Bishop Hill Morner on sea level
Dec 1, 2011 Climate: WG2 The Spectator's cover story this week is an article by Nils-Axel Morner on sea level rise (or not).
The sea is not rising precipitously. I have studied many of the low-lying regions in my 45-year career recording and interpreting sea level data. I have conducted six field trips to the Maldives; I have been to Bangladesh, whose environment minister was claiming that flooding due to climate change threatened to create in her country 20 million ‘ecological refugees’. I have carefully examined the data of ‘drowning’ Tuvalu. And I can report that, while such regions do have problems, they need not fear rising sea levels.
This bit is good too:
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.’
Reader Comments (69)
Wow, I was going to say that you couldn't make this stuff up, but clearly "they" do. What's the point of having records when they are changed at will to suit purpose?
Zed and responses gone
Why do the guys who make the satellite measurements not complain about the adjustments? The IPCC needs to be disbanded.
About Zed, well done Bish enough threads have been hijacked already. A possible solution to trolls might be to put them in a troll thread and let those who want to contest with them go there, always under real names and e-mail addresses and by registration.
Ah - so the data has to be 'fixed' to support the argument....
Well - who'd have thought it...
A remarkable article by a scientist who has stuck to his guns for years. Two points really struck me:
Who was that British member of the IPCC delegation? Is there an email with them sharing that conversation with CRU colleagues lurking somewhere? I do hope so!
Second point was:
Which is more than 50 times slower than your finger nails grow.
And I finally made the jump to Blockquotes in my last post! I am so pleased with myself!
Ah - so the data has to be 'fixed' to support the argument....
Well - who'd have thought it...
SORRY - pressed 'create post' twice..!
In countries throughout the world, distortion of the truth (putting it mildly) continues to be the method to obtain public funding for climate 'research'.
WHEN are the forces of law and order going to act against these people..?
Fraud. To my way of thinking anyway.
About Zed. I thought peter Whale had a good idea - give it its own thread. But then I had a better idra. Zed - go do your own blog and see how you do on your own.
Wikipedia ( not always a reliable source on climate ) says of Nils-Axel Morner
"Mörner's claim that sea levels are not rising has been criticised for ignoring correctly calibrated satellite altimeter records, all of which show that sea levels are rising"
and gives as a reference "Nerem et al. (2007) Comment on “Estimating future sea level change from past records” by Nils-Axel Mörner, Global and Planetary Change 55 (2007) 358–360"
Is anyone able to comment on this?
"Is anyone able to comment on this?"
John Daly probably would if he was still alive.
http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
Here is a paper by Cazenave et al (2008), that uses the GRACE satellite measurements of the earth's gravity, 2003-2008.
Look at fig 1. The raw data shows no trend, but the "GIA adjusted" data shows a trend of 2mm per year.
Now look at the corresponding text:
"The raw GRACE-based ocean mass time series is dominated by an annual cycle caused by the annual exchange of water between land and oceans (Cazenave et al., 2000). As we are interested here in the interannual fluctuations, we remove the annual cycle. The resulting time series, shown in Fig.1, has a slightly negative slope of∼−0.12+/−0.06mm/yr over the time span January 2003–December 2007 (we consider this time span – called 2003–2008 – to work with an integer number of years). However, a GIA correction has to be applied to this raw ocean mass time series....This linear correction is quite large and available from GIA modelling only."
@ alleagra
Wikipedia ( not always a reliable source on climate ) says...
I disagree - Wikipedia is reliable, but reliably warmist.
A watch that is fast can still be useful if you know how fast it is, that it is consistent, and when it was last right. Wikipedia is the same on climate.
Shouldn't this accidental scientific malpractice, with the satellite data, be corrected throughout the scientific literature?
Here is a reminder that Nurse has used the word 'malpractice':
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/5/26/paul-nurse-on-foi.html
May 26, 2011 at 9:19 AM | Barry Woods
Paul Nurse (voice over):
... There were at least four independent reviews of the work of CRU. The reports found there was no evidence of dishonesty. They said splicing the temperature data wasn’t misleading, but this technique should have been made plain.
... But crucially, they found no evidence of deliberate scientific malpractice. ...
In law, malpractice is a type of negligence in, which the professional under a duty to act, fails to follow generally accepted professional standards, and that breach of duty is the proximate cause of injury to a plaintiff who suffers harm. It is committed by a professional or her/his subordinates or agents on behalf of a client or patient that causes damages to the client or patient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malpractice
Are not the taxpayers the plaintiff in this case?
On reflection, ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’ does not sound very accidental.
If ever the word Charlatan applied to anyone, it is quite apposite for these climate change hysterics. Climate change and scientist appear to be oxymoronic from my understanding of what they have done.
Alleagra I think you meant to post:
"Wikipedia ( not
alwaysa reliable source on climate )"Just compare the content and tone of the Wiki page for Nils-Axel Morner with that of (Saint) Michael E Mann. The page for Morner is about as close to a hatchet job as the William Connolly acolytes can get post his ban.
While I appreciate people's frustration with Zed, I'm not sure that banning her is wise. The nice thing about Bishop Hill is the tolerant atmosphere here, where even rudely dissenting views get a polite hearing. For me it marks the difference between the maturity of serious sceptical discourse and the hysterical childish bullying and blatant censorship that is too common elsewhere.
I think banning Zed will only feed her ego and give the zealots ammunition. I think by far the best solution would be for regulars to simply ignore her blatant trolling, and for the Bish to continue to cut tendentious responses. Of course, perhaps even he has reached his generous limits.
Be great to see this article get broader publication but that seems unlikely. Jo Nova has an interesting article published today - The Travesty of the Missing Heat - also well worth a read. So as I understand it, the oceans aren't warming nor rising with any great significance. Isn't it about time this was more widely known, it is after all one of the cornerstones of climate change!!?
I wonder what it will take for scientists and the public in general to have more of a spirit of inquiry, look at things with an open mind, and really search for the truth. I read somewhere recently, that 'lack of inquiry makes anything but blind faith nearly impossible'.
Any word about Hengist McStone?
Re: malpractice - But the problem is that academicians are emphatically NOT professionals. A profession generally requires an advanced degree and certification by the government via a qualifying examination. Also, professionals usually offer services to the public at large. That's why doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects, surveyors, etc., are considered professionals. A college or university professor, on the other hand, does not need to pass any state licensure examination in order to teach or do research. And they generally do not hang a shingle announcing their availability for hire. Prior to the CAGW hysteria they were considered harmless drudges slogging away in their narrow, specialized, and inconsequential fields. There was no professional certification required. In retrospect, it was ludicrous for the climatology community to attempt to direct the energies and expenditures of governments without first achieving true professional status rather than mere "professorial" standing. It was doubly risible that many governments failed, and still fail, to recognize the very genuine distinction between professionals and professors.
I suppose this could be summed up as "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. However, in practice, there is."
- the Crusty old Clown
Mique,
I disagree - Zeds appearances can be characterised by having a Tourette's sufferer shrieking pointless inanities your ear when you're having an adult discussion. It's not as if we haven't ALL heard the catastrophist nonsense ad nauseam, and since she completely refuses to engage in rational discussion and persists in brainless hectoring then my preference is to delete.
Don P
Hengist has not been a problem and remains free to post. I don't have the time to tidy up after Zed - my patience is not limitless.
@ Paul Mathews,
The correction is based on isostatic rebound models, if they are based in GRACE, there is probably an overestimation: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GC002642.shtml
As for Mörner in the emails, here there is one:
I now have this bizarre vision in my mind of Zed somewhere out in cyberspace screaming and ranting in frustration, banging on the walls of a big clear plastic room floating in the void, but no one can hear!
Unfortunately missed the bit that got snipped and (finally) provoked the ban (just curious). Don't like bans either but enough is enough. SayNoToFearMongers reply above sums it up pretty well.
Unfortunately I am sure Zed will just pop-up on other blogs and continue to annoy people with puerile jibes. However, one should look on the bright side - Zed is as helpful in the climate debate as RealClimate - ie good for converting people to a sceptical viewpoint by demonstrating how a pro-AGW mind which is closed to argument behaves.
Temperature anomaly or sea level : this is time series data. samples.
They have no meaning on themselves at all they have only meaning correlated to another physical quantity. Now, the implied physical quantity to which these anomalies are referenced is the ZERO line
This is wrong and not justified.
While zero volt makes a lot of sense for electronics engineers for example -there is something like an commonly acknowledged earths potential= zero volt- zero degrees anomaly for earth has no physically proved justification at all.
Probably -most likely in view of periodic actuators like earth rotation, sun output, earths evolvement around sun and the galaxy- the system variable "earth's temperature" or "sea level" its steady state is just that: fluctuation and not flatlining.
It is not because you do not know what the reference is, and electronicians use it, that the choice of flatline for the reference is warranted at all and you can construct a whole theory from that with a concclusion that there is a trend from that flatline that warrants trillion dollar investments. puh-leeze.
I am waiting for "professor" E Mann's proof that the steady state on for example the temp anomaly is flatline, over the last 10 centuries. Becus he insinuated he had all the proof and found it needed to monger behind the curtains to block other people's reports(S&B) . Mr Mann can now come and explain his massive evidence. If he cannot he shld be reassigned at NASA optimizing the Mars Rover's wheels or somthing. Or even fairer: he shld get a good stamp in his big fat assuaged stinker out onto the cobblestones, into real life. Where the wild things are. Or let him join Professor Roger Harrabin "studying" how many rich people the earth can carry or something, at our expense. Because our faux leaders think there is too much money , apparently.
cheers.
Hengist is actually able to argue his point and say why he thinks something, so while you might disagree with him, it does seem highly probable that he's thought about his position and knows why he holds it. [snip]
.
"Is anyone able to comment on this?
Dec 1, 2011 at 2:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlleagra "
Mörner is the Darwin of sea level studies. He invented the field.
Of course, Darwin could be wrong too.
Crusty the Clown on Dec 1, 2011 at 4:00 PM
"It was doubly risible that many governments failed, and still fail, to recognize the very genuine distinction between professionals and professors."
Such Wisdom, and delivered in a jovial manner; but what else should one expect from a Clown: it is a serious and worthy vocation. I think also, you could extend your quote to PhD's and "doctors and doctoring".
However, all may not be lost. Just as there is professional recognition for engineers by being awarded the status of Chartered Engineer (CEng), there is professional recognition for scientists by being awarded the status of Chartered Scientist (CSci).
There are over 20 bodies that can make the award, covering Computing (BCS), Chemistry, Geology, the Environment and Mathematics. I have though left the best to last: The Royal Statistical Society is also a member.
Although the Institute of Physics does not award CSci, they do award the CPhys: http://www.iop.org/membership/prof-des/chartership/which/page_38070.html
The Chartered Scientist states: By benchmarking professional scientists at the same high level, CSci aims to re-engage public trust and confidence in Science and scientists.
http://www.charteredscientist.org/about-csci
Does anyone know whether they have been engaged in any way with the Climate Change Saga?
Was this thread about sea level and potential sea level data manipulation?
Or is it just in my imagination?
It's sad that a man who has spent 45 years of his life investigating sea level measurements can be so trashed by his peers. Now, I've worked with absolute t8ssers who should not be let loose on the systems I built, but it usually only took a short time to figure out their short-comings and they were quickly removed and their (lack of) skills made them darn-near unemployable. They would not have survived 45 years.
I'm also sad, in a very perverse way, that the omega trlol has had to be barred - sine die. While I have first-hand experience of the utter frustration of crossing swords with it, I did find that it often gave me a dig in my comfort zone and made me become more disciplined in forming my arguments. However, it came to be that her sheer lack of courtesy and the fact that she NEVER answered any questions meant that any contact with her was a great waste of time and energy. To the extent now that I just can't be bothered with her. She has qualified as one of the t8ssers I spoke of earlier. It's her loss.
And my apologies to your Grace for going off on one.
Its back! Its like the horror movie where the monster can't be killed!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh.........
.[snip] Thinkingscientist - you are exactly one blockquote ahead of me, but I will catch up soon!!!
It's funny -I was going to say to everyone that they should be careful about giving any credence to the 'discredited nutter' Nils-Axel Morner, when I remembered that about 90% of my information came from Wikipedia. Emabarrassing.
I should know too - I write loads and loads for Wikipedia and I am a complete idiot :)
Aleagra posted that Wikipedia says: "Mörner's claim that sea levels are not rising has been criticised for ignoring correctly calibrated satellite altimeter records, all of which show that sea levels are rising"
Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here, but isn't that circular reasoning (or perhaps begging the question) from Wikipedia?
Isn't Morner's point that the 'correctly calibrated' data is simply goosed numbers to get the trend they want to see? So of course he ignores it because it isn't actually 'correctly' calibrated, it's falsified.
"Stay on Target"
That's good advice if you are attacking a Death Star or commenting on a blog post.
Anyone concerned about the treatment of trolls ought to re-read the Hans Verolme item regarding a press conference at the Marshall Institute for Soon and Baliunas. 'The thread includes Verolme's report of the occasion... The meeting disbanded in a somewhat disorganized manner. Mission accomplished.'
Most warmists are not interested in constructive engagement, let alone telling the truth or admitting doubts. They are only interested in destabilising opposition to their loose, multi-faceted conspiracy and spreading FUD.
BH has extended courtesy far above and beyond the call of good manners. Banning, or failing that a far more ruthless attitude to moderation, is wholly justified in defence of the site as a place for civilised and informed discussion. Play by the rules, or go and find your own game.
If I may issue a word or two of csution along the well worn lines of
'You keep using those words 'sea-level'. i do not think they mean what you think they mean.'
Sea level means VERY different things in different contexts and the more you investigate it, the less coherent everything becomes, and circular definitions abound.
Dec 1, 2011 at 5:43 PM | ThinkingScientist:
One of the problems with having dinner between posts is that one can't be sure what's been removed and thus one gets the impression that the comment following on refers to the one before..... :-) At least...I hope, ThinkingScientist, you were not referring to my comment. I assume the omega trlol has been let in again. Cheers.
Darn,
I missed yet another true believer dopplering up into the ultrasonic as their world falls apart.
This believer breakdown is starting to ramp up like a spring thaw in the north country.
I look forward to the great roar to come, and even more so as it increases in frequency into the unhearable ultrasonics.....
As to the topic at hand: SLR is one of the legs of the AGW stool. So now AGW believers are forced to maintain their power whilst balancing on a stool missing extreme weather increases, high sensitivity, slr increase, and temp increases of any significance.
Just how many legs does the AGW stool have?
Chuckles @ 6.27
You're absolutely right. Sea level makes simple, clear, unambiguous sense - until you actually look at it for the first time. Thereafter, it's downhill all the way.
P.S. The fact that I retain a simple, clear, unambiguous sense of what sea level is almost certainly means I haven't got a clue. Happy ignorance, though :)
RE ZED,
I am of the opinion that one humors little children. That and the fact she usually presents a classic example of the type that is so sure they are always right and so impassioned for their causes that they apparently don't mind looking or sounding foolish.
But I can understand why others are tired of her. I was so hoping to see if she would ever answer questions put to her seriously though. Guess that's about as wishful thinking as believing that we are doomed from CAGW.
Anteros, Yes, when I'm feeling cynical, I muse over the fact that many of the cornerstones od CAGW tend to have this ephemeral quality. :)
Last time I looked, UK sea level w\s referenced to the Newlyn Cornwall tide gauge average between 1915 and 1921. Prior to that the reference was in Liverpool. Given that the daily tidal range - swings between high and low tide - can be anywhere from 2m to over 12m at various points on the UK coast these millimetric increases become very notional.
And we haven't even considered the MANY other factors at play.
The global 'mean sea level ' is even worse, since we get successive approximations from spheres to spehroids to ellipsoids to geoids. Where the geoid is the 'equipotential surface' that the sea surface would follow if the land wasn't there. (think gravity map).
Except that a very good gravity map looks like this -
http://www.esa.int/images/Goce-Poster_5000x5000_01_H.jpg
and the variation between actual sea level and this notional one can easily hit +-2m. So claims of millimetric variations inevitably prompt a long list of questions about which assumptions apply.
Oh, and geoid, means 'earth shaped'.....
And if you add in the assumptions used for GPS and aviation, it's a whole new ball of wax. Orthometric heights are not your friend. :)
Article here on GIA (glacial isostatic adjustment). It says that the mean rate of sea level adjustment due to GIA is around -0.3mm a year; this is an order of magnitude smaller than the adjustment applied to the satellite data. And it's the raw figure rather than the adjusted figure which is of interest when deciding whether you're going to be flooded or not.
Sea level in the Mediterranean (that big, tide-less settling pool) shows observational increases from the late 1800's to around 1960 then a levelling-off from then (INSTITUT MEDITERRANI D’ESTUDIS AVANÇAT). They list their error budgets under the headings; Conceptual – Measurement – Sampling – Modelling – Causal – Natural variability – Numerical – Human error – Deliberate error.
As Chuckles points out: 'conceptual' is first on the list.
Hello All,
Mark Lynas cites this paper saying it 'throughly debunked' Morner.
timg56 Im not sure that we are all doomed by CAGW. The catastrophic aspect of it depends on the personal circumstances of the observer. If you live just above sea level now, and then in the future the sea level rises to flood your house that would be catastrophic for you, wouldnt it ?
Snotrocket - yep, another [snip] over dinner!
Re: Hengist,
Well, yes. But let's get the sealevel rise numbers in perspective. Sea level rise is, in my view, likely positive but has been steadily decreasing since the last ice age. Even the IPCC has given the rate previously as 2 - 3 mm per year. Nils-Axel Morner is stating 0.7 mm per year or less. Given the uncertainty those numbers are staitistcally pretty much equivalent.
It was the likes of Al Gore and our Chief Scientific Advisor to Blair (David King) who procalimed in 2001 that sea level could rise 20 ft in 100 years. If that were even remotely possible then in the intervening 10 years, on a linear trend, we would have had a 2 ft (60 cm) sea level rise by now. Any suggestion of sea level rises at that sort of rate are frankly absurd and anyone who believed it in 2001 wants their head examining. Just a couple of holidays to the seaside 5 years apart would show how that prediction was just a complete fabrication.
But we are still being fed these horror stories about sea level rise. Check the analysis of tide gauges at Tuvalu - no statisitically significant change, as Nils-Axel Morner accurately reports.
Sea level has probably been rising at a rate of up to 1 - 3 mm per year for hundreds of years. Mankind has coped quite happily without major trauma during that time, and has even reclaimed large areas from the sea. At a rate of 2 mm per year in 100 years we might see a rise of 20 cm, or 8 inches. You think we can't add two bricks to the freeboard in coastal areas, with all our modern tools? After all we have coped with this sort of change when all we had was manual labour.
Talk of the demise of civilisations due to sea level has been vastly exaggerated and anyone who still believes that canard is frankly little different from those believing in crystal therapy.
BH -
I have reached a landmark in my life - I have crossed the Rubicon.
Today, for the first time ever, despite thousands of previous attempts, I have managed to have a comment 'snipped'. Never have I been snipped, moderated, sin-binned or even soundly admonished for my comments - anywhere on the internet bolgosphere. I have surely arrived at blogospheric abulthood.
So, in a way, I thank you. You have the honour of being my first 'snipper'.
However, I have to point out that the comment [5.45pm] was so mild, so gentle, so innocuous and inoffensive that in itself it must be a record for the most inappropriately deleted sentence.
Has it gone forever, or may I have it back so I can frame it? It might be the only comment that I have snipped [although for God's sake I do bloody well try -I've run out of ways to be obnoxious to some of the morons that turn up here :) ]
Alternatively, I could make the comment again and hope you don't notice....
Let's hope ThinkingScientist and Nils-Axel Morner are right.
Looking at Dr Morners article in the Spectator I am struck by this passage:
"[Bangladesh] is also cursed because of the cyclones which push water inland. Again, this has nothing to do with the sea."
Is Dr Morner saying that water being pushed inland is not seawater ?
Hengist, He's talking about storm surge, not sea level rise. The flooding is caused by weather not by sea level rise.
Hengist
I think you are being obtuse. Some of it is of course sea water, other parts brackish and, in the upper reaches of the delta, fresh. His point, I'm sure you know, is that serious inundations are not the result of a rise in sea level but are caused by seasonal cyclones.
Hengist, I really do think you should look at the well-exposed motivations and manipulations of the Team before posting any tricksy comment. As is clear from a short trawl through the second leak of emails, this is a bunch who gang up to make a scientist 'discredited' if their findings do anything less than spread alarm.