Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

[common_sense_seeker]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ever-told.html

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

Comment?

I've just come into this thread and want to say that it was an excellent article. The Stockholm professor should be listened to imo. I remember the footage of the crops being newly ruined by salt water and the effect it had on me, but then read this:

Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

[Robittybob1]

Especially affects pacific islands. It would be so easy for the ocean floor to flex a little and the island to rise or fall. I was of that opinion too. I couldn't how sea level changes could be more noticed in one region than another. So in local areas tectonic plate movements are significant too.
But that makes them susceptible to rising seas. Double whammy for them.

[billvon]

I've just come into this thread and want to say that it was an excellent article. The Stockholm professor should be listened to imo.

I'd have to disagree there. When said professor does not even understand the issues he is discussing, it is more worthwhile to listen to someone who _does_ understand them.

[adoucette]

I deduce that English is not your native language. Solids do not float on other solids and as the mantle is solid the crust cannot float on it. End of.

Take it up with the people at http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10h.html

The crust floats on top of the mantle. It is composed of basalt rich oceanic crust and granitic rich continental crust.

Or

The Crust floats on the Mantle because the Crust is less dense.

http://www.ccsf.edu/Departments/Hist...EarthScale.htm

Or

Earth's crust "floats" on the hot, molten layer of the mantle. This molten layer is a dense "magma" that supports the lighter crust. The crust has different thicknesses and composition depending on where it is located. Some of the crust is mostly terrestrial (forming the continents), but much of it is marine (underlying the bottoms of the oceans).

The rigid material that floats on Earth's surface is termed the lithosphere. The low velocity plastic layer (molten magma) under the lithosphere is called the asthenosphere. It is believed that heat induced convection currents in the asthenosphere move (or float) the lithosphere.

http://www.marinebio.net/marinescien...gtectonics.htm

OR

Edit the Wiki articles since they must also be wrong:

Both the continental and oceanic crust "float" on the mantle (see isostasy). Because the continental crust is thicker, it extends both above and below the oceanic crust, much like a large iceberg floating next to smaller one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crust_(geology)

And

Isostasy (Greek ísos "equal", stásis "standstill") is a term used in geology to refer to the state of gravitational equilibrium between the earth's lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates "float" at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy

[Robittybob1]

Very interesting when you think about it. At one stage it floated, yet the mantle is thick today so the Earth is obviously cooling. Is that right? For the continental material would not have separated from the real viscous mantle. There has to be some fluidity somewhere or plate tectonics would grind to a halt. I'm going to have to brush up on this.

[adoucette]

Nope.
Remember the earth is only cooling at about 100 C per billion years, so conditions in reference to the crust and the mantle are not that different now then they were hundreds of millions of years ago.

The continents however were vastly different than they are today.

Here's a reconstruction going back about 600 million years.

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/rect_globe.html

[Robittybob1]

Nope.
Remember the earth is only cooling at about 100 C per billion years, so conditions in reference to the crust and the mantle are not that different now then they were hundreds of millions of years ago.

The continents however were vastly different than they are today.

Here's a reconstruction going back about 600 million years.

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/rect_globe.html

The consistency of the mantle would be vastly different if it has cooled 300 -400 degrees over 4 billion years.

[adoucette]

The consistency of the mantle would be vastly different if it has cooled 300 -400 degrees over 4 billion years.

I'm sure it was if you go far enough back, you know like a LOT more active volcanos than we have today.

In any casse, I was mentioning estimated cooling rates now.

The world was a far different place 4 billion years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

[Robittybob1]

I'm sure it was if you go far enough back, you know like a LOT more active volcanos than we have today.

In any casse, I was mentioning estimated cooling rates now.

The world was a far different place 4 billion years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

I am an Expanding Earth advocate as well so we've got expansion and contraction at the same time.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107740

And I propose that life started on Mercury.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=110922

[Captain Kremmen]

Perhaps you should post less, and listen more.

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps you should post less, and listen more.

I'm listening. What did you say?

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

I was going to start a thread on this topic, but it is well covered here.
There are many factors that govern ocean behaviour, but the major ones are not yet understood, or at least generally talked about.

Water behaves differently on a large scale compared to a glass of water splashed in the laboratory. As the scale increases the relative viscosity increases to the point that water behaves more like a solid than a liquid. These dynamics also allow oceans to begin behaving more independently from the earth below.

The tendency of oceans is not necessarily to settle out like water in your back yard pool. This concept is a lie on a global scale. Water between continents can remain risen in a gradual incline by as much as 90 meters above land level, and the water is not attracted to either shore. This state can remain for hundreds of years without changing. Although gravity on a small body of water levels quickly, on a large scale the ocean will tend to lift off and mount up with centrifical force and five other forces. But the oceans are held down towards the centre of the earth and not towards the shores as some imagine.

It can also go the other way, it can sink and spread out, giving the illusion that sea levels are rising.

[fedr808]

Sorry, just had to say this because of the title.

"I did not sleep with that woman." - Clinton

Has to be a much bigger lie then that.

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Some posts have mentioned flexion of the earth beneath oceans.

This phenomenon is far more pronounced and greater by potential than any other factor of ocean/land changes. Few realise the strong tendencies of oceans to dominate the land. If it happened, the land would never see day again.

Whole continents with their mountain heights would bend and sink. This is not possible according to common sense. But on a large scale, land does not act like a solid rock, but more like a flexible fabric.

This can be visualised by the effects of an earthquake, when the ground is moved in waves, which by the way, are not limited to a few meters high. The concept of an earth with brittle solidity is high chair science.

It may interest some that as much as the ocean is liable to dominate the land, the atmosphere has the same dominance over the oceans, and were it not for several main factors (besides the hundreds) governing the atmosophere, the ocean would go out of control.