[quote]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. The new level, which has been stable, has
not changed in the last 35 years. You can trace it so very, very
carefully. No rise at all is the answer there.[/quote]
This, by the way, was very easy to find… see the link…
Gosh. This one was not very hard to find either… The tables/graphs do not copy so go to the link to see these. Happy to hear from you where the criticisms will be. I shall be looking forward to it as I have already read them myself. I do look forward to your response. And damn it mods… this screen is still jumping so there is technical difficulty of something here again with long posts… I left a message in feedback but the problem still seems just as bad.
[quote]Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project
FACTS AND FICTION ABOUT SEA LEVEL CHANGE MAY LOW-LYING ISLANDS AND COASTAL AREAS BE FREED FROM THE CONDEMNATION TO BECOME FLOODED IN THE NEAR-FUTURE
Climate is becoming increasingly warmer we hear almost every day. This is what has become known as Global Warming. The driving idea is that there is a linear relationship between CO2 increase in the atmosphere and global temperature. The fact, however, is that temperature has constantly gone up and down. From 1850 to 1970, we see an almost linear relationship with Solar variability; not CO2. For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data.
Most remarkable in the record of climatic changes during the last 600 years are the cold periods around 1450, 1690 and 1815 and their correlation with periods of Solar Minima (the Spörer, Maunder and Dalton Solar Minima). The driving cyclic solar forces can easily be extrapolated into the future. This would call for a new cold period or “Little Ice Age” to occur at around 2040-50. Still, we hear nothing about this. It is as if IPCC and the Kyoto Protocol enthusiasts want to “switch off the Sun itself”. Let us take this, at least, as a piece of information to rise our awareness and curiosity.
In the global warming concept, it has been constantly claimed that there will be a causal rise in sea level; a rise that already is in the accelerating mode, in the near future to cause extensive and disastrous flooding of low-lying coastal areas and islands. “It will be the death of our nation”, says the President of the Maldives, and the people of Tuvalu in the Pacific claim that the flooding has already commenced.
Is this facts or fiction? It is true that we are flooded by this information. But what lies behind this idea? And, especially, what do the true international specialists think?
The recording and understanding of past changes in sea level, and its relation to other changes (climate, glacial volume, gravity potential variations, rotational changes, ocean current variability, evaporation/precipitation changes, etc) is the key to sound estimates of future changes in sea level.
The international organisations hosting the true specialists on sea level changes are to be found with the INQUA commission on sea level changes and the IGCP special projects on sea level changes. When I was president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, 1999-2003, we paid special attention just to this question; ie proposed rise in sea level and its relation to observational reality. We discussed the issue at five international meetings and by Webb-networking. Our opinion is illustrated in Fig 2. In view of the Fig 1 prediction, I have later revised the estimate for year 2100 to: +5 cm ± 15 cm.
Prior to 5000-6000 BP, all sea level curves are dominated by a general rise in sea level in true glacial eustatic response to the melting of continental ice caps. In the last 5,000 years, global mean sea level has been dominated by the redistribution of water masses over the globe. In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillating close to the present level, with peak rates in the period 1890-1930 (Fig 3).
It is true that sea level rose in the order of 10-11 cm from 1850 to 1940 as a function of Solar variability and related changes in global temperature and glacial volume. From 1940 to 1970, it stopped rising, maybe even fell a little. In the last 10-15 years, we see no true signs of any rise or, especially, accelerating rise (as claimed by IPCC), only a variability around zero. This is illustrated in Fig 3.
With the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite mission in 1992, we now have new means of recording actual sea level changes. The record from 1992 to early 2000 (Fig 4) lacks any sign of a sea level rise; it records variability around zero plus a major ENSO even in year 1997.
When we three years later have the same record extended into year 2003 on the Webb, a tilt has been introduced. This tilt does not originate from the satellite altimetry readings, however, but represents an inferred factor from tide-gauge interpretations. In order to get back to true satellite data, we have to tilt the whole record back to its original data of Fig 4. When this is done, there is no sea level rise to be seen—only a variability around zero plus a number of high-amplitude ENSO oscillations (Fig 5). This is why I in Fig 3 conclude that the sea level remained stationary at around zero for the last 10-15 years (as further discussed in Mörner, 2004a and 2005).
The tide-gauge introduced into the satellite data on the Webb seems to violate observational facts at sites spread all over the globe; not least our NW European data covering both uplifted areas (Fennoscandia, Scotland) as subsiding areas (the North Sea).
From 2000 to the present, we have run a special international sea level project in the Maldives including six field sessions and numerous radiocarbon dates. Our record for the last 1,200 years is given in Fig 6. There are no signs of any on-going sea level rise. It seems all to be a myth.
Tuvalu in the Pacific is often said already to be in the flooding mode. The tide-gauge record (Fig 7) for the last 25 years does not show any rise, however. The truth seems to be that a Japanese pineapple industry had subtracted too much freshwater by that forcing saltwater to invade the subsurface.
Fig 7. The Tuvalu tide-gauge record 1978-2003 showing stability around a zero level plus three negative ENSO events (from Mörner, 2004c).
Venice is notorious for its flooding problems. It lies on a delta area subjected to subsidence. Therefore, the sea level variations are superposed on a long-term subsidence trend (Fig 8). Any rise in sea level would immediately worsen the situation. The last 30 years lack signs of any rise or accelerated rise, on the contrary sea level fell (partly as a function of engineering work).
Fig 8. Observes sea level changes (purple) superposed on a long-term subsidence trend (blue). At 1970 (green arrow), there is a marked change in tendency, partly due to engineering work, but certainly seriously contradicting a sea level rise and especially an accelerated sea level rise.
In conclusion; observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore, we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future.[/quote]