Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Search Tips

Comment Search Results

Search for Nils-axel morner

Comments matching the search Nils-axel morner:

  • Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?

    Nick Palmer at 00:31 AM on 2 March, 2017

    I thought I'd see how many of the usual suspects were in it. Interestingly, I didn't find Christy or Peiser in there...

    ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich
    ANDERSON, Charles R
    BALL, Tim
    BARTLETT, David
    BASTARDI, Joseph
    BELL, Larry S
    BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN, Sonja A
    BRIGGS William M.
    D'ALEO, Joseph S.
    DOUGLASS JR.
    DYSON, Freeman
    EASTERBROOK, Donald J.
    EVANS, David M. W.
    HAPPER, William
    HUMLUM, Ole
    IDSO, Craig
    LEGATES, David R.
    LINDZEN, Richard
    MANUEL, Oliver K.
    MISKOLCZI, Ferenc Mark
    MOCKTON, Christopher
    MOORE, Patrick
    MORNER, Nils-Axel
    MOTL, Lubos
    SCHMITT, Harrison H.
    SINGER, Fred S.
    SOON, Willie
    SPENCER, Roy W.
    WHITEHEAD, David

  • How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

    barry at 16:25 PM on 23 November, 2013

    Question:

    Of the scientists that were surveyed to rate their own papers, did you include Alan Carlin, Craig D. Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nils-Axel Morner, Nir J. Shaviv, Richard S.J. Tol, and Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon?

    I ask because Anthony Watts, referring to a PopTech article regarding those scientists' comments on the paper, says that they were not contacted. But the scientists themselves say nothing about that.

    Do you have a list of the scientists you attempted to contact, perhaps in supplementary material?

    Any leads appreciated.

    Barry.

  • Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

    citizenschallenge at 06:19 AM on 28 June, 2013

    Tom Curtis, you comments are too good not to share.

    Hope you don't mind.  Thanks for doing the heavy lifing.

    I might even repost the entire article later.

    ~ ~ ~ 

    Thursday, June 27, 2013

    Dr. Nils-Axel Morner's Maldives Tree - what's up with that?

  • Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand

    KR at 13:23 PM on 1 October, 2012

    tonydunc - There is a Nils-Axel Mörner thread where his ideas are discussed. Essentially, he's completely, absolutely, wrong, contradicted by all of the data.

    He might be a better source of information on dowsing, another topic near and dear to him.
  • A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection

    Patrick 027 at 13:59 PM on 9 September, 2012

    I was a little amused to see this under examples of "Magnifying dissenters and non-experts" (emphasis mine)
    "Nils-Axel Mörner,"... "and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing."
    ... not even trying?
  • A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection

    doug_bostrom at 02:13 AM on 8 September, 2012

    Some of these comments are ingenuous in a Quixotic way that's almost charming even as they surely must be extraordinarily irritating to others sharing the same space. A comment quoted by John Cook rattles off a list of idiosyncratic scientists, including:

    Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former Chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing...

    I wonder how Prof. Lindzen feels about being lumped in with dowsers?
  • Sea level is not rising

    Dale_Husband at 04:14 AM on 6 July, 2012

    My own blog entry on this matter
  • Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

    johroberthunter at 23:32 PM on 7 December, 2011

    If Nils-Axel Mörner wants a "sealevelgate", here is a contribution:

    http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~johnroberthunter/www-swg/morner_emails.txt

    - this is a series of emails between me and Mörner from 2004.

    You will have to draw your own conclusion of Mörner from these, but I don't see a "true expert on sea level" - I see a prevaricating duffer who, after a year of obfuscation, provided nothing to substantiate his wild claims.
  • Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

    Klaus Flemløse at 05:22 AM on 7 December, 2011

    Thanks to prof. Nils-Axel Mörner - never wrong

    Thank you to prof. Nils-Axel Mörner for an interesting paper. This paper represents an example of virtual fortress, which can’t be taken by any means.

    His fortress consists of the following claims:

    1) He is a large capacity with regard to knowledge about the rising global sea level. In 12 out of 34 references he is the only author.

    2) IPCC and their associated ideologues are unreliable. He is describing this by using the term "sea-level-gate".

    3) He places great emphasis his own observations, where trees along the coast are reliable evidence.

    4) The IPCC and others, who rely on satellite measurements and tidal measurements, are subjective interpretation and therefore they are unreliable.

    5) Tidal measurements along the coasts are unreliable because of land subsidence

    From these assertions Nils-Axel Mörner may at any time reject any arguments not consistent with his own theories.
    It is a virtual fortress, that can’t be taken over.

    Therefore, Prof Niles-Axel Mörner will always be victorious in a debate and he will again and again be confirmed in his own opinions. He will never be wrong. Only few scientists will experience such a success.

    Therefore, I will again give many thanks to prof. Nils-Axel Mörner for his interesting paper. One can learn a lot in the future from this paper.
  • Hiding the Incline in Sea Level

    dana1981 at 05:21 AM on 16 November, 2011

    Monckton has actually repeated Nils-Axel Morner's absurd claims that sea level hasn't risen in 50 years.
  • Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level

    Dikran Marsupial at 21:50 PM on 14 April, 2011

    Daniel Maris I am going to give you a hand checking up on the WUWT story regarding Morners assertions about sea level rise in the maldives. Please have a look at the following papers (which refute Morners position):

    John A. Church, Neil J. Whitea and John R. Hunter, "Sea-level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands", Global and Planetary Change, Volume 53, Issue 3, September 2006, Pages 155-168 www, pdf)

    Philip L. Woodworth, "Have there been large recent sea level changes in the Maldive Islands?", Global and Planetary Change, Volume 49, Issues 1-2, November 2005, Pages 1-18 (www)

    Colin D. Woodroffe, "Late Quaternary sea-level highstands in the central and eastern Indian Ocean: A review", Global and Planetary Change, Volume 49, Issues 1-2, November 2005, Pages 121-138 (www)

    but start with

    Paul S. Kench, Scott L. Nichol and Roger F. McLean, "Comment on 'New perspectives for the future of the Maldives' by Mörner, N.A., et al. [Global Planet. Change 40 (2004), 177–182], Global and Planetary Change, Volume 47, Issue 1, May 2005, Pages 67-69 (www)

    as this is a peer-reviewed comment on Morners original work on the Maldives (the details of that paper are in the title). Morner's response is here:

    Nils-Axel Mörner and Michael Tooley, "Reply to the comment of P.S. Kench et al. on 'New perspectives for the future of the Maldives' by N.A. Morner et al. [Global Planet. Change 40 (2004), 177–182]", Global and Planetary Change, Volume 47, Issue 1, May 2005, Pages 70-71 (www).

    Does the WUWT article mention any of this? If not, why do you think that is? Now I have done enough of your homework for you, it is now up to you to locate those articles (Google Scholar is your friend), read them, and then come back here and either agree that Morner is wrong about the Maldives, or give a cogent scientific defence of his claims. I predict neither of those things will occur - go on, prove me wrong! ;o)
  • Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level

    Lars Rosenberg at 20:49 PM on 14 April, 2011

    Nils-Axel Mörner's father, Stellan Mörner, was a wellknow swedish surrrealist painter, about whom he has written: "My dad's relation to his art is identical to my relation to my science."
    That quote may explain some of his inventiveness.
  • Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level

    Dikran Marsupial at 04:33 AM on 14 April, 2011

    Right, on to the claim about the IPCC fudging the satelite sea level data. Well, the first paper Morner appears to have published on this is this one:

    Mörner, N.-A., "Estimating future sea level changes from past records", Global and Planetary Change, Volume 40, Issue 1-2, January 2004, Pages 49-54 (www)

    Figure 2 of that paper gives the "raw" TOPEX/POSEIDON data for 1992-2000 "before any filtering or sliding mean average". Sadly he gives no source for the data giving in this figure in the paper. This was one of the things pointed out by a comment on Morner's paper published by Nerem et al. (Cazenave is one of the "et al.").

    Nerem, R.S. et al., "Comment on 'Estimating future sea level change from past records' by Nils-Axel Mörner", Global and Planetary Change
    Volume 55, Issue 4, February 2007, Pages 358-360 (www)

    Nerem et al say that Morners paper "completely misrepresents the record of sea level change from the TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) satelite altimetry mission" and explain why that is the case. The first major criticism of Morner's paper is that it doesn't include a single reference to any altimetry study, all of which apparently refute his claim that there is no change in global mean sea level. I checked this, and it is indeed true, there are no references to any paper on TOPEX/Poseidon. Of the 33 references there are, there are however no less than 17 references to his own work. This would have rung warning bells for me had I been a reviewer!

    Back to Figure 2. Nerem et al. note that Morner gave no source for the data in his figure, but the speculate that it is the original raw release of data, with no corrections made for known problems with the instrument on the satelite. Note this is not about "filtering" or "sliding mean averaging" it is about calibration for known problems. These adjustments are well documented in the journals and Nerem et al give the references. So Morner has used raw data, which are known not to give an accurate indication of actual sea level changes due to calibration issues. Surely if he had researched the issue properly, he would at least have referenced the papers describiing these adjustments, and explained why they were incorrect. But that was obviously not the case. Nerem et al also briefly describe the nature of the adjustments for those who are interested.

    The story doesn't end there, because Morner wrote a comment on the comment.

    Mörner, N.-A., "Comment on comment by Nerem et al. (2007) on 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' by Nils-Axel Mörner (2004)", Global and Planetary Change, Volume 62, Issue 3-4, June 2008, Pages 219-220 (www)

    He starts of by criticising Nerem et al for not publishing their comment in a timely manner, which is ridiculous there is no "statute of limitations" that means you can get away with being wrong provided nobody notices for a year or two! He also complains that the first he knew of it was when it appeared in print. Surely for consistency, he should have sent his original paper to the TOPEX/Poseidon group for comment before publication - it is a pity that he didn't.

    Morner does however say where he got the data from, it was from a MEDIAS newsletter, and he obtained his curve was a "redrawing of this graph". This newsletter article is available on-line here, and this is the graph from that article:



    The caption is as follows "Mean rise in the sea level observed by TOPEX/POSEIDON between October 1992 and April 2000
    (about 1 mm/year)"

    So Morner has redrawn the plot from the newsletter, claiming that it shows no trend, when the caption of the figure in the article clearly states that there is a trend of 1 mm/year and a trendline is clearly depicted on the plot! Does Morner mention that? No, in fact in his comment on the comment, he reiterates that there is no trend in the data.

    Morner then says the figure reappears later with a greater tilt, and asks why that is. He then answers his own question by saying that the data in his figure include the adjustments described in a paper by Mitchum, but not later adjustments described in several other papers describing later adjustments to the data. He rejects these as being "subjective interpretations", which is about the weakest rebuttal of a criticism I have seen in a journal!

    So in otherwords, Morner redrew data from a newsletter (rather than actually getting the data and replotting it), ignored the fact that the original caption and diagram explicitly showed a non-zero trend, ignored even the existence of a set of adjustments made to the data due to known issues with the instruments, rejected them as "subjective interpretation" when this was pointed out. Says the "calibrations" (quotes his) are "very strongly debated" without giving a reference to a paper questioning the calibration. Does any of this inspire confidence? I'd say "no".

    Monckton outght to have checked out his source on this one a bit more carefully.
  • Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels

    Anthony G. Warming at 20:22 PM on 27 January, 2011

    Just a comment to the Mörner-paragraph: Niklas is a perfectly valid first name in Sweden, but his real name is Nils-Axel Mörner.
    I also wonder in what way it is relevant, in respect to his authority on sea level matters, that he has "dabbled in dowsing". Dowsing is certainly humbug, but would it also have been mentioned that Vermeer and Rahmsorf both are ardent astrologists, if that had been true? I doubt it.
    The purpose is solely to lessen his credibility. What is the term? Guilt by association?
  • Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated

    muoncounter at 02:16 AM on 9 January, 2011

    #3: "evaluating his comments ... "

    An interview that starts off with "there's no one who's beaten me" didn't do much for his credibility.

    When I got to "if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down", I lost interest. Assuming the earth to be a uniform sphere (its not) one meter of additional radius would increase the earth's rotational inertia by a factor of 1.00000031, slowing the rotation rate in proportion. But the mass of water that moves outwards is much much less than the mass of rock that stays put, so the effect would be far less. His use of the familiar ice skater analogy is hardly appropriate in this context: rather than extending her arms changing her rotation rate, this is more like a drop of water on the tip of her nose.

    Then there's Wikipedia:
    Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing...".

    As I said, I lost interest.
  • Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated

    Zoltan at 00:58 AM on 9 January, 2011

    Has there been a response to the issues raised by Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner? He does seem to be a very experienced expert on sea levels. Am interested in evaluating his comments on sea level inferred from earth's rotation rate and other approaches. He seems quite convinced that the claims of AGW vis a vis sea levels are spurious. Feedback welcome.

    The interview is at
    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
    .
  • Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change

    Berényi Péter at 01:05 AM on 16 October, 2010

    Posted by gpwayne on Friday, 15 October, 2010 at 14:59 PM
    Climate change skeptics like Marc Morano employ gross exaggeration to dismiss or diminish the potential disruption that climate change is likely to bring about. In the Inhofe EWP press blog, Morano made much of this statement [...]

    That blogpost is more than three years old, dated 9:39 AM ET, July 30, 2007.

    Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt
    Posted By Marc Morano

    What he says is not entirely unsupported. For the sake of fairness you could at least dig up references from that post or peer reviewed literature backing them.
    1. Annals of Glaciology
      Volume 46, Number 1, October 2007 , pp. 209-214(6)
      DOI: 10.3189/172756407782871558
      20th-century glacier fluctuations on Disko Island (Qeqertarsuaq), Greenland
      Jacob C. YDE & N. Tvis KNUDSEN
    2. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
      VOL. 33, L11707, 5 PP., 2006
      doi:10.1029/2006GL026510
      Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005
      Petr Chylek, M. K. Dubey & G. Lesins
    3. Science 11 November 2005:
      Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1013 - 1016
      DOI: 10.1126/science.1115356
      Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
      Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles & Leonid P. Bobylev
    4. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH
      VOL. 111, D11105, 2006
      doi:10.1029/2005JD006810
      Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century
      B. M. Vinther, K. K. Andersen, P. D. Jones, K. R. Briffa & J. Cappelen
    5. Science 16 March 2007:
      Vol. 315. no. 5818, pp. 1559 - 1561
      DOI: 10.1126/science.1138478
      Rapid Changes in Ice Discharge from Greenland Outlet Glaciers
      Ian M. Howat, Ian Joughin & Ted A. Scambos
    6. Science 6 July 2007:
      Vol. 317. no. 5834, pp. 111 - 114
      DOI: 10.1126/science.1141758
      Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland
      Eske Willerslev, Enrico Cappellini, Wouter Boomsma, Rasmus Nielsen, Martin B. Hebsgaard, Tina B. Brand, Michael Hofreiter, Michael Bunce, Hendrik N. Poinar, Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Sigfus Johnsen, Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ole Bennike, Jean-Luc Schwenninger, Roger Nathan, Simon Armitage, Cees-Jan de Hoog, Vasily Alfimov, Marcus Christl, Juerg Beer, Raimund Muscheler, Joel Barker, Martin Sharp, Kirsty E. H. Penkman, James Haile, Pierre Taberlet, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, Antonella Casoli, Elisa Campani & Matthew J. Collins
    7. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
      Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report
      3.2.1 21st century global changes
      Table 3.1. Projected global average surface warming and sea level rise at the end of the 21st century.
    8. The Holocene 12,1 (2002) pp. 49–58
      DOI: 10.1191/0959683602hl519rp
      A mid-Holocene shift in Arctic sea-ice variability on the East Greenland Shelf
      Anne E. Jennings, Karen Luise Knudsen, Morten Hald, Carsten Vigen Hansen & John T. Andrews
    9. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
      VOL. 32, L17605, 4 PP., 2005
      doi:10.1029/2005GL023740
      One more step toward a warmer Arctic
      Igor V. Polyakov, Agnieszka Beszczynska, Eddy C. Carmack, Igor A. Dmitrenko, Eberhard Fahrbach, Ivan E. Frolov, Rüdiger Gerdes, Edmond Hansen, Jürgen Holfort, Vladimir V. Ivanov, Mark A. Johnson, Michael Karcher, Frank Kauker, James Morison, Kjell A. Orvik, Ursula Schauer, Harper L. Simmons, Øystein Skagseth, Vladimir T. Sokolov, Michael Steele, Leonid A. Timokhov, David Walsh & John E. Walsh
    10. GLOBAL WARMING
      Notes on Climate Change
      Syun-Ichi Akasofu
    11. Earth and Planetary Science Letters
      Volume 207, Issues 1-4, 28 February 2003, Pages 13-22
      doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(02)01155-X
      Modern spectral climate patterns in rhythmically deposited argillites of the Gowganda Formation (Early Proterozoic), southern Ontario, Canada
      Gary B. Hughes, Robert Giegengack & Haralambos N. Kritikos
    12. Global and Planetary Change
      Volume 40, Issues 1-2, January 2004, Pages 177-182
      Global Climate Changes during the Late Quaternary
      doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00108-5
      New perspectives for the future of the Maldives
      Nils-Axel Mörner & Michael Tooley
    13. CLIMATE RESEARCH
      Vol. 23: 89–110, 2003
      Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years
      Willie Soon & Sallie Baliunas
      Energy & Environment
      doi: 10.1.1.124.3216
      Reconstructing climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years: a reappraisal (2003)
      Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Craig Idso, Sherwood Idso & David R. Legates
    14. Science 11 August 2006:
      Vol. 313. no. 5788, pp. 827 - 831
      DOI: 10.1126/science.1128243
      Insignificant Change in Antarctic Snowfall Since the International Geophysical Year
      Andrew J. Monaghan, David H. Bromwich, Ryan L. Fogt, Sheng-Hung Wang, Paul A. Mayewski, Daniel A. Dixon, Alexey Ekaykin, Massimo Frezzotti, Ian Goodwin, Elisabeth Isaksson, Susan D. Kaspari, Vin I. Morgan, Hans Oerter, Tas D. Van Ommen, Cornelius J. Van der Veen & Jiahong Wen
  • The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change

    Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:37 PM on 17 August, 2010

    A. Korhola:
    “Decision-makers should make sensible choices regarding the overall benefits in the environment of uncertainty.”
    “According to Korhola, the mistakes and exaggerations of the IPCC report that have now come to light – for example, regarding the Himalayan glaciers, destruction of the Amazon rain forest, collapse of the grain crop in Africa, and the link between climate change and natural disasters – have in this respect done a favour.”

    On Spitsbergen, when he was on the “current location on the map”, Polish researchers found that there millions of years ago, were growing - almost as big as the equator - tropical plants - how, why, have reached such proportions? - We do not know ...

    “heatwaves”

    - Between 2003 and 2006 - let's look at this figure:


    “heatwaves “ were associated with more rapid cooling of (rapid La Nina 2003 and 2006) - such as CLAW hypothesis (?) - low clouds over NH ...

    ... and malaria

    Climate change and the global malaria recession Gething et al., 2010.:
    “First, widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its endemicity and geographic extent. Second, the proposed future effects of rising temperatures on endemicity are at least one order of magnitude smaller than changes observed since about 1900 and up to two orders of magnitude smaller than those that can be achieved by the effective scale-up of key control measures. Predictions of an intensification of malaria in a warmer world, based on extrapolated empirical relationships or biological mechanisms, must be set against a context of a century of warming that has seen marked global declines in the disease and a substantial weakening of the global correlation between malaria endemicity and climate.”

    and sea level increasing ...

    Nils-Axel Mörner (2009.) Open letter to the president of the Maldives:
    “When I was president for the INQUA commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003), we spent much effort on the question of present-to-future sea level changes. After intensive field studies, deliberation within the commission and discussions at five international meeting, we agreed on a "best estimate" for possible sea level changes by the year 2100. Our figure was +10 cm ±10 cm. This figure was later revised at +5 cm ±15cm.”
    “So, Mr. President, when you ignore to face available observational facts, refuses a normal democratic dialogue, and continue to menace your people with the imaginary threat of a disastrous flooding already in progress, I think you are doing a serious mistake.

    Darfur

    - The greening of the Sahel: “Analyses made by several independent groups of temporal sequences of satellite data over two decades since early 1980s, showed a remarkable increasing trend in vegetation greenness.” “Increasing rainfall over the last few years is certainly one reason, but does not fully explain the change.”
    “The vast belt of significantly increasing vegetation across the central Sudan corresponds to a large extent to provinces with large numbers of internally displaced people. In the seven Sudanese provinces ... ... almost 2 million people were internally displaced, corresponding to about 24% of the population. Being internally displaced means that people have fled their homes and live elsewhere away from their normal means of incomes, often on the outskirts of towns. As a consequence, agriculture is neglected and livestock dispersed.”
  • Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise

    From Peru at 08:34 AM on 4 March, 2010

    John Cook:

    This Telegraph news:
    "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'"
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

    merits a response (I found it following the links of the "recent claim" above).

    Here is claimed (full quote):

    "One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

    So TOPEX-POSEIDON, JASON 1, JASON 2 and ENVISAT are also adjusted for showing a rapid sea level rise, Mr. Nils-Axel Mörner ?!

    Are all this SATELLITES part of the Global Conspiracy?!

    Of course, Science and Deniers are both right that the IPCC need to be advised by sea level experts:
    it grossly UNDER-estimated sea level rise, now at 3.3 mm/yr.
  • Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise

    Bob Armstrong at 04:34 AM on 4 March, 2010

    For a view that even less sea level change is going on , and more importantly , the perversion of the IPCC process , listen to the interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner , http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2010/nilsaxelmorner/ .

    But it appears the obvious conclusion about sea level rise is that it's not a significant problem and Gore's 7m and more horror videos were as absurd exaggerations as the IPCC's glaciers at greater than 6000m melting in 25 years .
  • Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions

    climatejournal at 15:12 PM on 1 March, 2010

    Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story - Sea Levels Are Not Rising! Read more at http://www.climatejournal.org/climatenews00148.htm
  • YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming

    Bob Armstrong at 07:41 AM on 1 March, 2010

    This video is a mixture of fact and and silliness . I recommend as a counter-point MIT's Richard Lindzen's talk at CIE : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmGiiNQ0yHQ . While there are many ways to show how small the perhaps 0.3% change in mean temperature has been over the last century , I so like his comparison with Boston's spring climate , I extracted it to http://cosy.com/Science/Lindzenlineplot800.gif . In general , the ecological arguments are patent BS -- and many have been thoroughly shown to be just that . Listen to this interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner , http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2010/nilsaxelmorner/ , who spent his life studying sea level , was involved with the IPCC and effectively indicts its report on sea level change . Show me global maps of the change in the 0c contour over the seasons over the last half century and then we can start discussing the reality of animals and plants drastically reacting to a change in mean temperature which is just a "just noticeable difference" for humans in psychophysical experiments .

    What personally , raises my hackles is the , as stated in the video - wrong - assertion that without the green house effect we would be 33c colder . Far more realistic , and mathematically tractable , is that we are about 9c warmer than a gray ( flat spectrum ) body in our orbit . And that's the last discussion of quantitative physics in the video . Tyndall is mentioned , but Stefan , Boltzmann and Kirchhoff which are the names actually associated with the equations which produce those numbers are not . The effect of the minor changes in our mean temperature from the minor changes in our planet's spectrum from CO2 can be calculated , but you won't find that from the alarmists because it's too small to be anything from beneficial .

    Finally , you will never see recognition that CO2 is the anabolic half of the respiratory cycle of life and therefore even the bit of carbon we are restoring to the biosphere from previous lush epochs is provably increasing green plant growth around the planet . If anything you will see absurd attempts to dismiss this grade school fact that all life , including each of us , is over 90% CO2 + H2O combined by sunlight .

    I must say John Cook presents more actual evidence than other alarmist sites , but still not the quantitative physics without which you do not have science , you have children at play .
  • What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?

    neilperth at 09:31 AM on 24 November, 2009

    You mention above that “ seas level rise is accelerating”. But a recent ( June 2009 ) scientific paper by Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth and Environment, The University of Western Australia, states as follows :
    Abstract: Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data are compared with results from elsewhere, all of which suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible. The Darwin theory of coral formation, and subsidence ideas for guyots would suggest that we should see more land subsidence, and apparent sea level rise, than is actually occurring. Sea level studies have not been carried out for very long, but they can indicate major tectonic components such as isostatic rebound in Scandinavia. Attempts to manipulate the data by modelling to show alarming rates of sea level rise (associated with alleged global warming) are not
    supported by primary regional or global data. Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such as the Maldives.
    Also, in an interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner (head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden, past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project – he has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years) by EIR (Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology) [http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html] he talked about the IPCC misrepresentation of sea level data: “Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications,... 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... It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” ... 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. ... So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it! 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.
  • Sea level rise is exaggerated

    neilperth at 14:02 PM on 7 October, 2009

    In an interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner (head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden, past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project – he has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years) by EIR (Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology) [http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html] he talked about the IPCC misrepresentation of sea level data: “Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications,... 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... It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” ... 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. ... So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it! 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.
  • The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat

    HealthySkeptic at 13:51 PM on 16 March, 2009

    Chris,

    We may know "how sea levels are measured" and we can certainly "look at the data directly" however there appears to be a wide spectrum of interpretation of the data and the potential consequences. More and more climate experts, such as Morner, are either changing their minds with respect to AGW, or speaking out against it.

    I am a scientist in an unrelated field but I remain skeptical because, despite protestations of the "party faithful" such as yourself, there simply is no scientific consensus.

    Until there is, I will remain a skeptic.


    --------------------------------------------------------
    Some papers by Morner;-

    "Climatic Changes on a Yearly to Millennial Basis: Geological, Historical, and Instrumental Records"
    By Nils-Axel Mörner, W. Karlén
    Contributor Nils-Axel Mörner, W. Karlén
    Edition: illustrated
    Published by Springer, 1984
    ISBN 9027717796, 9789027717795


    Mörner, Nils-Axel (2004). "Estimating future sea level changes from past records". Global and Planetary Change 40 (1-2): 49–54. doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00097-3

    Mörner, Nils-Axel; Tooley, Michael; Possnert, Göran (2004). "New perspectives for the future of the Maldives". Global and Planetary Change 40 (1-2): 177–182. doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00108-5.

    Mörner N.-A.; Laborel J., Tooley M., Dawson S., Allison W., Islam M.S., Laborel F., Collina J., Rufin C. (February 10 2005). "Sea Level Changes: The Maldives Project Freed From Condemnation to become Flooded" (PDF). IGCP Project No. 437 Puglia 2003 - Final Conference.
  • The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat

    chris at 10:43 AM on 14 December, 2008

    You seem to have a problem with the truth Healthy Skeptic. Unfortunately Dr. Nils-Axel Morner is stating something that is not true. He's perfectly within his rights to diseeminate falsehoods in interviews...

    ..but why listen to rubbish that people say in interviews?

    We know how sea level measurements are made, and we know how the IPCC report on this extensive research (see papers in my post #27). So what's to be gained from pretending that things are not as they are?

    I don't really understand your approach to this. On the one hand you want to portray yourself as a "skeptic". However your approach to the science is decidedly unhealthy. You don't seem to care to address the science but prefer unsubstantiated stuff from interviews
    and dodgy websites.

    I'm not denigrating Dr. Nils-Morner. I'm pointing out that he is asserting things that aren't true. I accept that you seem to prefer untruths on the subject of climate science (the rubbish on previous CO2 measurements from a German scholl teacher...the nonsense on paleotemperature/paleoCO2 relationships from a wildly inaccurate sketch of "data" and so on...)

    In science Healthy Skeptic, it's all about the evidence. You choose not to address this. That's fine..it's your choice. But don't pretend that propagating falsehoods has anything to do with "skepticism"!
  • The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat

    HealthySkeptic at 14:09 PM on 3 December, 2008

    Chris,

    Get down off your high horse for a minute and calm down a bit. Wildly accusing people of having "creepy agendas" is in itself more than a bit creepy.

    The source you ask about is Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner. Specifically, comments he made in an interview which appeared in Executive Intelligence Review, June 22, 2007

    An abridged version can be found here;-

    http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm

    No doubt you will denegrate the poor man severly, as you seem to do with any researchers who disagree with your AGW paradigm. Yet, it still seems strange that if there is such a supposed “scientific consensus” on AGW that so many prominent scientists (especially those in directly-related fields of research) are having second thoughts.

    Perhaps it's the early signs of a forthcoming paradigm shift. ;)
  • Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?

    HealthySkeptic at 13:35 PM on 1 September, 2008

    cce>> Tide guages tell us it is warmer now.

    Not according to Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2019 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us