Sea Level Expert Rips Study Claiming Fastest Rise in 2800 years: Study ‘full of very bad violations of observational facts’


By: - Climate DepotFebruary 23, 2016 1:50 PM with 152 comments

But Professor Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal erosion who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University calls the new study and the media spin surrounding it “demagogic.”
“The PNAS paper is another sad contribution to the demagogic anti-science campaign for AGW. It is at odds with observational facts and ethical principles,” Morner wrote to Climate Depot. “The paper is full of very bad violations of observational facts,” Morner explained.
Few scientists have published as much on the subject of sea level rise as Dr. Mörner. He is also a co-founder of the Prague-based Independent Committee on Geoethics.
Morner noted:
– global tide gauges show moderate mean rates
– many key sites and test sites show little or no rise at all
– nowhere do we find records of true “acceleration”
– satellite altimetry show a mean rise of 0.5 ±0.1 mm/yr after back-callibration
– past sea level oscillations have been faster & steeper that in the last century
Morner explained: “The paper is full of very bad violations of observational facts.”
Just one first example:
This is their graph of sea level change at Christmas Island , Kiribati
This is the tide gauge record from Christmas Island
Morner asked: “How can anyone find a rapidly rising trend in this tide gauge record? It is flat or rather slowly falling – but in no way rising.”
So they work – with no respect to observational facts. A true case for Fraud Investigation,” Morner added.
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, Former Chair of School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology also weighed in on the studies. “So, what to make of all this?” Curry wrote on her blog on Feb. 23, 2016.
Curry: “At a presentation that I made earlier this year to CEOs of small electric cooperatives, one participant was surprised by what I had to say about sea level rise – he hadn’t realized that there had been sea level rise prior to 1950.  I.e., like ‘climate change’, all sea level rise has been sold as caused by humans.
Sea level has overall been rising for thousands of years; however, as the Kopp et al. paper points out, there have been century scale periods of lowering sea level in the recent millennia.  It is not clear from my cursory reading as to whether meaningful decadal and multi-decadal variations in sea level can be discerned from their data.

The key issue is whether the sea level rise during the past 50 years reflect an acceleration in sea level rise.  The IPCC figure 3.14 suggests that there is no acceleration, given the large rates of sea level rise in the first half of the 20th century.  Until we have an understanding of variations in decadal and multi-decadal sea level rise, we can’t make a convincing argument as to acceleration.

With regards to coastal planning, I absolutely agree with the paper linked to above.  Locations where sea level rise is a problem invariably have rates of sea level rise that are much greater than even the altimeter values of 3.2 mm/yr are caused by local geologic processes, land use, and or coastal/river engineering.  Global values of sea level rise have essentially no use in coastal planning; rather they seem mainly relevant in terms of motivating ‘action’ on carbon mitigation policy.

Sea level will continue to rise, no matter what we do about CO2 emissions.  We need creative solutions – one of my favorites remains the garbage solution.

#
More analysis of new sea level rise study: The article was based on some very complex statistical work and in that context we note that the authors describe their work as “semi-empirical”.  What does that mean?  It simply means that their results come partly from  guesswork.  And seeing the authors are keen Warmists we can be sure in which direction their guesses tended. And, with the complex nature of their analyses, guesses at various points could make a big difference to the final outcome.  To believe their conclusions would therefore require an act of faith.”
Another analysis:  “HH Lamb also provides strong evidence that sea levels were at least as high, and probably higher, back in the Middle Ages, and also around 400 AD. In between, sea levels fell, so we know that sea levels have never been the sort of constant thing often portrayed. For instance, he talks of sea levels dropping by 2 meters between 2000 and 500 BC, a rate of 1.33mm/year. As I think it is safe to assume that this was not a steady rate throughout, it seems reasonable to assume that for much of this period the fall was much greater.”
Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller told Climate Depot on Feburary 24: ‘For the past 130 years there has been ZERO acceleration in sea-level rise as directly measured by tide gauges in tectonically inert areas (land neither moving up nor down), even as CO2 has risen almost 40% in the same period.’ Also see: Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller: ‘There is no measurable linkage between Sea Level and CO2!’ – ‘The Inconvenient CO2/Sea Level Non-Linka
Related Links:
Past Sea Level Rise Data ‘Adjusted’ Upward: NASA has ‘more than tripled sea level rise by simply altering the data’ – In 1982, NASA showed 1 mm/year.  Now they claim 3.3 mm/year. They have more than tripled sea level rise by simply altering the data.

New paper finds sea level rise has decelerated 44% since 2004 to only 7 inches per century – Published in Global and Planetary Change – According to the authors, global mean sea level rise from 1993-2003 was at the rate of 3.2 mm/yr, but sea level rise ‘started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.’ – ‘The authors also find “This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during last decade,” which is in direct opposition to claims that the oceans “ate the global warming.” This finding debunks alarmist claims that ocean heat uptake has increased over the past decade, demonstrating instead that ocean heat uptake has decreased during the global warming pause since 2004, and has gone negative since 2007′

New paper finds global sea levels will rise only about 5 inches by 2100 — A new peer-reviewed paper by sea level expert Dr. Nils-Axel Morner – Study ‘concludes that Australian government claims of a 1 meter sea level rise by 2100 are greatly exaggerated, finding instead that sea levels are rising around Australia and globally at a rate of only 1.5 mm/year. This would imply a sea level change of only 0.13 meters or 5 inches by 2100. Dr. Morner also finds no evidence of any acceleration in sea level rise around Australia or globally’

Flashback 1987: ‘Global Warming’ Causes Sea Levels to Fall — 2016: ‘Global Warming’ Causes Slowdown In Sea Level Rise – Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “Before ‘global warming’ caused sea level INCREASES, ‘global warming’ caused sea level DECREASES in 1987. Now in 2016, a NASA study is claiming ‘global warming’ is causing a slowdown in sea level rise.”

Drowning in Sea Level Nonsense: ‘ The notion of the seas rising, swamping coastal cities, and creating havoc is the stuff of science fiction, not science’

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook debunks ‘absurd’ new warmist study claiming 1,700 U.S. cities will be below sea level by 2100 — Easterbrook: ‘The rate used by [Lead Author] Strauss for his predictions is more than 10 times the rate over the past century!’

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook debunks ‘absurd’ new warmist study claiming 1,700 U.S. cities will be below sea level by 2100 — Easterbrook: ‘The rate used by [Lead Author] Strauss for his predictions is more than 10 times the rate over the past century!’ – Easterbrook: ‘The accelerated rise is based on postulated accelerated warming but there has been no warming in the past 15 years and, in fact, the climate has cooled during that time. So no climatic warming means no accelerated sea level rise as postulated by Strauss…the huge rise of sea level rates proposed by Strauss are absurd and that the maximum sea level rise by 2100 will be less than one foot’

New Study sea level expert Prof. Morner: ‘At most, global average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per century. It is probably not rising at all’ – Sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.– ‘Modelling is not a suitable method of determining global sea-level changes, since a proper evaluation depends upon detailed research in multiple locations with widely-differing characteristics. The true facts are to be found in nature itself’

Are sea-levels rising? Nils Axel-Morner documents a decided lack of rising seas – Sea level scares are, ‘as it turns out, one interpretation of some highly adjusted, carefully selected data, all possibly ‘corrected’ by one outlying tide gauge in Hong Kong. Nils Axel-Morner is here to point out that the raw satellite data shows barely any rise, and furthermore, the observations from places all over, like the Maldives, Suriname, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, Venice, and Germany show not much either. It’s close enough to zero to call it ‘nothing’


  • Will Haas

    What caused sea level rise 2800 years ago to be greater than it is today? That is well past the end of the last ice age and the Holocene optimum. It could not possible have been Man’ s use of fossil fuels, not 2800 years ago.

    • Susanjconley3

      ❝my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….two days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here!!b111➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsLab/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:::::!!b111…….

      • Will Haas

        SPAM!

    • Dano2

      What caused sea level rise 2800 years ago to be greater than it is today?

      What information do you have that found this?

      Best.

      D

      • Will Haas

        It is in the title of the article.

        • Dano2

          What information do you have that it was faster, say, 3000 years ago? 2900 years ago?

          Best,

          D

          • goodspkr

            What evidence do you have that it was slower? Dano is the definition of a troll.

          • Dano2

            Little goodspkr tells little fibs for attention. Why?

            Nonetheless, the commenter is confused. My question points out how. Can LoInfo goodspkr grasp it?

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            You never answer any questions. I think Isandhlwana has your number.

          • Dano2

            “I think”. Good one! I LOLzed!

            You can’t cover up your makin up stuff or your inability to grasp simple things.

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            You have absolutely no self awareness of how pitiful your put downs are. There not clever and they have nothing backing them up. You’re a sad little man, Dano.

          • Isandhlwana79

            He’s an idiot best ignored.

          • goodspkr

            Agreed.

          • Dano2

            I’d say that too if I was called out on a blatantly false assumption I made.

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            Hand-flapping to hide ignorance. We get it, standard fare from this one.

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            Actually you don’t get it. You do it.

          • Dano2

            More standard fare, delivered standardly.

            Best,

            d

          • goodspkr

            Hmmm, so you admit you not only don’t get it, you do it.

          • Dano2

            Continuing the weak standard fare, aye.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            True. He is an arrogant asswhole who thinks he understands climate dynamics. He has no clue. All he can do is try to condescend others. He doesn’t even do that well.

          • Dano2

            You can’t show a single byte of anything I typed is incorrect, BTW.

            Best,

            D

          • Will Haas

            If a faster sea level rise occurred longer ago then 2800 years then they would have used the larger number in the title of this article.

          • Dano2

            Nope. That’s not it. Try again.

            Best,

            D

          • Will Haas

            Yes, it is it.

          • Dano2

            You lack capacity to understand why you are confused about the paper.

            Best,

            D

          • Will Haas

            No I am not confused about the paper. If a faster sea level rise occurred longer ago then 2800 years then the authors would have used the larger number in the title of this article. Others have furnished evidence that what I am saying is true.

          • Dano2

            Let’s try this, and I’ll type slowly and use small words:

            How far back did paper go? (sorry about that two syllable word there)

            Best,

            D

      • https://andymaypetrophysicist.wordpress.com/ Andy May

        Dano2, you seem impervious to facts. But, here they are none-the less. 2800 years ago was the end of the Greek dark ages a very cold period that ended many civilizations. Then the Roman Warm Period began. It was much warmer than today and caused a lot of ocean water expansion, thus rising sea levels. I’m sure some glacial melting contributed as well. Sea level rise was rapid and well documented as cities moved inland. The original Alexandria, Egypt, for example, is now under water. You can see a picture of a 3000 year old Egyptian statue in the Smithsonian article “Raising Alexandria.”

        • Dano2

          Facts are facts. You don’t get your own facts.

          And you were duped: the Roman Warm Period began. It was much warmer than today

          Ouch.

          Best,

          D

          • goodspkr

            Truth hurts Dano.

          • Dano2

            You cannot show the RWP was warmer than today. You are bluffing. Weakly. Standard weak fare from little goodspkr.

            best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            You are the idiot who denied what Andy May said and then said “Ouch.” LOL. You are actually quite easy to best

          • Dano2

            Smartie-boots can’t grasp poor Andy can’t back his assertion, so has a sads.

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            And you backed your assertion where? Oh, yeah, in that leaky brain of yours.

          • Dano2

            What assertion do you think it is I should be backing?

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            What evidence do you have that it was slower?

          • Dano2

            Um, the paper that you didn’t read?

            Best,

            d

          • goodspkr

            Quote please and the link the quote is from

          • Dano2

            Here are the grafs from the paper for you. and another from a story that was done. Here is the doi:
            doi: 10.1073/pnas.1517056113

            HTH

            Best,

            D
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a878083265b9c42717b814ade0d416866947dff20f1d8b871185a3e33926575e.jpg
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/15b60615d3913280ca521367ef4d69a531530b80edf88e0399e67b152de9c5ce.jpg

          • goodspkr

            Pitiful try, D2, but you said, ‘What information do you have that it was faster, say, 3000 years ago? 2900 years ago”

            You then claim to prove it wrong by posting a link that goes back 2500 years. LOL. What a putz.

          • Dano2

            I didn’t claim that at all.

            Weak flail on your part. Very weak.

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            Actually you did. But your ability to keep track of what you are claiming appears to be greatly limited.

          • Dano2

            Another little fib. You s*ck at this.

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            I will admit when it comes to lying, you don’t s*ck at it.

          • Dano2

            Weak flail. Two in an hour, you’re on a roll!

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            LOL. Obviously saying something is a weak flail is a good one for you. LOL, You are so easy.

          • Dano2

            Three in an hour! Lookit you go, boyeeeee!

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            Congrats. You can count to three. Wow. That’s the most impressive thing you’ve done in the past year.

          • Dan Phillips

            “Goodspkr” is a retirement-age public speaker named Jim Kutsko – not a scientist. He has repeatedly refused to answer how he, as a retirement-age non-scientist AGW denialist, is somehow able to see a “truth” that evades hundreds of major scientific organizations, world-wide. Are all of these hundreds of major scientific organizations corrupt? Are they all somehow not intelligent enough to come to the correct conclusions, leaving this retirement-age non-scientist to reveal the “truth” to the world? How likely does he find these two scenarios, and what might either one say about his own understanding of how science works? Or, does he have an alternative explanation?

          • Scottar

            Are all of these hundreds of major scientific organizations corrupt?

            Yep:

            Can Humans Cause Global Warming with CO2-Emissions From the Burning of Fossil Fuels?

            Fred Goldberg Ph.D. is a climate analyst and authority on polar history and exploration, affiliated with the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) from 1969 to 2000.

            The IPCC Exposed

            Corbett Report.

            IPCC exposed by Donna Laframboise

            Here Donna, investigative reporter exposes the lies of the claims IPCC makes that it is a professional organization of climate scientists, nothing could be further from the truth! LOL

          • Dan Phillips

            Looks like you didn’t understand the question, Scottar. A denier-financed YouTube screed proves nothing. If you think there’s a big global conspiracy which has somehow taken over all major scientific institutions as well as almost all governments, then you have bigger problems than this discussion.

          • Scottar

            Denier financed? You went deep into the koolaide punch bowl for that one. Donna was being interviewed about her book and she is spot on.

            The IPCC Exposed

            Corbett Report.


            Climategate: The Backstory

            http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/I-ipc2.htm
            IPCC’s abuse of science 2

            http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/
            I was Tossed Out of the Tribe- Judith Curry

            http://www.amazon.com/Environmentalism-Gone-Mad-Activist-Discovered-ebook/dp/B00WFN8R50/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454953737&sr=1-1&keywords=Radical+Green+Energy+Fantasy

            Environmentalism Gone Mad: How a Sierra Club Activist and Senior EPA Analyst Discovered a Radical Green Energy Fantasy by Alan Carlin

            Enjoy your humble pie chump!

          • Scottar

            PNAS has been compromised like NASA-GISS and NOAA:

            http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/strong-academic-objections-to-unopposed-election-for-national-academies-president/

            Strong Academic Objections to Unopposed Election for National Academies President

            December 21, 2015 at 5:49 pm Robert Zimmerman

    • https://andymaypetrophysicist.wordpress.com/ Andy May

      These document that the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than today.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bor.12003/abstract

      http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~blinsley/Dr._B._K_Linsley/Indonesia_&_Pacific_Intermediate_Water_files/Rosenthal.Linsley.Oppo%202013%20Pac.Ocean.Heat.pdf

      There is no doubt about this. Coming into the RWP from the Greek dark age caused sea level to begin to rise rapidly, roughly 3000 years ago.

    • Scottar

      And here’s the proof:

      http://www.eco-imperialism.com/history-falsifies-climate-alarmist-sea-level-claims/

      History Falsifies Climate Alarmist Sea Level Claims

      December 4, 2013 Robert W. Endlich

  • Scott Scarborough

    This looks like another case of “Hide the Decline.” From what Nils-axel Morner shows, the proxy for sea level obviously doesn’t line up with what current measurements are showing so just ignore the discrepancy and publish the report!

  • Dano2

    So yet another Emeritus Professor with a scant publishing record (with major errors in the paper, making its conclusions flawed) on a topic is hauled out as an expert.

    No wonder they use this guy – he incorrectly stated in a published work that sea levels weren’t even rising. Just the man for the denialist crew.

    Best,

    D

    • Sam

      Troll.

    • brew_it

      Still trolling. good job!

      Best,

      C

    • jeff

      Sea level rises when we come out of an ice age. Always has. Always will. Humans cannot accelerate it or decelerate it. If you believe otherwise you really are a moron. Sea level does what it wants but it’s cute that you still believe in a theory that was debunked 30 years ago called global warming.
      Best,
      J

      • Dano2

        Thanks smartie. The fake expert is not an expert. And seas are rising more rapidly now than at any time in the past 2800 years, thanks!

        Best,

        D

        • jeff

          Quite the contrary D. You haven’t been paying attention. Majority of research shows that sea level rise is not at all faster today than during any previous interglacial. And in fact sea level rise over the last 50 years has slowed down to what it was the preceding 100 years. From about 1850-1950 sea level rise was much faster and that was before man-made co2 emissions were in full swing. So, you can be rest-assured that driving your car has zero affect on the rate of sea level rise. Co2 and sea level rise have no correlation as you can conclude since the rate of rise has indeed slowed over the last 50 years even though co2 levels continue to go up. Thanks for playing.
          Best,
          J

          • Dano2

            Derp!

            Majority of research shows that sea level rise is not at all faster today than during any previous interglacial.

            [citation needed]

            And in fact sea level rise over the last 50 years has slowed down to what it was the preceding 100 years.

            [citation needed] https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/536f222df2e80fb71aaabbcd9368fd0fb3499e3f3f2bf98334ac26d8477c7dce.png

            From about 1850-1950 sea level rise was much faster

            You were duped (willingly?).

            Best,

            D

          • jeff

            LOL. poor D. your religion has been exposed and your denial is the last refuge of a scoundrel. As your church collapses you cling to it rather than accept the truth. Your fake data charts have been exposed as fraudulent since Climategate in 2009. It is entertaining watching you pathetically try to cling to your failed religion. Remember, intelligent people are open to other view points and open to change, idealogues and zealouts are not. I feel bad for you and your lot.
            Best,
            J

          • Dano2

            No citations?

            You made some stuff up. Clearly.

            Best,

            D

          • brew_it

            already been debunked, by the expert in the article. Thanks for playing!

            All the best,

            C

          • Dano2

            There is no expert in the article. And you were pre-bunked, thanks!

            Best,

            D

  • Mike435

    Your expert on sea level rise is also an advocate of dowsing. Too funny! Next thing you know deniers will think the a website run by a former aid to Sen Inhofe, whose claim to fame is being the master of political smear jobs, is a reliable source for scientific information. No, that’s just too absurd.

    “Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. He was elected “Deceiver of the year” by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for “organizing university courses about dowsing…”.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner#Views_on_sea_level_change

    • Dano2

      …and the only paper he ever wrote on sea level contained egregious errors. Just the man for the job!

      Best,

      D

      • Eulenspigel

        “…and the only paper he ever wrote on sea level contained egregious errors. ”

        Lol, you think he’s only ever published 1 paper on SLR? I love the way you guys make things up. You truly are a delusional loon.

        • Dano2

          [citations needed]

          Best,

          D

          • Eulenspigel

            You’re the one that said he has a “scant publishing record” and then later claimed it was only 1 (“the only paper he ever wrote on sea level “). If you think his record is “scant” or only 1 you must know his publishing record. So show me his record. It is you who needs a citation. I can’t honestly believe you’re going to dig a deeper hole on this. You must even worse than a delusional loon. If nothing else you’re proving to everybody that you don’t follow the scientific literature and that you make things up. Back up your claim and lets see his “scant publishing record”.

          • Dano2

            Your ululating arm-waving implicit claim, your burden of proof.

            Best,

            D

          • Eulenspigel

            So you can’t back up your statement (quelle surprise) and you honestly think I can’t back up the fact that this guy has more than 1 publication? And you’re going keep this cake on the griddle proving to everybody you make things up? Are you trying to highlight your delusions?

          • Dano2

            Your bluffing doesn’t work with me.

            If you are asserting the dowsing guy has more than one publication (you are implicitly asserting it with your whining and ululating and arm-waving and widdle foot-stomping), then show them.

            Otherwise, you are letting us know you can’t show more than one.

            Totes obvies.

            Best,

            D

          • Eulenspigel

            LOl, you think I’m bluffing? Your even more delusional than CML at Media Matters. It was you who asserted he had only 1. Why don’t you start by showing us the one you’re talking about just to enlighten the class and get this ball rolling. Do you even know where to look.? What are you going to do when I finally show you? So start by showing us that one you’re talking about and will go from there.

          • Dano2

            I said one. If you say more, show more.

            If you don’t do any work to show more, you are hereby invited to our next poker party.

            Best,

            D

          • . .

            Poker? Why not hand over your money to your GW masters? That’s what they really want you know.

          • Eulenspigel

            So you can’t even show 1. You don’t even have a freakin clue where to look, do you? What a loser.

            OK, first clue.

            This makes it sooooo easy that even if you escaped from Mom’s basement you could figure it out. Why don’t you read the article above and click on some of the links already provided? Lol, I can’t believe you just keep digging a hole when the answer it already right in front of your face. Let me know how many you find just linked in this article alone and then I’ll show you more.

            You are tooooo stupid to live.

          • Dano2

            OK, I checked with my boys, next game is Saturday March 12. You’re invited. Cash, BYO, we feed. You’re not vegan, right?

            Best,

            D

          • Eulenspigel

            Aaaahhhh, poor Dano. He got caught again making stuff up. Now it is even too difficult for him to click a link above and count so he has to go into more incoherent ramblings. But the important thing to remember is that he is a credible source for climate information. Yeah that’s it. Who would doubt The Big Man who obviously know so much about the scientific literature and has such great reading comprehension.

            Tell you what I’m going to do since I’m such a nice guy and you’re so super intelligent. I’ll make it even easier again for you.

            What color is an orange? No googling now (whoops-apparently you don’t know how to google).

          • . .

            See below? When you have him cornered where he can’t answer you, he does his clown show.

          • Isandhlwana79

            True. He is an arrogant asswhole, full of himself. He doesn’t have a clue when it comes to climate dynamics.

          • . .

            Seen his kind many times. They try to impress you with someone else’s work and when you tear it up, they play the flute and dance around it.

          • Eulenspigel

            Can you believe this guy? What a loon. In all the years I’ve been following the scientific debate he had what was probably the single stupidest comment in reply to me 1 day over at Media Matters. Somehow he thinks he’s credible. What a riot.

          • . .

            He gets his talking points from the left-wing fairy land, but they don’t teach him how to defend them.

          • goodspkr

            No, Dano, you said he only had one. Prove it.

          • . .

            He just wants to go from site to site harassing adults until his mommy comes home.

          • . .

            How far will you run go to get away from a challenge?

          • goodspkr

            Wait a minute. Did you claim his record is “scant” or only 1? If so it seems you are the one making a claim so you have the burden of proof. He called you a liar out on your claim so you need to prove your statement.

      • Mike435

        He has more than one paper on sea level. Here are three. There might be more.

        The northwest European “sea-level laboratory” and regional holocene eustasyhttp://www.sciencedirect.com
        Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
        Volume 29, 1979–1980, Pages 281–300
        /science/article/pii/0031018279900865

        Eustatic changes during the last 20,000 years and a method of separating the isostatic and eustatic factors in an uplifted area
        Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
        Volume 9, Issue 3, April 1971, Pages 153–181
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031018271900307

        Some problems in the reconstruction of mean sea level and its changes with time
        Quaternary International
        Volume 221, Issues 1–2, 1 July 2010, Pages 3–8
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618210000224

        Here is a Google Scholar search:
        https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3ANA+M%C3%B6rner&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14

        But, I do not think his recent work is considered credible.

        • Dano2

          Thanks, my overarching point is that – despite being the bestest and greatest sea level guy evahhhhhhhhhhh (he’s yoooge, the BEST)!!!1 no one can name a single paper he wrote, and can’t even haul one out when pressed.

          His work was largely done before the satellite era, and the one real paper he tried to write after the satellite era contained egregious errors.

          Besides the embarrassing dowsing thing, there’s the totally embarrassing thing: Pattern Recognition in Physics that would get a working scientist laughed off the Internet.

          That is: one day they decry “pal review” and the next haul out this guy. I don’t know why no one has brought this up yet.

          Best,

          D

          • Eulenspigel

            Hey Mr hole digger. Mr. stuff maker upper. Not only you’re too stoopid to click on a link from the article above and count and so stupid you just keep digging and digging and digging now you are even so stoopid are you not even capable of clicking on the link the other idiot supplied that you are replying to.

            https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3ANA+M%C3%B6rner&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14

            If you type in his full name at google scholar you get….start counting..

            https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=30&q=Nils+Axel+M%C3%B6rner&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

            Did you get more than 1? Did you get more than 3? Why do you insist on continuously embarrassing yourself with these made up things you dn’t know about. It takes less than 10 seconds to check Google Scholar and yet you just keep making stuff up.

            What colour is an orange? Just because you’re a loser doesn’t mean you have to highlight in Neon.

          • Dano2

            Cute you didn’t come up with it until someone did for you. Aren’t you….erm…a special little boy?

            Best,

            D

          • Eulenspigel

            Yeah, you got it. I don’t know how to use Scholar and I was bluffing’ all the time but I just got lucky. And I just happened to read those links in the article but I didn’t want to bow to your superior knowledge. Just because you’re a confirmed liar and too stoopid to click on a link I would have thought you could at least check your own propaganda site.

            http://www.desmogblog.com/nils-axel-morner

            If if you just click on 1 of the papers tthrough this article you’ll see another 15+ citations. He is also cited by the IPCC.

            http://junksciencearchive.com/jan04/nils-morner_1.pdf

            But heh, you’re the man who makes things up and can’t read words right in front of your face.

            Dano2…”..and the only paper he ever wrote on sea level contained egregious errors.”

            Google Scholar…12000 hits

            https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=160&q=Nils+Axel+M%C3%B6rner&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

            Even if you told us the colour of an orange nobody would believe you since we know you’re a liar.

          • Dano2

            Now SUPERGENIUS knows where to look! Do you see the dowser’s one modern paper in the modern satellite era was riddled with errors?

            Best,

            D

          • . .

            You wait for someone to be gone for an hour so you can slip back in here? You spineless weenie.

          • Dano2

            You made a craven mischaracterization. A hallmark of the weak.

            Best,

            D

          • . .

            Quit attaching your sins to me, Thump your left wing religion somewhere else.

          • Dano2

            I made a doggie shadow puppet with your projection.

            Best,

            D

          • . .

            That’s OK. I made a fool out of yours.

          • Dano2

            Here’s an eagle shadow puppet I made from your projection! See the eagle? Eagle? See eagle? Birdie?

            Best,

            D

          • . .

            You are such an obvious homosexual.

          • Dano2

            And this is a bunny shadow puppet I made with your projection.

            See bunny little one? Bunny? The bunbun! Awh! Little one see bunbun?

            Best,

            D

          • . .

            Yes, I know. You’re afraid of me. Quite understandable. You want me to leave you alone so you won’t have to face embarrassment.

            I accept your surrender. LOL

            Here is the kind of bunny you like. ▼ https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f1e438535e40912bdb72d43564d951122478f40de621f14c581dd9cc49d72c22.jpg

          • Dano2

            And this is a duck! Little one see duckie? Duckie? Duck shadow puppet? Duckie? Good job buddy!

            Best,

            D

          • . .

            And this is a duck! Little one see duckie? Duckie? Duck shadow puppet? Duckie? Good job buddy!

            Best,

            D

          • Eulenspigel

            Still highlighting the fact that your a shameless liar. Bizarre.

            You went through the Google schlar list and only saw 1 publication in the satellite era? Bizarre.

            “Now SUPERGENIUS knows where to look!”

            Isn’t it amazing how I knew how to use Scholar 10 months ago but not now?

            http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/01/right-wing-media-desperately-smear-scientists-t/203489#comment-2000742879

            (To understand what I just said you have to actually click on the link and read it. Don’t be shy now. There’s a first for everything)

            You really are the total package and a skeptics wet dream.

            So why did you make up the lie that Morner had a “scant publishing record” and only 1 paper on SLR? Does it make you feel good inside or something.

            Well, it’s been good having fun with you and proving you’re a liar but I’m afraid I’m headed out for the evening. Did you go upstairs and check to see if Mom has dinner ready for you? I must apologize because I don’t usually make fun of people with mental illness but sometimes it’s just too much fun shooting fish in a barrel.

            I see there’s lots and lots of questions of mine that you just ignored but there is one you really should answer.

            Why do you make things up and lie?

          • . .

            It’s easier for him to run away. He does that quite well.

          • Dano2

            You can’t show liar at all. You made that up.

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            Another Dano special. A posting devoid of content.

          • Dano2

            Awh! Goodspkr wants to be special too!

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            It’s amazing how many words Dano has used over the past year while saying absolutely nothing.

          • Dano2

            Well, you’re special. You are! You are special!

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            New book by Dano2. How to say nothing in 8 words and three sentences.

          • Dano2

            You’re sooooo special! Yes you are!

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            Dano’s overarching point is that he is a troll. He has no other points.

  • Gonzo

    NYT’s Gillis’ article was a classic we’re all gonna drown story and another cherry pick by an
    alarmist author. Of course he highlights Annapolis, MD for flooding. It also happens to
    be sinking 7mm a year as are most of Chesapeake Bay area cities. Here’s a hint don’t
    build/develop on soft sandy soil next to the ocean. Not mentioned are the 38 NOAA tide gauges on the West
    Coast,British Columbia and Hawaii that show only an average of 1.16mm ± .72mm of sea level
    rise and show no increase in level of rise.That’s most of the Eastern Pacific in the NH.

    • Dano2

      And yet global SLR is ~3.4 mm/yr.

      Best,

      D

      • Gonzo

        Not according to tide gauge data! You know the instruments that actually measure directly.

        • Dano2

          So you only want to measure a tiny fraction of them thar oshin? Why? What’s in it for you to measure a tiny fraction of the ocean?

          Best,

          D

          • Gonzo

            So 2133 gauges world wide is not enough?

          • Dano2

            What fraction of the planet do those gauges cover?

            Best,

            D

          • Gonzo
          • Dano2

            What is the fraction?

            TIA

            Best,

            D

          • Gonzo

            What’s your point troll? You don’t like inconvenient long term data? How old is the satellite data?

          • Isandhlwana79

            He is a troll. Poor one at that. Don’t play the simpleton’s game.

          • Dano2

            My point, smartie, again, is that satellites cover all the oceans. And satellites tell us (and scientists, and mariner, and everybody) that SLR is ~3.4 mm/yr.

            Thanks!

            best,

            D

          • Gonzo

            So we’ll add blind to deaf and dumb for you!! Including the GLOSS stations ALL of the oceans are covered by tide gauges! ie…WORLDWIDE the whole enchilada. Ouch that’s gonna leave a mark! Thanks for playing

          • Dano2

            Sure, sure. Whatever gives you the good feels.

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            Smartie? LOL. Your point is that you don’t have a point except at the top of your skull. But are you admitting that satellites are better measuring instruments than say land based thermometers are since they cover the entire planet? Thanks for the admission.

          • Dano2

            Smart people can tell there is a difference. Then there is goodspkr.

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            Ah Dano is now quoting from his favorite book, The Emperor’s New Clothes.

          • Dano2

            Everyone can see you are stumped.

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            More alarmist nonsense. Anyone who has a science or engineering background should have warning signals going off with the AGW nonsense.

            Richard Lindzen spelled it out when he noted:

            “On the other hand, there is quite a lot of ‘science on demand’ as Eisenhower anticipated. The well-established Medieval Warm Period is a problem for the narrative. Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick gets rid of the Medieval Warm Period.

            The physics of moist convection requires that warming maximize in the tropical upper tropospheric troposphere, and models agree, but the data doesn’t show this. Ben Santer reworks the data to show the maximum.

            Significant warming ended about 18 years ago showing that CO2 is not the major factor in climate. Tommy Karl adjusts and rearranges the data to eliminate the pause.

            Quite a few independent studies show that the outgoing radiation from the earth indicate low climate sensitivity. Andy Dessler ignores the physical and mathematical constraints to claim the opposite (at a truly negligible significance level).

            Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Jim Hansen absurdly claims that this is what one should expect from global warming (which, however, has not been occurring for 18 years).

            Basic dynamics of the atmosphere calls for reduced extremes and storminess in a warmer world. John Holdren invents a cockamamie theory of tropospheric polar jets to claim that such an imaginary jet is destabilized with warming, leading to more and more extreme storminess”.

            Knowing what a putz you are I’m pretty sure I know how you will respond to this.

          • Dano2

            You don’t know the fraction either? Well, not surprising coming from you.

            Best,

            D

          • goodspkr

            And you apparently know you can’t deny the fact that you asking for the fraction of the planet is being monitored by 2133 gauges world wide is more alarmist nonsense. Thanks for you admission.

          • Dano2

            Buffoonish flail.

            Best,

            D

        • Mike435

          Why do you think tide gauge data and satellite data for sea level rise disagree?

  • Mike435

    Let’s look at what Mörner is saying.

    ““The PNAS paper is another sad contribution to the demagogic anti-science campaign for AGW. It is at odds with observational facts and ethical principles,” Morner wrote to Climate Depot. “The paper is full of very bad violations of observational facts,” Morner explained.

    I have seen the paper. It does not read “demagogic”. I am not an expert, so I cannot make an independent judgement about the paper. We’ll need to wait see what other researchers publish, after they have made of study of it. Mörner has not done that.

    As for the claimed conflict with recent observations, Mörner offers data from one tide gauge. That does not tell you what the global average has been. Even deniers admit sea level has been rising. Judith Curry says this elsewhere in the post. The debate has been over whether the rate of sea level rise is increasing – that is whether seal level rise is accelerating. And what “ethical principles” did this study violate? That’s just a bizarre charge.

    There is a summary of the paper for non-experts you can find here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/millennia-of-sea-level-change/

  • Mike435

    Here is an article Mörner wrote on sea level change for the general public a few years ago:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/2011/12/rising-credulity/

    Here is a rebuttal posted at SkepticalScience:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

    Read them both.

    • Dano2

      You mean, “try to read them without laughing so hard you drop your device on the floor”.

      Best,

      D

      • Mike435

        Exactly. This is why I still use a desk top computer.

    • Gonzo

      Wow SKS the bastion of alarmist tripe! Next!!!!

      • Dano2

        They didn’t mention anything about his dowsing, did they? What about the scholarly journal that his behavior caused to be shut down?

        Best,

        D

        • Gonzo

          [They didn’t mention anything about his dowsing] I didn’t mention your medical condition either so there

          • Dano2

            Dowsing makes him instantly without credibility. But a typical “expert” for denialists.

            Best,

            D

      • Mike435

        Read them both.

    • Scottar

      Yeah we can trust SKS with all their high quality peer reviewed stuff:

      IPCC exposed by Donna Laframboise

  • Adrian_O

    Here is the sea level in NYC. Same rise rate 150 years ago as now.

    Since the seas act as a big thermometer, it shows that any pretension that sea rise is caused by industrial emissions is a fraud.
    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750

    • Dano2

      Weak cherry-picking.

      Best,

      D

  • Mervyn

    Because the global warming propaganda is built on lies, sooner or later it gets exposed… which is what is now happening.