Dr . Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of department of Paelogeofísica and Geodynamics at Stockholm University in Sweden. He has been president (1999-2003) of INQUA, Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of Sea Level Project in the Maldives. Dr. Mörner has spent 35 years studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas. He was interviewed by the weekly Executive Intelligence Review Intelligence on 6 June 2007.
 Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner |
EIR: I would start with a brief overview of its antecedent, and some of the commissions and research groups in which he worked.
Mörner: am a specialist in sea level. There are many good sea-level technicians in the world, but put it this way: There is none that I've won. I did my thesis in 1969, largely devoted to the problem of sea level. I have since released most of the new theories, 70, 80 and 90.
was I who first realized the problem of the gravitational potential of the surface, a theory that changes over time. I was the one who studied the Earth's rotation, and how to redistribute the mass of the oceans. And so on. And then I was president of INQUA, an international fraternal association, the Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution from 1999 to 2003. And to do something intelligent there, we launched an international research program on the Maldives because it is the peak for-there are so many interacting variables there, so it was interesting, and there were people who said that the Maldives-a 1200 smaller islands, were doomed to disappear in 50 years, when more than 100. So it was a very important target.
Then I had my own Research Institute at the University of Stockholm that was dedicated to something known as paleogeofísica and geodynamics. It is primarily a research institute, but many students came and had many doctoral thesis in our university, and a large number of professors and research scientists came to learn about sea level. Working in this field, I think there is a point on the Earth where there is no state. In the far northern Greenland and Antarctica, and across the Earth, and much in their costs. So I have primary data from so many places, I'm talking about, not from ignorance but on the contrary, I know what I'm talking about.
And I have interaction with other branches of science, it is important to see the problems are not with one eye, but from many different perspectives. Sometimes you dig up something very important in any study geodesic read than any other geologist. And you have to have the time and the courage to venture into the great questions, and I think I have done that. The last ten years, so, of course, everything has been discussion about the sea level, they say we're drowning, in the early 90's, I was in Washington giving a speech on a study of mine on how the sea \u200b\u200blevel was not growing, as saying. That was widely echoed around the world.
EIR: what is the true state of sea level rise?
Mörner: It has to do this in several ways. That's what I did in many different studies, so that we can concentrate here on the short story. One way is to look at the big picture, to try to find the essence of it is happening. And entocnes we can see that the level had actually been increasing, say from 1850 to 1930-40. And the rise was in the rate of 1 millimeter per year. Not anymore. 1.1 mm is the exact figure. And we can see that, because Holland is a subsiding area, has been sinking for several million years, and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was raised. So, if you swing it, there is one solu-tion, and is that figure.
That ended in 1940, and there was no increase in the level until 1970, and there we enter the debate about what is happening, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and come back to that later. But before doing that: There is another way to check it because if the radius of the earth the rise, because sea level is rising, then immediately the rate of rotation of the Earth would slow down. That's physics, right? One can see in skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are attached to the body, and when the skaters increase the radius, extending their arms, they reduce the speed of rotation. So you can look at the rotation and the same applies: Yes, it might be 1 millimeter per year, but absolutely nothing else. Could be less because there are other factors that affect Earth, but certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it is a matter of physics.
So we have this issue of 1 millimeter per year until 1939, observed, and have a record of the earth's rotation. Then we proceed with these two data. Sea levels rise and fall, but there is no trend there, it was not until 1930, and then the sea level fell. There is no trend, absolutely no trend.
Another way to see what is happening is the measurement of the level of the tides. The measurement of the ma-areas is a very complicated issue, because it gives different measurements according to the place in the world where they are measured. But to interpret the geology has to rely on .. So, for example, the gene in the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), chose Hong Kong, which has six tide mediators, and they chose to register only one of them, which gives rise 2.3 mm per year. All geologists know that Hong Kong is an area of \u200b\u200bsinking, or subsidence. Is the compaction of sediments, and is the only record that should not be used. And if that is correct, then Holland would not be sinking, would rise.
And that's just ridiculous. Even ignorance is an excuse for such a claim. So tidal measurements are to be taken very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water and only the coasts but across the ocean. And with the satellites are measured. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of sea level] was a straight line, with variations along that line, but there is no trend. Absolutely none. We can see these peaks, a rapid rise but six months down again. But absolutely no trend, and have a sea level rise, you need a trend.
Then in 2003, the same set of data in their publication [IPCC], on its website, was a straight line-suddenly changed and showed a strong increase of 2.3 millimeters per year, the same measurement of tides in Hong Kong. So that it was not measured but a number intro-duced from outside. I would accuse him of this in the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, I said, "You have introduced factors from out, not a measurement. Seems to have been measured from satellites, but you do not say what actually happened. "And they said [the IPCC]," We had to do because otherwise we would not have a trend! "That's terrible
! In fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And here we come to the point: They "know" responses, the rest of us are bus-cating the answers. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from their models computer, not the comments. The observations do not see anything!
I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 as the years past. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them-none-were specialists in sea level. They were given this mission because they had promised to answer the thing "right." Again, it was a matter of computers. This is the typical thing: The meteorological community works with computers, simple computers, not observations.
Geologists do not! We go to the field and observe, and then we can try to make a computer model, but not the principal.
So we're well. Then we went to the Maldives. I drew a drop in sea level in the 70's, and the fishermen told us, "Yes, they are right, because we remember"-things in their shipping routes have changed, things have changed in their ports. I worked in the lagoon, I drilled into the sea, I drilled in lakes, and I looked at the morphology of the beaches, many dif-ferent environments.
always the same: around 1970 the sea dropped 20 centimeters, for reasons involving probably evaporation or something else. No change in the volume or something, was something quick. The new level, which has remained stable, has not changed in the last 35 years. One can trace it very, very carefully. The answer here is no rise in sea level.
Another famous site are the islands of Tuvalu, which is supposed to disappear soon because we have too much carbon dioxide in the air. Here we have a tide gauge, a record variographic since 1978, in ways that are 30 years. And once again, if you look there, there is no trend, no increase of the level. So, where do they get that the increase in Tuvalu Island?
| Dr. Morner was chairman of the Committee on Changes in Sea Level and Coastal Evolution (INQUA) International Union for Quaternary Research (1999-2003) . His ivesigaciones proved that the catastrophic predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on computer models of climate change effects are "nonsense." |
Then you know that Japanese industry had a pineapple that drew much fresh water inland, and those islands have very little fresh water available for precipitation, rain. So if one gets too much, it destroys the store of water, and you risk making a salt water entering the store, which is not good. So much fresh water extracted and entered saltwater. And of course, local people are angry. But it was much easier to say, "No, no! It is the sea level is rising! It has nothing to do with the extraction of fresh water. "And there we have it. This is a local industry that does not work. We have
Vanuatu, and also in the Pacific, north of New Zealand and Fiji is the island of Tegua. They said they had to evacuate because the sea level was rising. But again, looking at the tide gauge: There is no indication that sea level is rising! If anything, one could say that perhaps the tide is ebbing a bit, but absolutely: no growth.
Once again, where does it have taken? They have taken their inspiration, their hopes, their computer models, not observations. What is truly terrible. We have Venice. Venice is well known because that area is tectonic, because the delta is slowly sinking.
The pace has been constant over time. A sea level rise immediately clarify the flood. And it would be so simple registration. And if you look at the record of 300 years in the Century 20 was going up and down, around the rate of subsidence. In 1970, one should see an acceleration, but instead, raising the level almost over. So it has been the opposite.
If you go around the globe, you do not see anywhere promotions. But they need the sea level rise, because if there is an increased level there is a mortal threat. They also say there is nothing good that can result from sea level rise, only problems, coastal problems. If you have a temperature rise, if it is a problem in one place, is beneficial in another. But sea level is the "villain", and therefore have spoken much about it. But the truth is that no information of observations, only computer models.
EIR: I saw the documentary "Judgement Day Cancelled" (Doomsday Called off) in which you were part of it. And you were showing the physical tide in the Maldives, the tree that was there, and if there been a rise in sea level that tree would be gone. And the way in which the coral had grown up on the beach at two different levels, showing two different levels level rise. The way you presented it was the way that geologists do a survey of the area to put things in context.
Mörner: tell you another thing: When I arrived in the Maldives, to our great surprise, one morning we went to an island and said, "This is strange, the storm level has declined, not been increments -graph has declined. "And then I started to check the level all over and I asked others in the group: "Do you see something on the beach?"
And after a while they also discovered. And we have investigated, and we are sure of it, I said we can not leave the Maldives and say that sea level is rising, it is not respectful to people. I have to say on television in the Maldives. So we set a very nice TV for the Maldives, but was banned by the government! Because they thought they would lose money .. They accuse the West of emitting carbon dioxide and therefore have to pay for the damage and flooding. So who wanted the flood stage was kept alive.
This tree, which I showed in the documentary, is interesting. This is an island prison, and when people left the island, from the 50's, was a mark for them, when they saw this tree alone out there on the beach, they say, "Ah, freedom!" They were allowed to return . And there were letters and conversations about it. I knew this tree was eb that terrible position already in the 50's. So the slightest rise and had disappeared. I used it for my writings and for television. Do you know what happened? Australian team came a sea levels, working for the IPCC and against me. Students brought down tree with his bare hands! They destroyed the evidence. What kind of people is this? And came to film the documentary "Judgement Day Cancelled," immediately afterwards, and the tree was still green. And I heard people saying that they had seen who had shot down the tree. So I picked him up and put it back in place, and I did my show for TV. I have not told anyone else, but that is history.
 A famous tree in the Maldives shows no evidence of having been swept by rising sea levels, as had been predicted by global warming scammers. A group of Australian fans of global warming came and knocked down the tree, destroying the evidence that his "theory" is false. |
They call themselves scientists, and they're destroying evidence! A scientist should always be open to reinterpretation, but you can never destroy evidence. And they were being watched, thought they were very clever.
EIR: How does the IPCC get these small island nations so concerned about that tomorrow will be flooded?
Mörner: Because get support, make money, so that idea is to attract money from the industrialized countries. They believe that if the story does not hold lose money. So they love this story. But locals in the Maldives, would be terrible to raise children, why should they go to school, if in 50 years all disappear? The only bear that remains is to learn to swim.
EIR: To take your example of Tuvalu, seems more a matter of how water is managed so that a bottom-up level of the sea.
Mörner: Yes, it's always better to blame anything else. They can wash their hands and say, "It's not our fault. Is the United States, they're emitting too much CO2.
EIR: What is laughable, this idea that CO2 is driving global warming.
Mörner: fact, that's another thing. And as in "State of Fear," by Michael Crichton, when he speaks of the ice. Where is melting the ice? Some alpine glaciers are retreating, others are advancing. Ice indeed the Antarctic is not melting, all records from Antarctica show an expansion of the ice. Greenland is indeed the black horse, the Arctic may be melting, but no matter, because the ice is floating and has no effect on sea level. A glacier like Kilimanjaro, which is important in Ecuador, is declining due to deforestation only. At the foot of Kilimanjaro was a rain forest, the forest had been damp, it came the snow, the snow turned into ice. Now they cut the trees in the forest and moisture rather than heat is now, the heat melts the ice, and no more snow to replenish the ice. So a simple thing, but has nothing to do with temperature.
is the bad behavior of the people around him. Again, it's like Tuvalu: We say it is the deforestation that is the case. But instead they say: "No, no, it's global warming!"
EIR: here in recent days, a group of people making a PowerPoint presentation on melting glaciers , and how this is raising sea levels and creating all kinds of problems.
Mörner: The only place that has that potential is Greenland, and Greenland is not melting, Greenland West Bay Drive is melting, but it has been doing for over 200 years at least, and the rate of melting decreased in the last 50 to 100 years. So it's another fake.
But more importantly, in 5000 years, the entire northern hemisphere has experienced a warming. Warm the Holocene Optimum was 2.5 degrees warmer than now. And yet, there are no problems with the Antarctic or Greenland, still, no increase in sea level.
EIR: These scary story being used for political purposes.
Mörner: Yes Again, this is for me the line of demarcation between the community of meteorologists and us: they work with computer models, we geologists work with observations and the observations do not conform to these virtual environments. So, what do you change-laugh? We can not change the observations, we have to change demanera scenarios false!
Instead of doing this, they will provide an endless amount of money to the side which is in agree-do with the IPCC. The European community has gone far in this matter: If you want a grant for a research project in climatology, is written in the document that must be focused on global warming. All the rest of us, we can never receive a penny because we are not fulfilling the basic requirement. That's really bad because then you start to ask what is the answer they want to get. That's what you do dictatorships, autocratic-stances. They are demanding that scientists produce what they want.
EIR: Science is increasingly moving in that direction, including nuclear energy "is like playing computer games. It's like the design of the Audi, which was done by computer, but not tested in reality, and then ended up turning. They did not care about the principles physical.
Mörner: many scientists are afraid. If they say the weather is not changing, they lose their research grants. And many people can not afford that, they become silent, only a few of us speak, because we think we have to do it for the honesty of science.
EIR: In one of his "papers" scientists you mentioned how the expansion of sea level changed the rota-tion of the Earth in different ways, that was a real eye opener.
Mörner: Yes, but it is exceptionally difficult to publish these studies. The journal editors say, "Oh, this is not the IPCC." Well, fortunately it is not! But one can not say that.
EIR: What she told me the other day, about 22 authors who were from Austria?
Mörner: Three of them were from Austria, where there is no cost! The others were not specialists. So when I became president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, we did a research project, and we take it for discussion in five international matches. And all the sea level specialists agreed with this figure, that in 100 years we could have a sea level rise of 10 centimeters, with an uncertainty of about 10 cm, and that's not much.
In recent years, I've improved, considering also that we are entering a cold phase in 40 years that gives up 5 inches, plus or minus a few centimeters. This work is our best estimate. But that is very, very different from the statements of the IPCC. Ours is just a continuation of the pattern of sea level going back in time. Then one has absolute maximum, as when we had all the ice in the polar ice caps disappearing occurred they were too far south in latitude after the Ice Age.
could not be more melting after the Ice Age. Hsta reached 10 millimeters per year-that was the super maximum: one meter in 100 years. Hudson Bay, is melted in a very short period: it was at 12 mm per year. But they are so unusually large that we could not be ever so close to it, but yet people have been saying, 1 meter, 3 meters. It is not possible! These are figures that are so large that only when the polar caps were vanishing, we had that kind of growth rate.
These figures are quite extreme. This frame is determined by the maximum rate, maximum, and we must be very, well below it. We are building on the observations, in the past, present, and then predicting the future, with the best information of the "grounded" we can get, not computers.
EIR: What people are talking about is not something related only to the erosion of coastlines, and opposed to sea level rise?
Mörner: Yes, and I have beautiful pictures of it. If it has a coastline with some stability in sea level, waves make a balanced type profile . So that transport to the sea and carrying to the beach. If the sea rises a little, yes, attacks, but the attack is not strong. On the other hand, if the sea goes down, is eating the old equilibrium level. There is a much larger redistribution of sand.
We had an island where there was heavy erosion, everything was falling into the sea, trees, everything. But when he saw what had happened: the sand that had gone there, if sea level had risen, that sand would have been transported higher up the beach before. But it is being located below the old beach level. We can see the previous beach and is 20 or 30 cm the beach today. So that this erosion is caused by falling sea level, and not because the sea level has risen. And it is much more common that erosion is caused by a fall in sea level by a rise in it.
Interview Dr. Nils - Axel Mörner
June 22, 2007 - EIR Economics 33
Posted by Eduardo Ferreyra President of FAEC
Science Foundation Ecology Argentina
Originally Published On:
http://www.mitosyfraudes. org/Calen7/MornerEstudio.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment