The oceanographer Nils-Axel Mörner opposes the IPCC and the warnings of sinking islands.
Increase no problem: data show that Fiji's sea level was higher in the 17th century
than it is today. Our picture was taken two years ago during a cylcon.
Mr Mörner, you have been to the South Pacific several times recently on the Fiji
Islands in order to research changes in the coasts and sea levels. Why Fiji?
Nils-Axel Mörner: I knew there would be a science conference in New York in June
2017 that will focus on sea level changes in Fiji. And it was known that the island
nation will chair the 23rd World Climate Conference, which took place last November
in Bonn. Fiji moved into the focus of interest. It was heard that the rising sea
level had done a lot of damage there. I wanted to check with my own eyes, if that's
What made you skeptical?
I've been researching sea-level changes my entire life, traveling to 59 countries.
Hardly any other researcher has so much experience in this field. However, the IPCC
has always misrepresented the facts on this topic. He exaggerates the risks of a
level rise enormously. The IPCC relies in particular on questionable computer models
rather than field research. But I always want to know what's going on. That's why
I went to Fiji.
However, according to ProClim, the Swiss climate research platform, there are series
of measurements in Fiji that show a sharp rise in sea level in recent decades. Concretely,
the level since 1990 annually increased by 5.4 millimeters, which is twice as much
as in the global average.
Yes, I know these measurements. These are two series of tide heights, that is, water
levels at low tide and high tide. We checked these data - with the result that they
are of very poor quality. One row is influenced by the fact that docks were built
on loose sediment near the measuring station, which could have changed tidal heights.
For the other row, the measuring station was even moved locally. The researchers
who rely on such data are office workers. They are not specialized in coastal dynamics
processes and sea level changes. Many of them have no idea of the real conditions.
How did you go about getting better data?
On the one hand, we have been following the examples given, where sea level rise
has led to coastal erosion. The result was that erosion was caused by human intervention
- such as new coastal structures that changed the flow of water or the increased
harvest of sea cucumbers that could have destabilized the seabed. To prove sea level
changes over the last 500 years, we have dated sand deposits to see when they came
into being. In addition, we have researched the spread of coral in recent centuries.
Typically, coral reefs grow in height as sea levels rise, and in width as they remain
constant. If the level drops, corals die off. Corals do not lie,
What was the result?
We were able to prove that the sea level in Fiji from 1550 to about 1700 was about
seventy centimeters higher than it is today. Then it sank and was about fifty centimeters
lower in the 18th century than it is today. Then he rose to about the current level.
In the last 200 years, the level has not changed significantly. For the past 50 to
70 years he has been absolutely stable.
Were you surprised?
Not really. It was not the first time that the claims of the IPCC turned out to be
Fiji is only a single archipelago. Maybe the situation is different in other places.
There are also data from many other places in the world. These by no means confirm
the picture that the IPCC draws. In some places, the sea level is indeed rising,
but in other places it is stable, and elsewhere it even sinks. For example, the mirror
is constant in the Indian Ocean and on the Atlantic coast of South America. Also
on South Pacific islands such as Tuvalu and Kiribati measurements do not confirm
the constant warnings about the sinking of these archipelagos. The sea certainly
carries the shores here and there, but islands grow elsewhere as well. It has always
been like this.
Why are many climate researchers warning about sinking islands?
Because they have a political agenda. They are biased by the interpretation that
man is causing climate change, and that is a threat. The IPCC was founded with the
purpose of representing man-made climate change and of warning against it. His goal
was thus fixed from the beginning. And he sticks to it like a dogma - no matter what
the facts are. As a specialist in sea level developments, in recent years I have
consistently found that the IPCC team does not include a single expert on this issue.
Is there no problem with the rise of the sea level?
No danger that islands could sink?
The doomsday scenarios usually refer to the year 2100. I estimate that the sea level
will then rise on average by five centimeters, with an uncertainty of 15 centimeters.
The change goes from plus 20 centimeters to minus 10 centimeters. This is really
not a threat. Anyone who claims that there is a threat of an increase of one meter
or so has no idea of physics.
But it flows a lot of meltwater from glaciers and ice shields into the sea.
Much less than you think. In the Antarctic, no ice melts in total. When ice melts
in the Arctic, it does not change the sea level - because floating ice does not affect
the level when melting according to the laws of physics. In essence, only melting
ice on Greenland contributes to a level increase. But this post is small.
Seawater heats up and expands, increasing the level of the mirror.
That's true, but it's also just a few inches, not by decimeters or even meters. Basically,
there are much more important influences that affect the level of the sea level,
especially the sun's rays. There are also significant horizontal water shifts, from
one ocean to another. Like the data in Fiji, those of the Maldives also show that
levels were clearly higher in the 17th century than they are today. Significantly,
this was the time when it was cold in the northern hemisphere, it is called the Little
Ice Age. At that time the sun was lower than today. It was the big solar minimum.
It seems that deep sunlight is associated with high levels in the tropics - and vice
They are among the most distinguished critics of the IPCC. What triggered you to
distance yourself from the warnings of manmade climate change?
In 1991, I gave a scientific presentation at a conference on sea level changes in
the US. The representative of the IPCC present there responded with great anger to
my points of view. This reaction surprised me. Because in science circles is true
that you listen to each other and debate on different points of view. As a result,
I noticed more and more that the IPCC spread completely false information and also
adheres to obvious mistakes. I then published a paper on the influence of the sun
on the sea level, behind which 19 recognized experts. But the IPCC attacked the work
with outrageous claims and caused the scientific journal in which it was published
to be discontinued.
So you want to stop it?
You can not stop me. I have published about 650 scientific papers to date. But young
colleagues who think critically have no chance given the manipulations. Basically,
most science magazine publishers no longer accept work that goes against the claims
of the IPCC, regardless of the quality of the work.
But 97 percent of climate researchers are convinced that global warming is man-made?
This is nonsense. This number is based on dubious surveys. In fact, the majority
of researchers reject the claims made by the IPCC, with between 50 and 80 percent
depending on the field. Only meteorologists agree almost 100 percent with the IPCC.
But these people are financially dependent on the IPCC.
But does not it make sense in principle to reduce CO 2 ?
Why then? It is obvious that CO 2 is not the major driver of temperatures. It is
noteworthy that the IPCC itself has repeatedly reduced the announced warming in recent
years. But if only 1.5 degrees higher temperatures are to be expected, that is really
Why do you hear so many warnings about climate change?
Some people have been heavily exposed to their claims and obviously can not go back
now. In addition, public research money flows almost exclusively to the warning people
about climate change. We are dealing here with a quasi-religious movement that claims
to protect the environment. It now sets the fight against global warming against
the fight against poverty.
What are the right priorities?
It would be important to protect people from natural disasters such as earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions and tsunamis. In addition, 25,000 people die every day because
they have no access to clean drinking water. The food supply is often just as catastrophic.
However, Nigeria, for example, is being deterred from using coal, leading to economic
development and prosperity that would reduce hunger and poverty. There are today
efficient technologies to filter out air pollutants in coal use. Effectively, the
fight against climate change harms people very much.
What will happen next?
The sun's radiation is expected to decrease over the next few decades and there will
be a slowdown. By then it will probably be clear how wrong the warnings of global