The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment claimed that ‘there is strong evidence’ of sea level rising over the last few decades. It goes as far as to claim: ‘Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.’
Almost every word of this is untrue. Satellite altimetry is a wonderful and vital new technique that offers the reconstruction of sea level changes all over the ocean surface. But it has been hijacked and distorted by the IPCC for political ends.
In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’
This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong (whose record is contradicted by four other nearby tide gauges). Why does it show such a rise? Because like many of the 159 tide gauge stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it is sited on an unstable harbour construction or landing pier prone to uplift or subsidence. When you exclude these unreliable stations, the 68 remaining ones give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1mm a year.
If the ice caps are melting, it is at such a small rate globally that we can hardly see its effects on sea level. I certainly have not been able to find any evidence for it. The sea level rise today is at most 0.7mm a year — though, probably, much smaller.
We must learn to take the environmentalists’ predictions with a huge pinch of salt. In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That was last year: where are those refugees? And where are those sea level rises? The true facts are found by observing and measuring nature itself, not in the IPCC’s computer-generated projections. There are many urgent natural problems to consider on Planet Earth — tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions not least among them. But the threat of rising sea levels is an artificial crisis.
– Sea level expert Nils-Axel Mörner rips into the climate catastrophists.
See also this piece, which drives a dagger into the heart of the climate catastrophe fraud.
A bit lengthy for a Quote of the Day, isn’t it?
But if you agree with him you’re “anti-science”.
This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate.
This may be a scandal, but can we please retire the fucking -gate suffix already?
As somebody born in 1972, I’m sick and tired of everything being analyzed through a prism of events that happened between the death of John Kennedy and the resignation of Richard Nixon.
This may be a scandal, but can we please retire the fucking -gate suffix already?
You mean this is gategate ?
If the ice caps are melting, it is at such a small rate globally that we can hardly see its effects on sea level.
Not wanting to contradict a “sea level expert” but I thought the reasoning was that a temperature change that causes water expansion is more likely to affect sea levels than melting ice being added, the melting icecaps are a consequence rather than a cause. Can anyone confirm this ?
I have been sailing since 1968 in various parts of the world and for 25 years I have lived near a very famous sandbank. At no time in the last 43 years have I actually observed any sea level rise. Anecdotal and unscientific this may be but personal observation must count for something?
Don’t let facts confuse you, Westerlyman:-)
Maybe the land has been expanding at the same rate? Hence, no rise!
Next problem?
Good articles by Peter Foster comparing Climate Alarmism to tribal morality.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/11/28/peter-foster-the-moral-climate/
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/11/29/peter-foster-leftist-moralizing/
As somebody born in 1972, I’m sick and tired of everything being analyzed through a prism of events that happened between the death of John Kennedy and the resignation of Richard Nixon.
After seeing the spammer quote me, I feel bad for the people who get caught by the smitebot.
OK, make it a Quote of the Week, then.
Brian,
This Nils-Axel Mörner guy is apparently a bit of a lunatic. Monbiot is laughing his socks off over in the Guardian.
The Spectator is not to be trusted.
“I have been sailing since 1968 in various parts of the world and for 25 years I have lived near a very famous sandbank. At no time in the last 43 years have I actually observed any sea level rise.”
That’s because it’s all become far more serious than we expected.
The influence of the carbons is accelerating so abruptly that both sea level and land level are rising. You’re not seeing any rise in sea level because the land has been rising right along with it.
(There’s a sandbank that’s “very famous”?)
Does anyone have an original source citation for the claim of 50 million climate refugees in this article? Preferably linkable?
Thanks.
Jessica,
Here is the Spiegel article. I hope that somebody has saved copies because the UN is busy sanitizing history. I hope you can make the Google Cache link work. When I tried it, I got a ‘404 – file not found’ error.
If Nils-Axel Mörner wants a “Sealevelgate”, my contribution is at:
http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~johnroberthunter/www-swg/morner_emails.txt
– a series of emails between me and Morner from 2004.
You will have to draw your own conclusion of Morner 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.
“I see a prevaricating duffer who, after a year of obfuscation, provided nothing to substantiate his wild claims.”
Agreed. I had to wince whilst reading that.
However, the point which Monbiot did not refute is Morner’s claim that there was a (presumably unwarranted) 2.3mm adjustment to the satellite altimetry record in 2003 – in order to show a trend.
Can you show that Morner was either wrong (i.e. that there was no such adjustment), or that the adjustment was necessary and ought not to provoke suspicion?