| Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud |
[Mar. 29th, 2008|12:58 pm] |
IPCC ignoring scientific observations that contradict global warming predictions
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.
"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 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change], 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. And if that figure is correct, then Holland
would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.
And that is just ridiculous. 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, which shows the water, not
just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure
it by satellite. 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 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. 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. And
there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the
rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are
field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this
talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer
modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t
find it!
EIR: Increasingly science is going in this direction, including
in the nuclear industry—it’s like playing computer games. It’s
like the design of the Audi, which was done by computer, but
not tested in reality, and it flipped over. They didn’t care about
physical principles.
Mörner: You frighten a lot of scientists. If they say that climate
is not changing, they lose their research grants. And
some people cannot afford that; they become silent, or a few
of us speak up, because we think that it’s for the honesty of
science, that we have to do it. |
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
sarahshevett's journal
