‘Scaremongers’: Sea Level Rise expert Dr. Morner rips claims that ‘sea-level rise could displace 13 million Americans by 2100’

By: - Climate DepotFebruary 4, 2020 2:25 PM with 0 comments

Professor Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. also challenges the New York Times on sea-level rise claims:



Other media outlets are promoting sea level rise scares as well: Sea level rise could displace 13 million Americans by 2100

Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner comments on the 13 million claim. He makes his corrections in red below.


Other experts weigh in on this: 

Willis Eschenbach writes: “I have little faith in the satellite sea level. The Jason satellite orbits at an elevation of 1,336 km. To measure 1 mm from that altitude is measuring to one part in a billion. That’s hard to do with a fixed target on a solid bench in a lab … think about the issues with measuring one part in a billion to an uneven sea surface with varying tidal elevations on an oblate spheroid from a moving platform more than a thousand kilometers away orbiting through a highly variable gravitation through an ever-changing atmosphere … I discuss other issues regarding sea level measurement in my post “Inside The Acceleration Factory“.

Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller on satellite sea-level rise measurements vs. tide gauges:
The European ENVISAT satellite came close, and over time, after some adjustments, approached the 1.1mm – 1.4mm that we measure from tectonically inert and GPS validated sites around the world.
But at this point in time, you should rely on 100+ year tide gauges, and note that they are all straight-line linear, with no acceleration noted at all!  Now, some are in tectonic uplift zones, and others in subsiding areas, but their long term readings do NOT change direction.
The best way to illustrate this is with the following graphic:
Now what tumultuous, earthshaking, paradigm changing World-Wide event(s) happened in 1993 that would drastically change rate and direction of sea-level rise around the world???  When you finish guessing, the Occam’s razor conclusion you arrive at is: “The introduction of the Topex-Poseidon Satellite (T/P) series.
Now it is not all that bad, as you can see that the T/P series is also linear in direction, and there is validation here too, as it correctly reflects the 2010-2012 seal level DROP that resulted from the anheric Australian aquifer replenishment that was caused by a series of huge storms that dumped megatons of water on northern Australia.  That water then stayed on, and soaked into the land, with a resulting sea level drop that was also noted on fixed tide gauges everywhere around the planet.  Here’s one example from the other side of the Earth (there are many others); the clearly linear tide gauge in Portland Maine, US, that shows an obvious drop that coincides with the 2010-2012 anheric Australian events:
Now Portland is still slowly subsiding, as it is at the edge of the previously risen glacial fore-bulge that ended up sinking when the miles high glacial ice sheets began melting 20,000 years ago, and central north continental US and Canada rebounded with massive uplift.
From an eastern Pacific GPS validated tectonically inert area (Prince Rupert in BC, Canada), the 2010-2012 drop is also seen, and the linear rise is also in the tectonically inert 1.1mm – 1.4mm range mentioned in the first line of this e-mail.  Prince Rupert is midway between geologically uplifting Alaska and US west coast Pacific plate subduction. 
So the short answer answer to your question is a qualified probable yes, if you properly adjust for isostatic effects, orbital degradation, moisture interference, and a host of other factors that the T/P satellite reportage has clearly done incorrectly.
There IS some light at the end of this misguided satellite tunnel, so don’t give up on this line of research!!!
Hope this helps!!!
(Chair, Oceanographic Section, World Congress on Oceans, Qingdao, China 2016)
Dave Burton: I have much more faith in the tide gauge data than the satellite altimetry measurements of sea-level. I have a web page about the reasons for that, on my web site, here:

If G.R.A.S.P. or E-GRASP ever flies, that would presumably help with some (but not all) of the problems with satellite altimetry measurements of sea-level.
As Tom says, the vast majority of the long tide gauge measurement records show no significant deviation from linear in at least 90 years. Here’s tweet-storm, with a few examples:
This is one of the examples in that tweet-storm:

Sea-level trends vary from one location to another. So if you splice together graphs of sea-level measurements from different places, you can easily create the appearance of acceleration (or deceleration). Splicing a post-1993 satellite altimetry graph onto pre-1993 coastal tide gauge graph is what Tony Heller memorably called the “IPCC sea-level Nature trick.”  

A warming climate has effects which both increase and decrease sea-level trends, and it seems that (at least when there’s no Laurentide ice sheet to melt!) those processes roughly balance each other.

The only effects that many climate alarmists seem to be aware of are those which increase sea-level, like ice melting, sublimation, thermal expansion, and glacier calving. But the most important process which affects ice sheet mass trends is none of those things. It is snowfall.

A warming climate increases snow accumulation on ice sheets and glaciers — and thus decreases sea-level — in two ways:

1. Most obviously, warmer air holds more moisture. Every 1°C of warming increases the amount of moisture which the atmosphere can hold by about 7%.

When temperatures are very low snowfall is greatly reduced, because the frigid air carries very little moisture; it is said to be “
too cold to snow (much).” The heaviest snowfalls usually occur when temperatures are only modestly below freezing.

2. Decreased sea ice coverage (Arctic, North Atlantic, and Southern Ocean) increases water evaporation, which increases “lake/ocean-effect snowfall” (LOES) downwind. Some of that snow falls on the ice sheets and glaciers, increasing ice accumulation, and offsetting meltwater losses. Other snow falls on land, increasing snowpack.

Snowfall is, by far, the most important factor in ice sheet & glacier mass fluxes. Increased snowfall is the main reason that, in two of the last three glaciological years, the 
Greenland Ice Sheet (which usually loses ice) apparently had no net loss of ice.

Yet in eighty pages of fine print, which you can read here…
…the IPCC’s AR5 authors never even mentioned lake/ocean-effect snowfall, and its effect on ice sheet & glacier mass balance, and sea-level. It appears that they had never heard of it.

That amazes me. Any competent meteorologist could have told them all about lake/ocean-effect snowfall. It’s the reason 
Buffalo, New York famously gets so much snow. But the IPCC’s sea-level authors seem to have been unaware of it.

In both 
Greenland and Antarctica, snowfall is the most important factor affecting ice sheet mass balance, greater in magnitude than melting, sublimation, or iceberg calving. In fact, in Antarctica, snowfall accumulation is approximately equal to the sum of those other three factors.

Multiple studies have found that snowfall accumulation in Antarctica has been increasing.
[1] [2] [3] [4]

The magnitude of ice accretion from snowfall on ice sheets was illustrated by the amazing story of Glacier Girl. She’s a Lockheed P-38 Lightning which was extracted in pieces 
from beneath 268 feet(!) of accumulated ice and snow (mostly ice), fifty years after she made an emergency landing on the Greenland Ice Sheet.

That’s more than 5 feet of ice per year, which is equivalent to more than seventy (70) feet of annual snowfall, which had piled up on top of the airplane! That snow represents evaporated water, mostly removed from the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans, which then fell as ocean-effect snow on the Greenland Ice Sheet.

We know that some of the effects of global warming increase sea-level, and others decrease it. Forty years of experience tell us that those factors roughly cancel each other, meaning that there’s no reason to expect significantly accelerated sea-level rise from mankind’s GHG emissions.

Warmest regards,