall, would have shown a ‘top hat’ morphology with continued growth during post-fall years constrained at a lower level….”
Kench PS, Nichol SL, McLean RF
Comment on “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” by Morner, N.A., et al. [Global Planet. Change 40 (2004), 177-182]
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 47 (1): 67-69 MAY 2005
“Here we raise a number of concerns with arguments and data presented by Mörner et al. (2004) that are central to the interpretations and conclusions presented in their paper….”
“…We conclude that the sea level history and data presented by Mörner et al. (2004) is less than compelling and can be readily explained via an understanding of contemporary coastal processes. The region’s sea level history remains uncertain. Consequently, we believe that this work does little to inform the international community on new perspectives of the future of the Maldives…”
The short reply to this by Morner is hardly convincing.
There are other papers, but they all take the same tone.
Kench’s article in Geology that you provided (stating that “The islands have existed for more than 5000 years and are morphologically resilient rather than fragile systems, and are expected to persist under current scenarios of future climate change and sea-level rise.”) does take into account sea level rise as current prediction, but he says that the island is resilient. The conclusion that the island is resilient is entirely different than saying the sea level is falling.
Which of you naughty Aussies chopped the tree down?
From CCNet:
Wöppelmann, Guy, B. Martin Miguez, M.-N. Bouin, and Z. Altamimi, 2007. Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide. Global and Planetary Change Vol. 57, No 3-4, pp. 396-406, June 2007, online
“Dear Timo Hämeranta,
The goal of our paper was to assess the current performances of the GPS
technique to monitor the vertical land motion at tide gauges. In particular,
to show that GPS has reached the maturity to provide better corrections for
land motion at tide gauges (whatever the geophysical source of the motion)
than GIA model corrections do. The figures of IPCC AR4 are those of Douglas
& Peltier (2001), of about 1.8+/-0.4 mm/yr. Note that these authors take
into account only one geophysical process that can affect tide gauge
stability, namely the GIA. In our exercise to demonstrate the progress of
GPS technique, we rigorously followed the approach of Douglas & Peltier to
estimate the global sea level rise from tide gauges, except that we used our
GPS-derived velocities instead of the GIA corrections. In conclusion, both
results, Douglas & Peltier (and therefore IPCC) and ours, miss the ocean
floor subsidence, unless we consider that GIA corrections at the coast,
where the tide gauges are settled, take this effect into account in a global
sense, which I doubt.
Best regards,
Guy Wöppelmann”
The important contribution of Wöppelmann et al. is the inclusion of land
motions to the sea level calculations and widening the observational area
also to two additional regions, namely ‘Northern Europe’ and ‘NW North
America’. All those together reduces the mean rise from 1,8 mm/yr to 1,31 ±
0.30 mm/yr in the last 100 years. (Well, let’s wait and see what the results will be when e.g. Arctic Ocean is included!)
Within the mean sea level rise both spatial (regional) and temporal differences are considerable, well observed and documented.
Wöppelmann et al state about sea level rise variations as follows:
“There is indeed no reason to believe that the modern climate change
associated with an enhanced greenhouse effect should cause sea level to rise
at the same rate everywhere on the planet, in particular if a significant
contribution comes from the thermal expansion of the oceans (Church et al.,
2001; Levitus et al., 2005).”
When I inquired Guy how their results relate to the IPCC figures, he responded:
“If our figure of 1.3 mm/yr over the last century is adopted for comparison,
then the trend over 1993-2003 is even faster!”
But, the point is that the sea level rise 1993-2003 is well within normal
fluctuations.
For comparison, monitoring sea levels by altimetry from October 1992 to 2007
gives the mean value 3.04 mm/yr (seasonal signal removed, but not corrected
from Post-glacial rebound effects.). Source: AVISO France, latest update on
October 30, 2007. Please see online at
http://www.jason.oceanobs.com/html/actualites/indic/msl/welcome_uk.html
Nothing unusual or unprecedented in warming or in speed of warming, so far.
Well, as far as I can see, the following IPCC AR4 statement correctly
illustrates the prevailing uncertainty:
“Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an
increase in the longer term trend is unclear.”
I again repeat Laury Miller’s comment:
“My guess is that it will be 20 or 30 years before we are able to identify
how fast sea-level rises are truly accelerating.”
Finally, so far year 1998 has been warmer than any one since (source: CRU
etc) and there’s been no ocean warming, either (Willis et al, 2007). I
suppose that primarily ocean inertia and small melting have kept sea levels
rising in the 2000s. As Smith et al (2007) state, it remains to be seen
after 2009 how climate will evolve (and it takes several years to see the
possible changes).
References
Willis, Josh K., J. M. Lyman, G. C. Johnson, and J. Gilson, 2007. Correction
to “Recent cooling of the upper ocean”. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L16601,
doi:10.1029/2007GL030323, August 18, 2007
Smith, Doug M., Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R.
Harris, and James M. Murphy, 2007. Improved Surface Temperature Prediction
for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model. Science Vol. 317, No
5839, pp. 796-799, August 10, 2007
Sifting through Luke’s post we see: “It is either rising, or one could say as Kench et al. said “ The region’s sea level history remains uncertain””
and later:
“The region’s sea level history remains uncertain.”
These points just highlight the overwhelming uncertainty in greenhouse science.
In this context, Roe & Baker start their recent article by saying: “The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations,
and in the number of scientists studying the
problem”. SCIENCE VOL 318 26 OCTOBER 2007 p629
To say the science is clear and urgent action is needed simply does not reflect the profound and massive uncertainties in greenhouse research.
Actually does the IPCC even mention the Maldives?
When someone says the ocean is rising or falling, you have to ask, “compared to what?”
Some land masses are rising, others are falling. Tides are on the move, of course.
We’re also in a planetary system, so you have the three-body problem exponentially.
Factor that into your climate-chaos models, and you get inconclusive if you’re honest, catastrophe if you’re not.
Brilliant Schiller – the sea level researchers hadn’t thought of that.
Luke,
Since, as you say, the sea level researchers haven’t thought of this problem, what do you suggest they do about it?
The Tuvalu islanders are convinced that rising sea levels will inundate their real estate–even though most agree that the islands are sinking instead. See
http://www.tuvaluislands.com/warming.htm
What cruel commentary will you offer to the Tuvaluians when they have been living in hope of $billions from the sale of carbon credits?
Well can I help where they get their advice?
It’s called modern surveying methods using differential GPS Schillsy. And depends on your choice of points for any historical analysis. If you picked somewhere with land subsidence you’d be a bit of a wanger wouldn’t you. I think you’ll find the serious scientists involved just may have some awareness of these issues.
Tuvalu is very low and does gets inundated in parts during king tides.
Luke,
Who’s going to use these “modern surveying methods” when eyeballs and Greenie propaganda promise payments of $millions in carbon credits. And maybe relocation to a country with a higher standard of living.
The Tuvaluvians are at least as smart as Greenpeace, in other words, smart enough to tell a few lies to get a nice condo in Cancun.
The South Pacific science is done with those methods. Tuvaluvians don’t have any carbon credits to offer only soggy land. They’ll go to NZ or Australia eventually if it gets bad with sinking land. You’re dreaming if you think anyone is going to pay them vast amounts of money. Relocation is the best one could hope for.
Goodwill time again as some celebrate Xmas New Year and getting around another orbit. I was reminded of poor little Virginia (who was unsure that Santa Claus existed)when I saw a cartoon of Santa adrift on a warmer higher ocean way up North past Alaska. A contemporary Virginia would have sceptic little friends doubting global warming. As the editor wrote (of course foreshadowing the power of climate models to overcome our limitations) in response to a letter from Virginia in 1897 ‘Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the scepticism of a sceptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.’
Did you notice the straw men, courtesy of the dudes supposedly refuting Morner? Morner stated that sea level actually dropped IN THE 1970s. Yet, the climate rentacrowd implied that Morner was claiming sea level was dropping (ie present continuous). And not surprisingly, they had solid evidence to confirm that sea level was not dropping at present.
And that qualifies as a rebuttal?
So the IPCC has also used Church’s skanky line about the increase from 1993 to 2000 being greater than the long term trend? This is true, but it is also true of seven other similar periods over the past 80 years. And each one of them was balanced by a similar period when sea level actually dropped.
Church is guilty of a very serious misrepresentation by omission, of a kind that, if made by a Company Director in any of the OECD nations, would earn him a lengthy stretch in prison. So when ARE we going to see core community standards applied in the scientific community?
So Morner was abolutely correct. Sea level did drop in the 1970s, just as Church’s own data makes it clear that sea level also declined from the late 1980s to 1993, from whence it then rose again.
By the way, are the Maldives of volcanic origin, by any chance? Could they be subsiding, like most coral atolls are, or will be?
More drivel from droopy draws. Love it how the guy backs stooges. Probably the story of his life.
Should I email Church your libel. Let’s see – heads or tails. CSIRO might be short a few bob.
Luke, unlike yourself, I have a good understanding of defamation law. So go ahead, send him a copy and see how keen he is to get himself under oath in the witness box to explain the missing elements of the truth. Who knows, he might even consult a lawyer who recognises an easy fee when he sees one and reels him into court with overly optimistic assurances of his “prospects”. Either way, “fish will fry”.
And such a threat from a serial defamer like yourself is more than a bit rich. So run along now, laddie.
Well I imagine you would need a good knowledge of such in your position.
Lets face it Luke, you and your spiv mates have been caught out again. The sea level drops all the time, as Church’s graphs make very clear.
I just can’t wait to get that video footage of Fort Denison onto Youtube. No change in sea level at Sydney for over 60 years, don’t ya just love it?
Well I think you’re pretty good. I can’t think of a single thing to say. If you think you are on the money get onto Bob Carter and do an op-ed for the Australian.
You owe it to your fellow Australains to inform them don’t you think?
Of course if you’re not sure and just frothing ….