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)
Your worshipfulness,
What'd I do?
Your blog, your home, etc. But I did not even mention Z** or say anything meant to be snarky or bad.
No complaints: my intent is to be respectful of your terms and still have some fun.
Sincerely,
Etc.
The IPCC consensus makes a lot about having the top experts in the field of climate science and related matters. They are right and everyone else is wrong
Yet in the field of sea level rises, a top expert in the field, who stresses the uncertainties and measurement problems, comes to a different less alarmist conclusion.
When climate scientists say it is warmer now than for a thousand years, the balance of studies differs, and an expert statistical analyst finds the conclusions unsubstantiated (See the Hockey Stick Illusion).
When the IPCC consensus says that the Antarctic sea ice is melting, a scientist who draws from diverse studies and measuring techniques says there is no such melting.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/9k58637p80534284/
When the IPCC consensus says hurricanes are getting strong and more frequent, they ignore the majority of studies that there is no link between global warming and hurricanes.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1766-2005.36.pdf
When the IPCC consensus claimed that global warming causes more malaria, the real experts disagree.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/04/malaria-and-global-warming-no-linkage/
So when the next global warming alarmist says they are right and everybody else is wrong, point them to the more rounded, less dogmatic views.
I'm late to this thread, so missed the Zed contretemps, but I'm taking a wild guess that his/her posts involved an observation about Nils-Axel Morner's other, perhaps non-scientifically based beliefs (since Google is available to all - dowsing), and then used these to denigrate his observations about his area of expertise - sea-level rise.
If so, I can understand the Bish's problem. However, hand on heart, most of us on here would admit that a person's prior pronouncements can and will be held against them. Of course they will. An example from my point of view is Delingpole v Goldacre. I'm instinctively with Goldacre (a CAGW believer) on alternative medicine, but instinctively with Delingpole on CAGW scepticism.
Therefore, it sadly comes down to a pure slanging match to gain the favour of fickle public opinion, or, more accurately, the favour of the most influential media outlets.
If the data show no sea-level rise, then the responsible course of action is to suppress that data (sorry, take a democratic decision not to publish it), as happened yesterday in Sydney.
The former coastal manager at the climate change department noted that 2 reports showed measurements of sea-level rise in Sydney Harbour of under 1mm/year, far less than alarmists were claiming.
He said: “Both papers were accepted and at the last minute both were withdrawn on instructions from the department.”
Amazingly, given the alarmist attitude of the Aussie media, this made the Chanel 7 evening news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9Q_Ss7Pebw
Dec 1, 2011 at 4:57 PM | John Silver
'Of course, Darwin could be wrong too.'
Isn't there a book about that?
Back to sea level, it all depends where you do the measuring. And it's al relative. For example: Sea level in north west Scotland is falling (due to isostatic rebound after the last ice age) and sea level in south east England is rising (due to plate tectonics basically).
A whole host of factors control local and global sea level. One of which is not CO2.
My geology professor always quoted Bob Dylan when talking about plate tectonincs: "The carpet too is moving under you..."
Dec 1, 2011 at 9:22 PM | ThinkingScientist
Sea level has probably been rising at a rate of up to 1 - 3 mm per year for hundreds of years.
====================
... congruent with the post LIA natural warming.
"Today, for the first time ever, despite thousands of previous attempts, I have managed to have a comment 'snipped...'.-- Anteros
Take heart, Anteros. In the past three years, I've been snipped or deep sixed* by all of the Big Three: Climate Audit, Wattsupwiththat, and here in the Bishopric, itself. My latter comment was up and gone within 60 seconds, a record of some sort, and quite understandable, since I compared a certain profession to an even older profession, albeit with a clever bit of sesqui-entendre. Wattsup's moderator didn't like my comparing Climate Science to the Tower of Babel, too biblical for them, and CA didn't agree with my taste in music. Who knew?
I, too, was getting bored with the cimex lectularius, and saw no redeeming social value there, so AMF** to her.
* my token allusion to sea level to be on-topic
** adios my friend
This reads like the state of the art, though the IPCC lead authors will certainly prefer their own modelled rubbish.
It concludes that there is no aceleration in measured data, and modelled projection are opposite in sign and 2 orders of magnitudes too high.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
Though the plural of anecdote is not data, Morner has a lot of actual physical evidence to back him up. As a contrast, almost all the sea-level rise acceleration that is used as proof by CAGW seems to be from adjusted data, some of which is even modelled as extrapolations from a very small dataset. It is also predicted the effects will be in the medium to distant future so the predictions can't be verified. It always seems to rely on tipping points when there has been no evidence presented that these actually exist.
With regard to ZBD, I am confused. I always thought that she was a phantom troll invented by the Bish to liven up slow blogs and raise everyone's blood pressure. Is this now not so?
jorgekafkazar
Well, I think I am going to miss our dear. She could certainly be entertaining when on a rage. Fortunately, we still have that solid Scottish -- ah, no, I guess I can't say that -- er, personage, Hengist McStone to fill in as the devil's advocate -- ah, I can say that, can't I? And indeed I was concerned that he had somehow managed the same fate because I have noticed that he had not posted for a couple days, and indeed did not reappear until the Bishop responded to my inquiry in a positive manner.
Back to the topic. When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast a couple years ago, a very good friend had 25 feet of water in his house -- storm surge. Had absolutely nothing to do with rising sea levels, it had everything to do with a category 5 hurricane and being on the wrong side of the eye.
Talking of getting "snipped", it happened to me when I suggested that Hengist had an affinity to sheep!
I've just followed Hengist's link to the paper by Prof Philip Woodworth and read the abstract and chapter headings. (The full paper is behind a paywall.)
Prof Morner has been to the Maldives 6 times, initially around 1970 as a junior member of a team and most recently circa 2003 as team leader. His paper describes how his multi-disciplinary team made observations and measurements of all aspects of geology, oceanography, botany, corals, marine life, etc relevant to the determination of sea level from time to time. They spoke to the native fishermen about sea levels. They took photographs. They have even published before and after photos of the high tide mark to illustrate the fall in sea level since 1970.
On the other hand, Prof Woodworth sat in a lab in the UK and tried to figure out a mechanism which could explain Morner's findings using oceanographic, geomagnetic, and meteorological databases. He couldn't explain the findings and therefore concluded that they were implausible.
I leave it to the reader to decide whether failing to find an explanation for an observed phenomenon establishes that the phenomenon didn't happen. Mark Lynas apparently thinks so. Would this be Mark Lynas, the activist, the guy who actually came up with the idea that the Maldives government should hold a cabinet meeting underwater so as to milk the developed world for guilt money ?
Lynas and Monbiot have a joint article rubbishing Morner at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims
full of referenced evidence that shows that he is an eccentric weirdo (no disqualification for a sea level expert in my book, but Guardian readers are a puritan lot).
Interesting that Monbiot tries to debunk Nils Morner by reference to dowsing. Apparently South West Water (possibly others) employ dowsers to find underground features that cannot be found by instruments or maps.
This is typical Monbiot tactics of attacking the person and not the facts. What does it matter whether he dowses or not. What will be the next line of attack? Ethnicity, religion, politics, smoking, drinking?
It remains a fact that sea level is difficult to ascertain. NOAA tide gauges show sea level rise at 1.4mm/year http://tinyurl.com/boegzhc but satellites say it is more than double http://tinyurl.com/4ynu5co. Why?
Also remember that most of the older NOAA satellites are/were in decaying orbits. How accurately can that be assessed?
I think Mark Lynas is either an emotional mess, or a very sinister operative indeed. It is more charitable to go with the former model, I think. I regard his contributions on climate as food for the analysis of him rather than as substance for the discussion on climate. His shoot from the hip approach has led to some sensible statements, but oh what a lot of drivel as well. I think Monbiot is capable of deeper penetration and insight, but is hobbled by his deep leftwing convictions that seem to poison his view of humanity, and of its great achievements to date.
The use of isostatic rebound to muddy the sea level rise/fall seems like something that should be pretty easily adjusted for and it shouldn't be a big adjustment. Isostatic rebound (the rise of land after the weight of the glaciers was removed following their melting at the end of the ice age) is a real thing and can creat major changes in apparent sea level. Sigtuna in Sweden used to be the capital in the middle ages ages until isostatic rebound left the port high and dry and well away from the sea. However satelite measurements should see the real rise in sea level. Isostacy can only come into play for real sea level rise from the displacement of water by rising sea bottom. This can only occur in areas once covered by Ice age ice sheets. Isostacy on land doesn't do it, it must be under the sea. The areas once covered by ice that are now under the sea are pretty small. The main areas would be the Bering Sea, Hudsons Bay and the Baltic Sea as well as certain areas around Russia. There isn't much impact from areas around Antartica - this area is still covered in major ice. An area of contention is just how much these undersea areas are rising - it's pretty hard to measure and will be different from place to place depending on how much ice once sat on top of them.
Hope this helps.
Just for balance, Morner fans should read this and links therein.
An interesting picture emerges.
BBD,
I've taken a look at the 3 tide guage links in the Monbiot article and there is food for thought.
Morner found a drop in sea level of around 20 cm in the early 1970s and no subsequent trend. Presumably, his data was collated and compiled circa 2003 in view of the publication date of his paper.
The tide guage readings only go back as far as 1987 so they tell us nothing about Morner's claim of a 20 cm drop in sea level in the early 1970s.
HANIMAADHOO shows no trend in sea level. Data for this guage stops in 2002. Why ?
GAN II shows a rising trend but this seems to end around 1998, coinciding with the turning point in global temperatures and consistent with Envirosat readings of a slight decline since then.
MALE-B shows a consistently rising trend which, judging by eye, seems to be about 6 cm over 20 years. At that rate it would take about 50 more years for the sea level to rise to the level Morner found in 1970.
Interesting point : perhaps Prof Woodworth can explain why tide guages so close together (HANIMAADHOO and MALE-B) can show such different trends. Is this "plausible"? Perhaps there is compaction at Male because of development?
BBD, is it? Seems the Monbiot blog piece is unfocussed rant to me.
I met Nils at the Downing College conference - was one of the most engaging speakers there and as an open and transparent a scientist as you could hope for.
I am sure there is a good debate to be had on sea levels (there was at the conference too!) and it would be great to hear both sides and read the papers. Maybe you can start with those very alarming graphs on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise