Content uploaded by Nils-Axel Mörner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nils-Axel Mörner on Nov 23, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Natural Science is ruled by observational facts,
not ephemeral model out-puts
Nils-Axel Mörner
Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden
morner@pog.nu
Abstract: We are high-lightening two main questions in the focus of present day debates in
science and society: viz. (1) is present climate change a CO2-driven process or a natural
process, and (2) is sea level rapidly rising or stable to only vaguely rising? In both cases it is a
matter of models versus observational facts. In this situation, both science and geoethics call
for a full respect to facts and physical laws.
Keywords: Models, science, geoethics, observational facts, solar variability
Climate change has always been a natural
part in Earth’s evolution. This simple fact,
so obvious to all persons studying Earth’s
history, has in recent years been challenged
by models claiming that the post-
industrialization and rise in atmospheric
CO2 content is the factor to blame for the
general warming of about 0.5 ±0.1 °C over
the last 50-60 years. This is the core-idea of
the IPCC project (e.g. 2007, 2013) and the
reason for all the debate on the necessity of
reducing the emission of CO2 (the target of
the Paris COP21 meeting in Paris,
December, 2015). Another core-issue in this
project is the threat of a rapidly rising sea
level to low-lying coastal areas. We will
challenge both these claims, and
demonstrate that they both refer to model
out-puts in total contrast to available
observational facts and guiding physical
laws.
1. Climate change
Since 1950, global temperature has risen at a
mean rate of +0.5 ±0.1 °C, at the same time
as the atmospheric CO2 content has risen by
about 80 ppm (Humlum, 2015). The
relationship between CO2 content and
warming is logarithmic, not linear. In view
of this physical law, each new 80 ppm step
in the atmospheric CO2 content can only
generate half the rise in temperature as the
previous step; i.e., in this case +0.25 °C, and
the third 88 ppm step only half of that, i.e.
0.125 °C – in total this can only give a rise
of +0.875 °C in about 150 years or at about
year 2100 (Mörner, 2015a). This is far less
than the +2.7 °C, which IPCC and COP21
claim will be the case by 2100.
A further fact is that the initial rise of
+0.5 °C by no means can be ascribed
entirely to be a product of the CO2 rise; at
the most this effect could be 50%, or even
less. Therefore, the true CO2-driven rise in
temperature must be much less; rather in the
order of 0.4-0.2 °C (Mörner, 2015).
This is what the bounding physical law
demand. The IPCC project over the years
made as much as 102 different models in
order to predict the evolution of global
temperature up to year 2100. All of those
models are based on a linear relation
between CO2 and temperature, implying
that hey all ignore the physical law calling
for a logarithmic relationship (as given
above).
Therefore, it is not surprising that the
measured changes in temperature do not
agree with the model predictions (e.g. Jones,
2005). This is illustrated in Figure 1, where
the observed values lie about 0.6 °C below
the mean of the 102 AGW models (cf.
Mörner, 2015b).
Figure 1. Comparison between the mean of 102 AGW models (Jones, 2015) and the measured
temperature on Earth’s surface (red) and in the troposphere (blue) according to Humlum
(2015). By year 2100, the model mean would give a rise in temperature of +2.7 °C, whilst the
measured values would give a value well below +1 °C.
Figure 1 demonstrates with full clarity
that what CO2-driven models (AGW) may
suggest, is totally contradicted by observa-
tional facts. To chose the mean model value
and claim that the rise in temperature will be
+2.7 °C by 2100 (as claimed by the COP21)
violate the respect to scientific facts and the
principles of geoethics (Mörner, 2015b).
2. Sea Level Changes
Sea level is always changing (e.g. Mörner,
2013). The idea that the present should
represent something new and threatening
comes from the IPCC project (2007, 2013).
Even here there are physical laws that
cannot be ignored and which set the frames
of the amounts and rates of possible sea
level changes (Mörner, 2011), such as the
time required for ice melting, the ultimate
rate of sea level rise, and the relation
between ocean heating and water column
expansion. Therefore, it is out of scientific
possibility to have sea level changes by year
2100 amounting to 1 metre or more.
Within the IPCC community efforts have
been exercised to try to establish sea level
records of considerable rates of sea level
rise. This proposed rise has been used as a
central argument that the world’s low-lying
coasts are threatened to become flooded in
the near future.
Nothing of this is based on firm facts
observed in nature itself, however.
Tide gauge records must be carefully
analysed with respect to site-specific effects
of sediment compaction and regional crustal
movements. A few places can be used as
firm test-sites of true sea level changes; e.g.
Northwest Europe, Venice, French Guayana
–Surinam and parts of the Indian Ocean (see
for example; Mörner, 2014a, 2014b, 2015c).
The satellite altimetry records (NOAA,
2014; UC, 2015) have been subjectively
modellized in order to show a rising trend.
When converted back to observational trend
they only provide a rise in the order of 0.5
±0.1 mm/yr (Mörner, 2015c).
Available observational facts now give a
congruent picture of global sea level rise in
the order of ±0.0 to +1.0 mm/yr; viz. <+1.14
mm/yr for mean of 184 global tide gauge
stations, +1.0 ±0.1 mm/yr for the Northwest
European test area, +0.1 mm/yr for the
Venice test site, ±0.0 mm/yr for Pacific key-
sites like Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Kiribati, and
±0.0 mm/yr for the Maldives, Goa (India)
and Bangladesh.
Figure 2. Comparison between 18 sea level prediction models and the observed sea level
records and its estimated prediction up to 2100 at a value of +5 ±15 cm (Mörner, 2013). Once
again, we see no relation between model out-puts and observational facts.
Figure 2 demonstrates with full clarity
that sea level models produce trends that are
in totally disagreement with observational
facts. To chose model values and claim that
they predict a disastrous sea level rise that
will flood low-lying coastal areas by 2100
(as claimed by the IPCC and the COP21)
violate the respect to scientific facts and the
principles of geoethics (Mörner, 2015b).
3. Geoethical Principles
An Independent Committee on Geoethics
has just been founded (http://geoethic.com;
Mörner, 2015b). In its bylaws it is stated:
We will speak up and “use the sword of
truth” when scientific facts, observational
evidence and physical laws are being set
aside, and when geoethical principles are
violated.
In the above two examples, model out-
puts have come to be widely used instead of
available observational facts. This implies
that scientific facts, observational evidence
and physical laws were set aside, which, in
its turn, violates our geoethical principles.
This is the reason for the publication of
this paper: a plead – in the name of science
and geoethics – for a return to observational
facts and physical laws.
4. Conclusions
By year 2100, temperature will not rise by
+2.7 °C. This represents the mean of 102
CO2-driven models. Instead, we must
follow and respect the measured changes in
temperature, and the logarithmic relations
between CO2-content and temperature rise,
which by year 2100 would predict a rise in
temperature well below 1 °C. Such a rise
would pose no problems what so ever to life
on Planet Earth.
Sea level is not at all in a rapidly rising
mode. On the contrary, available observa-
tional facts indicate changes with a zone of
±0.0 to +1.0 mm/yr, which poses no
problems what so ever to coastal zones.
References
Humlum, O. (2015). Climate4you update
September 2015.
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Clima
te4you_September_2015.pdf
IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. The
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate
Change.
IPCC, 2013. Fifth Assessment Report. The
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate
Change.
Jones, M. (2015). How reliable are the
climate models?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/h
ow-reliable-are-the-climate-models/
Mörner, N.-A. (2011). Setting the Frames of
Expected Future Sea Level Changes by
Exploring Past Geological Sea Level
Records. In: Evidence-Based Climate
Science, Easterbrook, D.J., Ed., Chapter
6, p. 185-196. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Mörner, N.-A. (2013). Sea Level Changes:
Past Records and Future Expectations:
Energy & Environment, 24, 509-536.
Mörner, N.-A. (2014a). Deriving the
Eustatic Sea Level Component in the
Kattegatt Sea: Global Perspectives on
Geography, 2, 16-21.
Mörner, N.-A. (2014b). Sea Level Changes
in the 19-20th and 21st Centuries:
Coordinates, X:10, 15-21
Mörner, N.-A. (2015a). Climate Fundamen-
talism. In: Planetary Influence on the Sun
and the Earth, and a Modern Book-
Burning, N.-A. Mörner, Ed., Chapter 15,
p. 167-174, Nova Sci. Publ.
Mörner, N.-A. (2015b). Geoethics: the
principles of ethics in Natural Sciences.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
283641399_Geoethics_the_principles_of
_ethics_in_Natural_Sciences
Mörner, N.-A. (2015c). Glacial isostasy:
regional – not global: International
Journal of Geosciences, 6, 577-592.
NOAA (2014) Laboratory for Satellite
Altimetry/Sea Level Rise.
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/S
eaLevelRise/
UC, University of Colorado (2015) Sea
Level Research Group of University of
Colorado. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Published Nov. 20, 2015, in:
Global Journal for Research Analysis
Vol. 4, Issue 11, p. 193-194
November 2015
http://worldwidejournals.com/gra/issues.php?m=November&y=2015&id=46