|
|
Location: The Netherlands, -2,3 m msl | http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf “Interview: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner; Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud” The text indeed covers the claim. Very revealing. |
|
| |
|
Location: Isle of Wight | I don't usually reply to anything on the climate forum but thought Id make an exception in this case. To calculate sea level rise must be very difficult thing to do with so many variables, and even in the worst case scenario just mm/year, and what with plate tectonics, thermal expansion a near impossible task to calculate if the world oceans had more water in them. I would imagine. I will come back to this thread when I've read the whole paper, but what I have read looks as though even I might understand it. Dr Nils-Axel Morner sees very well qualified and his analogue that the earths spin would slow down in relation to the changing radius very interesting. |
|
| |
|
| So the point is that mainstream science are telling lies about rising sea -levels. *** Derogatory text removed by Management ***
Let me add a little lesson about physics. Water expands when it gets warmer. Let me rephrase my comment the mamagement didn't like. It would appear that the author is very keen on accusing mainstrean scientist of telling lies with is in my view insulting and reflects on the author himself.
Edited by Tom Choularton 29/6/2007 14:25
|
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: Machynlleth, Mid Wales | Tom Choularton - 29/6/2007 19:15 So the point is that mainstream science are telling lies about rising sea -levels. Pathetic, says it all about the author really. Mainstream science - the demon of our day!? For one I'm glad of the way it works. When I started publishing mineralogical papers I was pulled up very sharp by reviewers because I was making suppositions and speculations appear to be the truth. I learned very quickly that this was a bad approach. Data, with discussion and yes speculations identified clearly as such - fine - as with bodies of evidence with high or low probabilities being applied openly to conclusions. I've had one paper rejected outright and in retrospect it deserved to be rejected by the journal it was submitted to. As ever, more data required! My mistake was to record a lot of data and then try to draw conclusions in the absence of the data that would have actually supported them - it was a mistake on my part in other words, and the criticism was quite fair. The lesson was: NEVER try to make inadequate data appear to CONCLUSIVELY fit a pet theory! In terms of this forum, it applies to both sides in terms of anyone who prefers to speak in terms of imminent global catastrophe or denial of the issue. I just with that you'd ALL try and tone it down a bit. Agree that you differ - there's no harm in that, and explore those differences in a polite way! Thanks - John |
|
| |
|
| To disagree is fine and to present arguments that a mainstream scientific view is wrong is fine. The person expressing that view is likely to be wrong but very occasionally right, certainly the burden of proof is on them. However, the use of lie and fraud to my mind rules a person out of any such debate. When this is directed at an individual it requires proof when directed at a large group of scientists suggesting some huge conspiracy it leads to questioning the motives of the person making the accusation. It certainly suggests they have no contribution to make to the debate.
|
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: Machynlleth, Mid Wales | Tom Choularton - 29/6/2007 19:40 To disagree is fine and to present arguments that a mainstream scientific view is wrong is fine. The person expressing that view is likely to be wrong but very occasionally right, certainly the burden of proof is on them. However, the use of lie and fraud to my mind rules a person out of any such debate. When this is directed at an individual it requires proof when directed at a large group of scientists suggesting some huge conspiracy it leads to questioning the motives of the person making the accusation. It certainly suggests they have no contribution to make to the debate. Indeed Tom. The debate may be made in better ways. Others on this thread please note my point! We don't want a weekend-long joust, thanks! Cheers - John |
|
| |
|
Location: London, UK | "Total Fraud"? I read the article and whilst the doctor appears to be attacking ACC he then points out that some of the observed changes were caused by anthropogenic means. (see the section where he mentions Kilimanjaro he cites local anthropogenic changes, deforestation, causing the mountains glacial melting) It strikes me that whilst he seems to be attacking the ACC theory he doesn't seem to be getting the big picture. Anthropogenic Climate Change means just that man made climate change it is not solely tied to CO2. And whilst I find his views on sea level rise and the Earth's rotation interesting he cites no evidence to support his assertions (though I'd like to know more). What's more I don't believe his analogy of the figure skater is correct in the case of sea-level rise. Why? Because the oceans are fluid not solid and this generates all kinds of problems that could mask the data he's looking for. This interview was conducted buy a news organisation called EIR (Executive Intelligence Review). On its website there just so happens to be an interview with that other well regarded expert Piers Corbyn! (His article is titled "Don't Bet On Man-Made Origins Of Global Warming"). JohnF
Edited by JohnF 29/6/2007 16:35
|
|
| |
|
Location: Abingdon, Oxfordshire | Tom Choularton - 29/6/2007 19:40 To disagree is fine and to present arguments that a mainstream scientific view is wrong is fine. The person expressing that view is likely to be wrong but very occasionally right, certainly the burden of proof is on them. However, the use of lie and fraud to my mind rules a person out of any such debate. When this is directed at an individual it requires proof when directed at a large group of scientists suggesting some huge conspiracy it leads to questioning the motives of the person making the accusation. It certainly suggests they have no contribution to make to the debate. Hear, hear-as I have said before it does UKWW no favours allowing itself to be used as a conduit for the dissemination of dubious articles from even more dubious websites! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche |
|
| |
|
Executive
Location: East London 1mile NE of LCY | Ukweatherworld welcomes all debates, questions, pov's on global warming as long as they're conducted in a civil manner, from either side of the AGW fence. We also welcome all articles and would request that members of UKww try and show restraint rather than posting comments that could be construed as rude or condescending. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands | Thank you, my tuppence on sea levels in holland: http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/denhelder.html 
The 150 year sea level record is tied to the dutch ordnance survey level.
The linear trend is 14.4 cm/century (relative sea level change).
The Netherlands ordnance survey datum is tied to underground benchmarks.
A recent study shows that these underground benchmarks have a subsidence
in the Den Helder area of approximately 5 cm/century.
This gives for the eustatic sea level change a value of 9 cm/century.
see also: H Kooi, P Johnston, K Lambeck, C Smither, R Molendijk, Geological causes of recent (~100 yr) vertical land movement in the Netherlands, Tectonophysics, 299 (1998) 297-316. http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~paulj/publications/Tect1998.pdf this reference list is also interesting for those interested in glacial rebound and sealevel rise http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~paulj/publications.html
Edited by coolhansnl 29/6/2007 17:28
|
|
| |
|
Location: USA | coolhansnl: The Netherlands ordnance survey datum is tied to underground benchmarks. A recent study shows that these underground benchmarks have a subsidence in the Den Helder area of approximately 5 cm/century. This gives for the eustatic sea level change a value of 9 cm/century.So is the relative sealevel change 14 cm/century? Okay I see it now further up in the text.
It is 14.4 RSL change Quaternary Science Reviews
Volume 26, Issues 7-8, April 2007, Pages 920-940
Sea-level history of the Gulf of Mexico since the Last Glacial Maximum with implications for the melting history of the Laurentide Ice Sheet Alexander R. Simmsa,  ,  , Kurt Lambeckb, , Anthony Purcellb, , John B. Andersonc, and Antonio B. Rodriguezd,
aT. Boone Pickens School of Geology, Oklahoma State University, 105 NRC, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
bResearch School of Earth Sciences, Building 61 Mills Road, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
cDepartment of Earth Science, Rice University, 6100 S. Main, MS-126, Houston, TX 77005, USA
dInstitute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill, 3431 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC 28557, USA
Received 26 January 2006; revised 8 January 2007; accepted 9 January 2007. Available online 21 March 2007.
Abstract Sea-level records from the Gulf of Mexico at the Last Glacial Maximum, 20 ka, are up to 35 m higher than time-equivalent sea-level records from equatorial regions. The most popular hypothesis for explaining this disparity has been uplift due to the forebulge created by loading from Mississippi River sediments. Using over 50 new radiocarbon dates as well as existing published data obtained from shallow-marine deposits within the northern Gulf of Mexico and numerical models simulating the impact of loading due to the Mississippi Fan and glacio-hydro-isostasy, we test several possible explanations for this sea-level disparity. We find that neither a large radiocarbon reservoir, sedimentary loading due to the Mississippi Fan, nor large-scale regional uplift can explain this disparity. We do find that with an appropriate model for the Laurentide Ice Sheet, the observations from the Gulf of Mexico can be explained by the process of glacio-hydro-isostasy. Our analysis suggests that in order to explain this disparity one must consider a Laurentide Ice Sheet reconstruction with less ice from 15 ka to its disappearance 6 ka and more ice from the Last Glacial Maximum to 15 ka than some earlier models have suggested. This supports a Laurentide contribution to meltwater pulse 1-A, which could not have come entirely from its southern sector. Have you seen this? It seems sealevel was over a 100 feet higher at the Gulf of Mexico than at equatorial regions at the peak of the LGM, which does not fit with sealevels being lower due to water locked in the ice sheets on N. America and Europe. The boldface is mine. I don't think their explanation suffices. Ice still here 6 kya?
Edited by NileQueen 29/6/2007 21:58
|
|
| |
|
Location: USA | Tom Choularton - 29/6/2007 14:15 So the point is that mainstream science are telling lies about rising sea -levels. *** Derogatory text removed by Management *** Let me add a little lesson about physics. Water expands when it gets warmer. Let me rephrase my comment the mamagement didn't like. It would appear that the author is very keen on accusing mainstrean scientist of telling lies with is in my view insulting and reflects on the author himself. Tom, I would advise you not to take attacks on science (mainstream or otherwise) so personally. It is all part of the scientific process. Here is an example from a peer-reviewed journal, no less: http://www.soton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2007/jun/07_75.shtml 22 June 2007 Strength of the ‘biological pump’ overestimated A traditional method of estimating how life in the oceans removes carbon from the atmosphere has been overturned. Dr Andrew Yool of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, working with colleague Dr Adrian Martin and researchers from the University of Concepcion in Chile and Plymouth Marine Laboratory (Camila Fernandez and Darren Clark) calls into doubt one of the most popular means of assessing the strength of the so-called `biological pump’, which removes carbon dioxide from the air to the deep ocean. It almost seems as if you are advocating the fallacy, Appeal to the masses. "It must be true (or good) if everyone believes it or does it." Popularity is not a reliable indicator of either reality or value. (source: How to think about Weird Things, critical thinking for a new age, 4th edition, 2004, by Theodore Schick & Lewis Vaughn) |
|
| |
|
Location: USA | Dave Clarke - 29/6/2007 16:41 Ukweatherworld welcomes all debates, questions, pov's on global warming as long as they're conducted in a civil manner, from either side of the AGW fence. We also welcome all articles and would request that members of UKww try and show restraint rather than posting comments that could be construed as rude or condescending. Hi Dave, I appreciate UKweatherworld allowing us the freedom to be curious and investigate all
sorts of issues and ideas in the sciences. Joanne 
|
|
| |
|
Location: USA | Okay, I"ve just read the paper. JohnF, so who cares who the interviewer is? And I don't think NAM mentions anything about ACC. I gathered that he is saying that deforestation rather than CO2 rise is causing the deglaciation of Mt. Kilimanjaro.
The constant I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I, is just not very flattering for Nils Axel Morner. Is it fair to dismiss Austrians (land locked country) as sea-level specialists? If what he is saying about the Australian group pulling down the tree is true, that's pretty bad. It is a very interesting interview though. This is curious (from the interview) -- Then we went to the Maldives. I traced a drop in sea level in the 1970s, and the fishermen told me, “Yes, you are correct, because we remember”—things in their sailing routes have changed, things in their harbor have changed. I worked in the lagoon, I drilled in the sea, I drilled in lakes, I looked at the shore morphology—so many different environments. Always the same thing: In about 1970, the sea fell
about 20 cm, for reasons involving probably evaporation or
something. Not a change in volume or something like that— it
was a rapid thing.(I added the boldface) Was this sealevel drop just observed in the Maldives, or also in other places? And IF the cause was evaporation, what caused that?
Edited by NileQueen 30/6/2007 00:26
|
|
| |
|
Executive
Location: Evesham, Worcs | If see leels are not rising, then surely the pertinent question is why not? We know glaciers are melting, we know SSTs are generally higher, logic says that such things must lead to a rise in sea levels. If sea levels are not rising then the only explanation seems to be much faster evapouration and subsequent snow fall in arctic regions - ie it's all being sequestered in non-melting snowfields. The build up of snow obvioulsy needing to be greater than any subsequent increase in glacial melt.
I agree though that measuring sea levels changes on a global scale is incredibly difficult and on a local scale one has to take into account isostasy, tectonics and other factors.
And whilst some studies say sea levels are rising more than predicted, some say it's just rising a bit and others suggest it's not rising at all, then clearly the only conclusion is that we don't yet know for sure what is happening.
As for Morner - one hopes the use of the word fraud was the down to the interviewer and not Morner - for such accusations do nothing to enhance the credibility of anyone and are usually the resort of those who know they are wrong .... The intelligent person refers only to possible misinterpretation of data  |
|
| |
|
Location: Tonbridge, Kent. 44m ASL | Andy Mayhew - 30/6/2007 10:12
As for Morner - one hopes the use of the word fraud was the down to the interviewer and not Morner - for such accusations do nothing to enhance the credibility of anyone and are usually the resort of those who know they are wrong .... The intelligent person refers only to possible misinterpretation of data :)
But Morner is quoted as using the word "falsification". That implies deliberate malpractice does it not?
"That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set" (p34)
"So, that’s another falsification." (p36)
Edited by Big Dave's Gusset 30/6/2007 05:43
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Netherlands, -2,3 m msl | I don't understand the confusion, Morner clearly explains why he calls it a fraud:
This tree, which I showed in the documentary, is interesting. This is a prison island, and when people left the island, from the ’50s, it was a marker for them, when they saw this tree alone out there, they said, “Ah, freedom!” They were allowed back. And there have been writings and talks about this. I knew that this tree was in that terrible position already in the 1950s. So the slightest rise, and it would have been gone. I used it in my writings and for television. You know what happened? There came an Australian sea-level team, which was for the IPCC and against me. Then the students pulled down the tree by hand! They destroyed the evidence. What kind of people are those? And we came to launch this film, “Dooms day Called Off,” right after, and the tree was still green. And I heard from the locals that they had seen the people who had pulled it down. So I put it up again, by hand, and made my TV program. I haven’t told anybody else, but this was the story. They call themselves scientists, and they’re destroying evidence! A scientist should always be open for reinterpretation, but you can never destroy evidence. And they were being watched, thinking they were clever.
Edited by andre 30/6/2007 06:13
|
|
| |
|
Location: Tonbridge, Kent. 44m ASL | Is Mörner out on his own on this particular issue or does he have widespread backing? To put such emphasis on anecdotal evidence on the hearsay of "locals" suggests a very weak case, emphasising denigration of opponents rather than scientific criticism. I just can't see why publishers throw around words like "fraud" and "swindlers" which only rather destroys the credibility of such articles and reveals the lack of balance in their agenda.
Anyway it's not as if his findings are being actively suppressed, here is a good source from the UK government public domain without the political snipings:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf...
Edited by Big Dave's Gusset 30/6/2007 06:45
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Netherlands, -2,3 m msl | Is there a possibility that Morner is just a scientist, wondering what's going on and making judgements based on all available evidence?
Might it be possible that the constant demonisation deluge invariably mentioning agenda and other insults may have an polarizing effect on the discussion. Do you really think that Morner made that up? |
|
| |
|
Location: Tonbridge, Kent. 44m ASL | andre - 30/6/2007 12:10
Is there a possibility that Morner is just a scientist, wondering what's going on and making judgements based on all available evidence?
Might it be possible that the constant demonisation deluge invariably mentioning agenda and other insults may have an polarizing effect on the discussion. Do you really think that Morner made that up?
Of course I don't think Mörner "made that up". Mörner is a scientist so why not just stick to the science? I just wonder why you chose the link that you did when a quick search reveals a neutral presentation of his findings (unfavourable to current policy, but shock, horror, not suppressed) on a UK government site? By introducing politicisation and "fraud" and "swindle" the Larouche article detracts IMO from the serious subject under discussion.
It used to be considered that only nerds and nutters believed in "global governments are withholding the truth from us!" conspiracy theories, now it seems to be de rigeur in all circles.
FWIW I think his research is indeed revealing and now he is retired hope it is strongly followed up over the next 20 years and further |
|
| |
Sea levels not so rising?
