• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Sea Level Rises...What Sea Level Rises?

    Another one of the standout presentations at the Heartland Institute’s fourth International Conference on Climate Change was the one by Nils-Axel Morner, former emeritus head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics department at Stockholm University. His talk focused on sea level increases and the difference between observed data and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) model’s predictions.

    Morner was a former reviewer on the IPCC report and when he was first made a reviewer he said he was “astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one.” Morner discussed the realities of a number of countries and islands claimed to be doomed from climate change. He started with the Maldives, which some reports claim will be submerged in the next fifty years. Morner pointed out that the sea level around the Maldives has been much higher before and actually fell 20 centimeters (7.8 inches) during the 1970s. He also asserted that sea levels have been stable for the past three decades.

    The same could be said for Bangladesh, another country threatened by sea level rises. Last year US News reported that “brackish water from the Bay of Bengal is encroaching, surging up Bangladesh’s fresh-water rivers, percolating deep into the soil, fouling ponds and the underground water supply that millions depend on to drink and cultivate their farms.” Morner’s analysis of the data, however, shows that the sea level has been stable for the past 40 to 50 years and may have even decreased. Coastal erosion is unquestionably a problem but it’s not from sea level rise, Morner says. He also reports that there has not been an increase recorded in Tuvalu, Qatar, Vanuatu, Venice and northwest Europe.

    Of course, rising sea levels could present problems in the future but so far the hysteria has been unsupported by fact. Furthermore, the policies aimed at reducing sea levels (cap and trade, international carbon dioxide reduction treaties) will have little if any impact. Despite the futility of CO2 cuts, there are many cost-effective, adaptive solutions that efficiently target specific problems and do not require globally adopted treaties. Many of these adaptations are driven by markets. Seed companies develop drought and heat resistant strains that have increased agricultural productivity in the face of global warming. Low tech, but efficient, dams create reservoirs in the Himalayas to provide water supplies and irrigation during dry months. Capping CO2 only hinders the overall economic development of poorer countries and thus puts them in a worse position to adapt to climate change and rising sea levels, if it ever becomes necessary.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    14 Responses to Sea Level Rises...What Sea Level Rises?

    1. G Rome, Laguna Nigue says:

      Another excuse to sit by and do nothing? Maybe it is already too late, or perhaps the debate has already been shaped by various political agendas to polarize the Right and the Left to a point where one must pick a side, despite the amazing ability of humans to rationalize, and create this as an either/or discussion about our economic model and its future.

      It seems asinine to believe that the human civilization has not held any impact upon the global weather/climate system in the last four hundred years since the Industrial Revolution. Such an argument is reminscent of the tobacco companies stating that the myriad of chemicals within manufactured tobacco do not create cancer. The idea that climate change occurs is not without proof — it has happened numerous times throughout the historical and geologic record. What we must come to terms with is the fact that our actions are accelerating this change, and if we are the agents of this progression-for-the-worst, we can also be the agents to mitigate it. It has little to do with the disruption of our current economic system, our industrial processes, or the pain involved in adapting to a new form of transporation and public design. It has more to do with what will be left if we continue down this path.

      So much of the argument seems to reside in the belief that any action taking to curb our "carbon footprint" would be wasteful and disastrous for the economy. So would losing portions of our coastline. So would staying the way we are, when every portion of the economic advance of the world has been imbedded in finding new ways to achieve greater goals with less money for operating costs, and lower prices to the consumers. That is, if I recall, something akin to a core concept of the free market. "Green industries" are just another advance in the economic model that will provide new technology, new jobs, and perhaps — as a side effect — a planet that might allow life to subsist just a bit longer than is currently trending.

      Of all issues, this should be above class, nationality, or political affiliation. It can be clad in the robes of "new jobs", "progressivism", "entrepeneurialship/capitalism", or any other buzzword that draws upon a certain zeitgeist, but in the end, whatever galvanizing form it may take, the core idea is to move forward, to re-define our economy and way of life, and as an ancillary act, keep this planet going for a few more generations.

    2. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    3. Anne, New York State says:

      Every person reading this should grab this link I found in a Readers Digest 'Quick study link. "Climate Engineering"! After I saw the article in the Drs office I went home and looked it up, printed it out and wondered if I would get to show it around. Then I found your site. post this after you check it out. If you don't find it be very suspicious that someone took it down before we all wise up.

    4. Billie says:

      The more efficient ideas proposed, the more ignorant cap and trade becomes.

    5. Anita Jones, Oklahom says:

      I don't understand why somebody with investigational skills and technology cannot find out the truth about Obama's birthplace, school records and Conneticut social security card. Please, if there's someone out there that would undertake this extremely important task and publish the results everywhere,

      our country could possibly be rescued from destruction.

    6. Terry says:

      @G Rome:

      "Another excuse to sit by and do nothing?"

      Exactly. You seem to think this is a bad thing, but in fact it's a very good thing. The reason is that as time passes, technology will continue to improve by leaps and bounds. There are many reasons to be optimistic about future energy sources: cheap solar, safe and inexpensive nuclear, fusion and so on. The best of all possible worlds is to arrive at a cleaner future with abundant energy WITHOUT crippling our economy or lifestyle in the meantime.

      "Maybe it is already too late, or perhaps the debate has already been shaped by various political agendas to polarize the Right and the Left to a point where one must pick a side, despite the amazing ability of humans to rationalize, and create this as an either/or discussion about our economic model and its future."

      First of all, if the theories of the global warming alarmists were correct (they're not) it WOULD be too late. No even remotely possible cap on carbon dioxide emissions here in the US would have a measurable effect on world temperatures according to the IPCC's own models. Instead, cap and trade would have an immense impact on the US economy and make us uncompetitive on a global basis while achieving NOTHING in terms of global warming mitigation. China, now the worlds largest CO2 polluter, refuses to have anything to do with economy-crippling CO2 caps.

      The good news from a global warming alarmism standpoint is that we're most likely looking at multiple decades of cooler temperatures, giving us some breathing room as we better evaluate the science.

      "It seems asinine to believe that the human civilization has not held any impact upon the global weather/climate system in the last four hundred years since the Industrial Revolution."

      It "seems asinine"? That may be, but there is objective reality and science is there to measure it. First of all, you should learn about the relative merits of warmer climates versus cooler climates. Warmer climates have been far kinder to human civilization than the cooler alternative. One of the fallacies, among many, put forth by the warming alarmists is that there are no benefits to higher CO2 or a warmer climate. Higher CO2 levels measurably help vegetation and crop growth, and warmer climates permit cultivation on a larger percentage of the land. The bulk of the warmer climate we've experienced over the last several thousand years (note: well before human emissions had any measurable effect) have been from natural cycles as we came out of the last ice age. In fact, sea levels have been rising over almost that entire period.

      At any rate, another set of natural cycles is upon us. Both of the multi-decadal ocean climate cycles have switched to the cold version, similar to where they were in the 70s. The Sun appears to be in the early stages of a Grand Minimum, similar to the Maunder or Dalton minimums. Both of those were associated with sharply colder weather.

      There is also the very real worry of a major volcanic eruption, which coupled with the above factors could well push the climate into a very sharp temperature decline. Mankind may very well look back on current conditions with fond nostalgia.

      "Of all issues, this should be above class, nationality, or political affiliation. It can be clad in the robes of “new jobs”, “progressivism”, “entrepeneurialship/capitalism”, or any other buzzword that draws upon a certain zeitgeist, but in the end, whatever galvanizing form it may take, the core idea is to move forward, to re-define our economy and way of life, and as an ancillary act, keep this planet going for a few more generations."

      That is all great, but believe it or not the "planet" will do just fine regardless of what humans do. I expect technologies that are either here now or coming soon will have a tremendous positive impact on human pollution. Just recreating our cities with reflective paving surfaces and roofs would have major impact on the urban heat island issue, which is a real and growing problem.

      The point is, though, that these advances can take place in an organic way, without imposing a meaningless and destructive multi-trillion dollar burden on both the US and global economy.

      In the meantime, let's hope that the next few decades of global cooling won't have a major negative impact on humanity, as such periods have had in the past.

    7. kwik says:

      As soon as you understand that all the hand-waving from the IPCC is based on MODEL-RUNS, and not on real measured data, you realise its humbug. Niels Axel Moerner is an expert, and he looks at real world data.

    8. J Jones (Great Brita says:

      One of the most frequently made fraudulent claims is that sea levels are rising due to “man made” climate change. The following article by Dr Nils Axel Morner, the worlds leading sea level expert, is a compelling read as to why this claim is nonsense.

      The alarmists would do well to read the actual science of sea levels and produce an advert based on Morner’s scientific studies

      http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeD

      “Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud”

      “Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and

      Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.

      He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission

      on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.”

      In addition the alamists ought to watch the attached video (9 mins) of Dr Morner pointing out that the Maldives are not sinking despite constant claims that they are.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cq0kwKq–I&a

    9. J Jones (Great Brita says:

      If the youtube link from my previous post does not direct you to the Nils Axel Morner video on the maldive Islands, please type in the following on the youtube search engine :-

      Willie Soon and Sally Baliunas – Real Climatologists End Global-Warming Theory 4/5

      Nils Axel Morner's interview is on this programme

    10. G Rome, Laguna Nigue says:

      Re: Terry

      First of all, I completely appreciate you reacting to my post. This is certainly a forum of discussion, and all too often that discussion is limited to minimal posts that equate to "I agree, damn them all." At least you took the time to present a case to the points I offered. For that, I have gained a new interest in returning to former posts to check in on things.

      You write as if you have some scientific background and understanding of a great deal of studies, agencies, and effects that are involved in this central theme. I cannot compete with providing citations, since anything I might provide would certainly be contradicted by another study that concludes otherwise. My argument is merely intuitive, but I will question some of your points.

      As I stated before, it seems counter-intuitive to me to believe that none of our actions in the past four hunderd years have had some major effect upon the planet and its natural operations. You may provide evidence that there was natural and fluctuating trends in climates across the globe throughout the human development, but you cannot convince me that within these natural changes, there is not a modicum of hastening produced by the myriad and compounded emissions that are affecting change with each building year. When one sits in an enclosed space and fills the room with smoke, it gets warmer. The earth is a room, the various spheres represent a ceiling of different magnitudes, and it gets warmer.

      Then to use the concept of "cap and trade" in relation to my post took the discussion in a completely different direction. I did not mention such a policy, nor am I for it. I would rather circumvent that entire thing by developing alternative sources of energy through incentives, with the understanding that progress in technology has always been the fuel of the Western economy. I understand that it is unreal to presume that one morning everyone wakes up and abides by a different standard of living. I am merely advocating for the leadership of this nation to seize upon the next great idea, just as those leading entrepeneurs did with the nascent economy of the United States to create the greatest economy in the history of the world (based upon GDP, GNP, etc.)

      Of course China and India are not ready to go along with this concept. They look around the post-colonial world and consider their history as centuries of subservience to the West. That is precisely why we should take advantage of this moment to seize the technological and economic lead in what will become the next great Industrial Revolution. Essentially, I am stating that such a move makes sense for the preservation of our current population centers, it makes sense for our desire to be atop the economic model of the global commerce, and it makes sense to re-invigorate the domestic economy while removing ourselves from the trappings of foreign oil and the accompanying diplomatic measures necessary in maintaining that flow of supply.

      Would we truly be concerned about the areas of the world if we were not sucklings at their oil reserves?

      Change is never easy, but such a policy can be inacted over years and decades. Sacrifices will have to be made, but that has been the story of our nationhood since its inception, and that is a proud banner that we carry. The United States has seemed to fair well so far with such attempts.

    11. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      Clearly we shouldn't be concerned with Emissions of Co2 cause the sky hasn't fallen yet!

      I mean what would 10,044,000,000,000 lbs of Co2 emissions from the US do to a planet or the 3,000,000 lbs of sulfur hexafluoride emissions do I mean we know it's 23,900 times more effective as a greenhouse gas, yet I am not worried. 1,474,000,000,000 lbs of Methane emitted in the atmosphere shouldn't be worrisome either.

      I mean seriously we all know smokers that are alive still. This must mean Lung Cancer and Global Warming are both MYTHS.

    12. Pingback: Predavalnica Miša Alkalaja | www.ujet.si

    13. This movie is going to be awesome I cannot wait to see it.

    14. Camboni says:

      Love the straw man argument that alarmists continue to use when they attempt to associate climate realists with people who think that cigarettes are good for you. It shows how desperate they have become as science and the mountains of empirical data have continuously laid bare every single fallacy that they pedal in the name of their faith.

      I'm proud that Canada's great leader, Stephen Harper, has pulled us out of the Kyoto caper, AKA the 'World's Most Biggest Socialist Ponzi Scheme Ever'. Good luck to all the Western countries out there who have bowed to the cabal of thugs and scumbags currently inhabiting the once great organization known as the UN. You've been fooled by the media and a bunch of activists disguised as scientists. Oh, and some pictures of Polar Bears. Don't forget them.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×