ResearchPDF Available

Natural Science is ruled by observational facts, not ephemeral model out-puts

Natural Science is ruled by observational facts,
not ephemeral model out-puts
Nils-Axel Mörner
Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden
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
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
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 (;
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
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.
Humlum, O. (2015). Climate4you update
September 2015.
IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. The
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate
IPCC, 2013. Fifth Assessment Report. The
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate
Jones, M. (2015). How 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.
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.
UC, University of Colorado (2015) Sea
Level Research Group of University of
Published Nov. 20, 2015, in:
Global Journal for Research Analysis
Vol. 4, Issue 11, p. 193-194
November 2015
... In Fig. 6 (Mörner, 2015d), we compare sea level data as observed in the field with model out-puts (i.e. not observed modelvalues). ...
... Fig. 6. Sea level changes as observed in the field (red-purple-yellow) and obtained by modelling (orange-blue-green). (from Mörner, 2015d). ...
... Observational facts document no to negligible changes in sea level over tha last 50 years (Figure 1,below). Values obtained by observational facts and measurements give a spectrum ranging between ±0.0 to +1.0 mm/year, which poses no threats to low-lying coasts and islands over the next century (Mörner, 2014(Mörner, , 2015a(Mörner, , 2015b. ...
... There is no relation between model out-puts and observational facts. Science chose observational facts(Mörner 2015a(Mörner , 2015b) and discard model out-puts(Mörner 2015c).A 40 years long tide gauge record from KiribatiThe Christmas Island II record (PSMSL 1371) claimed to record a mean rise of 0.36 mm/yr, which would have negligible effects over a century, or even more. Considering, ENSO signals and port-ENSO recoveries, the graph hardly show any rise at all. ...
Experiment Findings
Full-text available
... Neither a CO2-driven global warming nor a disastrous sea level rise -as proposed by the IPCC and being the central issue in the COP21 negotiation -are based on scientific facts. In both cases, the negative to disastrous effects come from model out-puts, which are in deep contrast to observational facts (Mörner, 2015f). ...
Bangladesh is considered to be one of worst victims due to climate change-induced sea-level rise, which would force millions of people to leave their homesteads and become climate victims. However, based on limited and poor quality information, it is very difficult to make such a straightforward statement, without knowing the critical and complex local situation of the coast. The quantity and quality of data are not adequate enough to make any precise conclusion about the rate of sea-level changes in the past, present, and future. However, in this chapter, it has been attempted to make a critical overview of the existing knowledge to depict the sea-level scenarios along the coastal belt of Bangladesh. It shows that during the Holocene period sea level was oscillating with an average rising rate of 1.75 mm/year, and shows at least five transgressive–regressive episodes. Based on tidal records and satellite altimeters, the assessment of current trends of sea-level rise made by different authors are not in agreement and varies from 2.1 to 25 mm/year (mostly around 8 mm/year). The projection by year 2100 is also dubious, which varies from 0.85 to 4.5 m (mostly around 1.4 m). This synthesis shows that in addition to climate changed induced global contributions, the major components for sea-level movements of Bangladesh are regionally and locally driven. Reduction of sediment supply from upstream and stoppage of regular sediment influxes to the coastal floodplain in the downstream are major anthropogenic causes to increase the sea-level height along the coastal belt. Practically, what we currently observe in the coastal belt is not the secular sea-level rise; rather, it is the amplified local tide-level rise, which is mostly related to humanly induced non-climatic factors.KeywordsClimate changeSea-level riseAnthropogenic processesBangladesh coast
Full-text available
Somewhere out there in Cosmos is a planet hosting Life. It is known as The Earth and that is where we all live. In this book, we will explore the environmental conditions in this solar-planetary system, the multi-body planetary-solar-terrestrial interactions and the likely driving forcing functions
Full-text available
The load of the continental ice caps of the Ice Ages deformed the bedrock, and when the ice melted in postglacial time, land rose. This process is known as glacial isostasy. The deformations are compensated either regionally or globally. Fennoscandian data indicate a regional compensation. Global sea level data support a regional, not global, compensation. Subtracting GIA corrections from satellite altimetry records brings—for the first time—different sea level indications into harmony of a present mean global sea level rise of 0.0 to 1.0 mm/yr.
Full-text available
The history and development of our understanding of sea level changes is reviewed. Sea level research is multi-fascetted and calls for integrated studies of a large number of parameters. Well established records indicate a post-LIA (1850-1950) sea level rise of 11 cm. During the same period of time, the Earth's rate of rotation experienced a slowing down (deceleration) equivalent to a sea level rise of about 10 cm. Sea level changes during the last 40-50 years are subjected to major controversies. The methodology applied and the views claimed by the IPCC are challenged. For the last 40-50 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions. The Earth's rate of rotation records a mean acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea levels. Best estimates for future sea level changes up to the year 2100 are in the range of +5 cm ±15 cm.
Who are deniers and realists? It is claimed that an AGW denier is a realist, whilst a denier of a basic natural origin of climate changes must be a misinformed true denier. The observed rise in global temperature over the last 60 years is 0.5 ±0.1 °C. The rise in atmospheric CO2 over the same time is 80 ppm. With a true logarithmic relation, this can never give a temperature rise by 2100 exceeding 1 °C. All expressions of climate fundamentalism must be counteracted. Models are inferior to observations.
Many variables control the changes in ocean level. The most significant parameters to drive a possible sea level rise today are the redistribution of water to the oceans by glacial melting (a process known as glacial eustasy) and the expansion of the water column by heating up the water (a process known as steric expansion). Both these parameters can be quantified as to maximum rates and amplitudes. Those values may even be used to define the frames, inside which one has values of possible changes and outside which one has values that are not anchored in physics of sea level variability. Additionally, the rate of postglacial melting of the big continental ice caps in mid-latitude position provides an excellent maximum value for all talk of what will happen in the next 100 years. This value provides with a tool of discriminating between realistic proposals and unrealistic claims that should be discarded or, at least, be taken with great care.
Fifth Assessment Report. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
IPCC, 2013. Fifth Assessment Report. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.
How reliable are the climate models17/h ow-reliable-are-the-climate-models/ Mörner Setting the Frames of Expected Future Sea Level Changes by Exploring Past Geological Sea Level Records. In: Evidence-Based Climate Science
  • M Jones
Jones, M. (2015). How reliable are the climate models? 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.
How reliable are the climate models?
  • M Jones
Jones, M. (2015). How reliable are the climate models? ow-reliable-are-the-climate-models/