Content uploaded by Nils-Axel Mörner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nils-Axel Mörner on Sep 21, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Bolin-Palme treason against Science,
the IPCC and Paris illusions
and a Clexit solution
Nils-Axel Mörner
President of the Independent Committee on Geoethics
Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University (1991-2005)
morner@pog.nu
Real science advances via questioning and accumulation of new observational facts.
Far back in time, we left dogmatism behind. If Earth’s evolution goes forward via
gradualism and catastrophism, science per se, rather advances via sudden new
concepts (individual “aha” or “eureka” experiences), observational facts or
experiment results. It follows the path: observation – interpretation – conclusion.
In the modern new media world, fake news and falsified science may spread rapidly.
This is utilized by lobbyist. The boundary between realism and falsified “facts” (fake
news) becomes invisible.
It all goes back to the early 70s. The Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin proposed the
cause-and-consequence chain of increased CO2, increasing global temperature,
melting glaciers and rising sea level. In 1973, the first fuel crisis happened. Olof
Palme, the Swedish Prime Minister and old school friend to Bolin immediately saw
new possibilities in a strong argument for leaving oil dependence and rapidly building
up our nuclear power industry (“if we in 1990 do not have at least 24 nuclear power
plants, it will not survive as an industrial nation”). Already in 1975, the fear of a future
increase in atmospheric CO2 content was stated in the Swedish governmental
declaration.
Palme realized that he would not be able to control science, so he proposed the
establishment of a new intergovernmental body within the United Nation to handle
the question. Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland grasped the message, and put it
in focus in the Brundtland Report of 1988. IPCC was born and Bolin became its first
chairman with a basic mission: “to document the anthropogenic global warming”; i.e.
the goal was set before the project started. The Sun was purposely left outside
“because this is a project in meteorology and oceanography”, he said.
So, everything was wrong all from the beginning. The IPCC reports followed every 4
years. But science was not in the centre. When I, in 1999, was the expert reviewer of
the sea level chapter, I became deeply shocked. This chapter was very badly written
and far below accepted reviewing standards. Furthermore, it was written by a group
of 33 authors, none of which was a sea level specialist.
As a special research project of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and
Coastal Evolution, I launched an International Sea Level Project in the Maldives. We
rapidly obtained firm observational facts that sea level was not at all in a rapidly rising
mode in the Maldives, and that it even fell by 10-20 cm in the 70s. The IPCC sea
level story was revealed as a shameful fraud, and I published a booklet with the title
The Greatest Lie Ever Told in 2007 [1].
In his book “Evidence-Based Climate Science” [2], Easterbrook concludes: Because
of the absence of physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, the only
argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests entirely in computer modelling.
Climate always changes: on the longer-term base as well as on the centennial and
decadal base. From 1970 to 2000, Earth experienced a “global warming” of about
+0.6 °C. IPCC and its proponents claim that this is due to man-made CO2 emission;
i.e. anthropogenic global warming (AGW). We, the climate realists, claim that this is
nonsense and the all present day warming is due to normal natural variations in
climate; i.e. natural global warming (NGW).
There are three ways of testing the AGW hypothesis: (1) testing relation between
CO2 content and temperature by experiments, (2) looking backwards over past
changes in temperature, and (3) looking forward comparing AGW-predictions with
actual temperature measurements.
(1) Anthony Watts repeated Al Gore’s “experiment” in support of AGW [3], and
concluded that it was a hoax [4]. Repeated laboratory experiments under careful
control by a research group in Norway fail to document that an increased CO2
content gives higher temperature when heated by light [5]. Peter Ward
announced an award of 10,000 USD for the person that by experiment could
verify that increased atmospheric CO2-content implies increased temperature: up
to now, no one has been able to do so, however.
(2) Global mean temperature has fluctuated over the last 170 years (Fig. 1, [6]):
falling by 0.6 °C 1878–1910, rising by 0.6 °C 1910-1945, falling by 0.3 °C 1945-
1975, rising by 0.6 °C 1975-2003 and falling by 0.05 °C 2003-2018. IPCC and its
proponents only consider the 1970-2000 period of temperature rise because only
this period has some similarity with the rise in CO2. The rise in temperature in
1910-1940 is as big and rapid. But this rise can have nothing to do with CO2 – so
it is a very strong indication of non-AGW forcing. Of course, the same applies for
the three periods of temperature fall. What is quite clearly documented, however,
is a 60-year cyclicity. This cycle is fundamental in Earth’s science [7, 8] and
originates from solar forcing by Jupiter [9]. Consequently, the Fig. 1 graph
provides a manifestation of the NGW-concept in opposite to the AGW-concept.
(3) It has become customary in the IPCC scenarios to make predictions to year 2100
AD. With the application of 102 different CO2-driven models IPCC claims that
global temperature by 2100 will rise to +2.7 ±0.7 °C. The observed temperature
both at Earth’s surface and up in the troposphere does not agree with this,
however. Rather do they indicate a temperature below to well below +1 °C at
2100 (Fig. 2, [10]).
When observations do not fit the models, it must of course be the models that are
wrong. In IPCC’s weird world, it is the observational facts, however. IPCC’s
counter-act includes altering of observational data, contradiction of alternative
views, discrediting of opponents and employment of professional lobbying firms
(coining fake news like “97% of all scientists agree”, “consensus” and “science is
settled”).
In conclusion, all three tests of the application of the AGW hypothesis totally fail to
lend any validation to this hypothesis. All three tests lend strong support to the NGW
concept, however.
Under normal scientific conditions, this would be quite enough to abandon the AGW
hypothesis, and turn to alternative solutions; i.e. NGW. The Paris Agreement of 2015
is based on incorrect models and a shameful ignorance of scientific facts.
Because the AGW hypothesis of IPCC is a product of United Nations, it has come to
obtain a nearly unquestionable populist status, however. With no merits of its own but
because of its UN (and EU) status, the AGW idea continues to advance and form the
base of international and national decisions.
In 2015, an Independent Committee on Geoethics was founded [11] with the mission
“to 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”.
Table 1 summarizes the differences in the AGW and NGW concepts.
AGW is driven and maintained by power. Only NGW has science on its side.
Now we need an alternative forcing to CO2. Numerous papers and books (e.g. [2,12-
18]) have shown that the main driving force is the variations in solar emission of
irradiance and Solar Wind (Fig. 3, [12, 14], where the solar variability is controlled by
planetary beat.
Sea level changes pose the main threat in the AGW scenario, because they claim
sea level is in a rapidly rising, even accelerating, mode. This idea is based on models
and twisted facts, however. In the real world, there are no traces of a rapidly rising
sea level, and certainly not of an accelerating rate of sea level rise.
During the last 500 years, the eustatic changes in sea level have been dominated
by the redistribution of ocean water masses over the globe; a process termed
rotational eustasy [8, 19, 20, 21]. Whilst sea level over the last 70 years has
remained stable (i.e. at ±0.0 mm/yr) at the Maldives [1, 22, 23], Goa [23, 24] and
Bangladesh [23, 25] in the Indian Ocean, and at Fiji [19, 26], Tuvalu [1, 23] and
Vanuatu [1] in the Pacific, it has been rising at a rate of about 1.0–1.1 mm/yr in
northern Europe, eastern USA and northwest USA [23, 27, 28].
This implies the redistribution of ocean water masses between the northern
latitudes (above Lat. 30° N) and the equatorial region (between Lat. 30§ N and 30° S)
on cyclic time-scales of 60 yr and the alternations between Grand Solar Maxima and
Minima [8, 19, 24]. This process can only be driven by the planetary beat on the Sun
and the Earth-Moon system as shown in [8, 20, 21].
A eustatic sea level variability over the globe ranging between ±0.0 mm/yr and 1.0
±0.1 mm/yr fits perfectly well with observed changes in sea level over the last 300
years [29, 30]. Therefore, the best prediction for a sea level change at year 2100
seems to be +5 cm ±15 cm [30], in strong disagreement to numerous models (all
lacking validation in observational facts) as illustrated in Fig. 4 from [31].
The constant refusal to consider observational facts and even physical laws [30]
by IPCC and its proponents in their model predictions is in itself a confirmation of
their unacceptable working methodology. We want facts, not models.
Several scientists (e.g. [32-36]) have shown that we, in fact, are approaching a New
Grand Solar Minimum in about 2030-2050. In analogy with the documented climate
conditions during the Spörer, Maunder and Dalton Minima, we may expect the return
of a New Little Ice Age as illustrated in Fig. 5 (from. [34, 35).
Fig. 5. Observed changes in ocean circulation and climate during the Spörer (1440-1460), Maunder
(1687-1703 and Dalton (1808-1821) Minima, which are likely to be repeated at the next Grand Solar
Minimum in 2030-2050.
This implies that we, in two decades will be in the low of a New Grand Solar
Minimum and in climate conditions like previous Little Ice Ages. This means just the
total opposite to rapid warming of IPCC, which was the base for the Paris Agreement
in 2015.
It seems a bit ironic, because, when 19 eminent scientists in 2013 concluded [13]:
“This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continual, even accelerated, warming as
proposed by the IPCC”, the whole journal of Pattern Recognition in Physics was
closed down (see [14]).
In 1615, Galileo Galilee wrote (see [14] p. 126): “No one should be scorned in
physical disputes for holding the opinions which happen to please other people best”.
Still, everyone questioning the AGW hypothesis will face severe scorn from the IPCC
and its proponents.
This ends my review of the AGW idea and NGW concept. Michael Crichton, at the
launching of his book State of Fear, said: “after several years of painstaking
research, I came to the shocking conclusion that global warming was hot air”. So, I
leave it to the reader to choose between the hot air of AGW and the evidence-based
facts of NGW.
In conclusion, I recommend all nations to leave the Paris Agreement; i.e. CLEXIT.
References
[1] Mörner, N.-A., 2007. The Greatest Lie Ever Told. P&P-print, 20 pp (2nd ed.
2009, 3rd ed. 2010).
[2] Easterbrook, D.J., 2011. Evidence-Based Climate Science. Elsevier, 400 pp
(2nd ed. 2016).
[3] www.climaterealityproject.org/climate-101
[4] https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-
simple-co2-experiment/
[5] Solheim, J.-E., Eriksen, T. & Engebretsen, Y., 2016. A school experiment with
radiation heating of small greenhouses (in Norwegian), Fra Fysikkens Verden
78(3): 78-83.
[6] Humlum, O., 2013. Kommentar til FNs klimapanels sammendrag. December
10, Klimarealistene (www.klimarealistene.com)
[7] Schlesinger, M. E. & Ramankutty, N., 1994. An oscillation in the global climate
system of period 65–70 years. Nature, 367, 723–726.
[8] Mörner, N.-A., 2015. Multiple planetary influences on the Earth. In: Planetary
Influence on the Sun and the Earth, and a Modern Book-Burning, N.-A. Mörner,
ed., Chapter 4, p. 39-50, Nova Sci. Publ., New York.
[9] Scafetta, N., 2012. A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude
aurora records and the global surface temperature. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phy.,
74, 145-163.
[10] Mörner, N.-A., 2015. New religion of Global Warming and its misconceptions in
Science. Journal of Religious Studies, Buddhism and Living, 1 (1): JBL-1-001.
http://crescopublications.org/jbl/JBL-1-001.pdf
[11] Mörner, N.-A., 2015. Geoethics: the principle of ethics in Natural Science. Pro-
ceedings International Conference on Geoethics, October 2015, Prague.
DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.1953.4168. Also: www.geoethic.com
[12] Mörner, N.-A., Tattersall, R. & Solheim, J.-E., 2013. Pattern in solar variability,
their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts. Pattern Recognition in Physics,
Special Issue 1, 2013. Preface, PRP, 1, 203-204. DOI:10.5194/prp-1-203- 2013
[13] Mörner, N.-A., Tattersall, R., Solheim, J.-E. & 16 co-authors, 2013. Pattern
Recognition in Physics, 1: 205-206. doi:10.5194/prp-1-205-2013
[14] Mörner, N.-A. (Ed.), 2015. Planetary Influence on the Sun and the Earth, and a
Modern Book-Burning. Nova Science Publishers, New York, 196 pp
[15] Mörner, N.-A., Monckton, C., Gregori, G.P. and 16 co-authors, 2015. In: [14], p.
187-190.
[16] Easterbrook, D.J. (Ed.), 2016. Evidence-Based Climate Science: data opposing
CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming. Second Revised
Edition. Elsevier, 418 pp.
[17] Mörner, N.-A. (Ed.), 2016. New Dawn of Truth, the London conference on
Climate Change: Science & Geoethics, The Conference Volume, 124 pp.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306013278
[18] Mörner, N.-A., Matlack-Klein, P. & Assunção Araújo (Eds.), 2018. Basic Science
of a Changing Climate: How processes in the Sun, Atmosphere and Ocean
affect Weather and Climate, the Porto Climate Conference, The Conference
Volume, 88 pp. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326882331
[19] Mörner, N.-A., 2017. Our Oceans – Our Future: New evidence-based sea level
records from the Fiji Islands for the last 500 years indicating rotational eustasy
and absence of a present rise in sea level. International Journal of Earth &
Environmental Sciences, 2, 137 (5 pp).
[20] Mörner, N.-A., 2018. Planetary beat and sea level changes. In: [18], p. 54-58.
[21] The ppt-of paper [20],
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327427281_Planetary_beat_and_sea
_level_changes
[22] Mörner, N.-A., 2007. Sea Level Changes and Tsunamis, Environmental Stress
and Migration Overseas. The Case of the Maldives and Sri Lanka.
Internationales Asienforum, 38, 353-374.
[23] Mörner, N.-A., 2016. Sea level changes as observed in nature. In: Evidence-
Based Climate Change, Second Revised Edition, D.J. Easterbrook (ed.),
Chapter 12, p. 219-231, Elsevier.
[24] Mörner, N.-A., 2016. Coastal morphology and sea level changes in Goa, India,
during the last 500 years. Journal of Coastal Research, 33 (2), 421-434.
[25] Mörner, N.-A., 2010 Sea level changes in Bangladesh: New observational facts.
Energy & Environment, 21(3), 235–249.
[26] Mörner, N.-A. & Matlack-Klein, P., 2017. Sea level changes in Fiji. Journal of
Aquaculture & Marine Biology, 6 (5), 00170, DOI:10.15406/jamb.2017.0600170
[27] Mörner, N.-A., 2014. Deriving the eustatic sea level component in the Kattegatt
Sea. Global Perspectives on Geography, 2: 16-21.
[28] Wysmuller, T., 2016. The fall of IPCC’s sea level rise. In: [18], p. 61-62, with
ppt-file at https://www.portoconference2018.org/presentations.html
[29] Mörner, N.-A., 2004. Estimating future sea level changes. Global Planetary
Change, 40: 49-54.
[30] Mörner, N.-A., 2011. Setting the frames of expected future sea level changes by
exploring past geological records. In: [2], p. 185-196.
[31] Mörner, N.-A., 2015. Natural science is ruled by observational facts, not
ephemeral model out-puts. Global Journal of Research Analysis, 4 (11): 193-
194. Journal DOI : 10.15373/22778160
[32] Landscheidt, T., 2003. New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming. Energy
and Environment, 14: 327-350.
[33] Charvátová, I., 2009. Long-Term Predictive Assessments of Solar and
Geomagnetic Activities Made on the Basis of the Close Similarity between the
Solar Inertial Motions in the Intervals 1840-1905 and 1980-2045. New
Astronomy, 14: 25-30.
[34] Mörner, N.-A. (2010) Solar Minima, Earth’s Rotation and Little Ice Ages in the
Past and in the Future. The North At lantic-European Case. Global Planetary
Change, 72: 282-293.
[35] Mörner, N.-A., 2015. The approaching New Grand Solar Minimum and Little Ice
Age conditions. Natural Science, 7: 510-518.
[36] Abdussamatov, H.J., 2016. The Little Ice Age has started. In: [16], p. 307-328.
Posted on: Clexit – Climate Exit
September 20, 2018
http://clexit.net/2018/09/20/why-we-need-world-wide-clexit/
with full document on:
http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/clexit-2018-morner.pdf
