Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

The Greatest Lie Ever Told

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

OK, I’ve got a lot more time for a man of Prof Mörner’s background than the likes of Gore, Monbiot, Chuckles, Rowan Williams, Sheryl Crow, the IPCC and the amazing raggle-taggle army of bansturbators, commies, chancers, charlatans, “deep” greens, anti-globalistas, luddites and loons who make up the AGW camp.

But, it is still an appeal to authority. So what makes Prof Mörner so sure he’s right and they are wrong…

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

So the government of the Maldives is in on the scam. Well, why not? It’s a nice little earner.

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”.

If that is true it is the scientific fraud of the century and it’s time to get out the piano wire. What is perhaps more certain and almost as bad is what Prof Mörner has to say next.

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an “expert reviewer” on the IPCC’s last two reports, he was “astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one“. Yet the results of all this “deliberate ignorance” and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.

Now I have a bit of background in fluid dynamics modelling. It”s very fiddly stuff and though a very useful technique in certain circumstances it is not the same as an actual experiment with the real world. Before the AGW hysteria really kicked off I had worried that quite a few folks I knew of in the field were so enamoured of their models that they could no longer tell the difference between bytes and atoms.

Nature makes fools of us all. If you have access to a supercomputer it can make a fool of you at a rate measured in teraflops.

(All emphasis mine, article here).

6 Comments

  1. Sam Duncan says:

    The warmists’ line is that Mörner also believes in dowsing. Which apparently discredits his doctorates and chairmanship of the INQUA Commission. For some reason.

    It seems that in their world, not being a sea level specialist makes you more credible on sea levels than being one who believes in something a bit mad.

    Interesting that you should mention fluid dynamics modelling. You may have noticed over the weekend that Brawn GP (formerly Honda) won a race in Australia. The reason they gave a couple of years ago for being so crap despite being bankrolled by one of the world’s largest car manufacturers is that their CFD didn’t agree with their windtunnel. In other words, it was wrong. Computer models ain’t real.

  2. Speaking of fluid dynamics, there’s one thing I’ve been curious about ever since The Obamessiah claimed that he would stop the seas from rising.
    If I have a glass of ice water whose top cubes of ice are above the surface of the liquid, the water level seems to remain constant when the ice melts.
    Or does it?

  3. CountingCats says:

    Yes, the water level remains constant. However, land bound ice, when melting, does cause the sea levels to rise. So any melt runoff from Iceland or Antarctica would result in an increase of sea level, if that ice were melting. Also, warming seas will result in thermal expansion and a sea level increase, if the seas were warming.

  4. NickM says:

    Yeah, but you’ve got one hell of a heat sink there.

  5. J.T. Wenting says:

    OTOH evaporation due to higher temperatures would cause levels to drop again, something not taken into account when predicting “catastrophic sealevel rise”.

  6. NickM says:

    JTW et al…

    And zat iz ze point… Climate is a very complicated problem. In fact I might go as far as an ill-defined problem. So whaddya put into your model? Why am I thinking of Don Rumslfelt here – or yes: known kowns, known unknowns and unkown unknows…

    And that is why I would like to jam Al’s hockey stick so far up his Gorefice that it knocked the corpulent crook’s teeth out.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: