Friday, June 29, 2007

IPCC sea level rise claim is "a fraud"

The claim that the sea is rising at an accelerated rate is bogus. So says one of the world's leading experts on sea level rise, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.

So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use.

Not a simple mistake, either. according to Dr. Mörner.

Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

So if it isn't a simple mistake out of ignorance - what then? As he says, to support predictions of impending doom - you need a trend.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!

"The observations don't find it!" There is no observed sea level rise, no accelerated rise indicated by satellite data, nothing significant whatsoever - but the IPCC have deliberately falsified data to make it appear there is. Why would they do that?

According to Dr. Mörner, the headline grabbing estimate of a sea level rise of 3m in 100 years are also completely ridiculous.

You couldn't have more melting than after the Ice Age. You reach up to 10 mm per year—that was the super-maximum: 1 meter in 100 years. Hudson Bay, in a very short period, melted away: it came up to 12 mm per year. But these are so exceptionally large, that we cannot be anywhere near it; but still people have been saying, 1 meter, 3 meters. It's not feasible!

A rise of 1 metre a century only happens after an Ice Age - and we're currently in an interglacial - so no chance of that whatsoever. The fact is that the IPCC is falsifying data to come up with the answer that their computer models predict. Not only is there no evidence to support their theory, they are changing the evidence that counters it. If that is not political, then what is it?

Time to stop falling for all this garbage. The IPCC, the UN, the EU, the environmental NGO's, the liberal left - they are all involved in the greatest scam perpetrated since man first walked this earth and it is starting to fall to pieces. Some day they are going to have to be held accountable for this fraud.


Sir Henry Morgan said...

OT but:

Petition demanding a referendum on the EU constitution ("amending treaty", so called)

Anonymous said...

Possibly tangential but here goes:

The IPCC has everything backwards. Proper scientific modelling is as follows:

1. Measure data, carefully and with minimum bias.

2. Construct a model you think will describe the problem domain.

3. Run the model and check it's predictions against the measurements.

4. Ensure independent reproducibility of data and model.

The IPCC method of modelling:

1. Select a conclusion that will ensure your continued ride on the gravy train. This conclusion will typically be handed down to you by your paymasters, the politicians.

2. Construct a model based on suitable assumptions that will support the conclusion.

3. Run the model.

4. Selectively choose data that matches the results


5. Falsify data when you can't find any that matches the results.


6. Sensationally declare it's worse than you thought when data is different from the predictions.

The clue is in the name. It's a model, a representation (indeed an approximation) of the real thing. The real thing is the data.

If the model doesn't match the data then the model isn't "too conservative" it is WRONG. Predictions based on a model that is wrong are therefore inevitably WRONG.

Where policy is based on wrong predictions from wrong models we have our current situation which has little to do with correct scientific method and everything to do with keeping a population in fear.