This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Sea level is not rising
Professor Nils-Axel Mörner
Copyright © Nils-Axel Mörner MMXI
Nils-Axel Mörner took his Ph.D. in 1969, becoming associate professor in Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University that year. He conducted his postdoctoral research in Canada and was then employed by the Swedish Research Council. He was awarded a personal associate professorship at the Institute for Palaeogeophysics & Geodynamics, which from 1991 became a special research institute at Stockholm University. As head of the unit, he addressed a variety of geological and geophysical problems. He organized two major international conferences: Earth Rheology, Isostasy and Eustasy in 1977, and Climatic Changes on a Yearly to Millennial Basis in 1983. Professor Mörner has led several international field excursions throughout Sweden. Overseas, he was President of the INQUA Commission on Neotectonics (1981-1989) and President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003). He headed the INTAS Project on Geomagnetism and Climate from 1997-2003. In 2000, he launched an international research project on sea level in the Maldives. Among his numerous publications (this paper is his 547th in a 42-year career) are studies on the following –
the interaction between isostasy and eustasy;
the oscillating regional eustatic curve of NW Europe;
the changing concept of the geoid; the redefinition of the concept of eustasy;
the dynamic-rotational redistribution of oceanic water masses; the interchange of angular momentum between the Earth’s hydrosphere and lithosphere;
a new sea-level curve in the Maldives (showing no sea-level rise);
a new sea-level study in the Sundarban delta of Bangladesh.
In 2008, at an international meeting on sea level in Portugal, Professor Mörner was awarded the Golden Chondrite of Merit from the University of the Algarve “for his irreverence and his contribution to our understanding of sea-level change”.
Sea level is not rising
Professor Nils-Axel Mörner
At most, global average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per
century. It is probably not rising at all.
Sea level is measured both by tide gauges and, since 1992, by satellite
altimetry. One of the keepers of the satellite record told Professor Mörner that the record had been interfered with to show sea level rising, because the raw data from the satellites showed no increase in global sea level at all. from 1993-2000, shows a slight uptrend in sea level. However, after exclusion of the distorting effects of the Great El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998, a naturally-occurring event, the sea-level trend is zero.
The raw data from the TOPEX/POSEIDON sea-level satellites, which operated
The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites are able to measure ocean mass, from which sea-level change can be directly calculated. The GRACE data show
that sea level fell slightly from 2002-2007.
These two distinct satellite systems, using very different measurement
methods, produced raw data reaching identical conclusions: sea level is barely rising, if at all.
Sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India,
Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.
The true facts are to be found in nature itself. In the Maldives. We are facing a very grave. Since sea level is not rising. aiming to conceal the fact that its location indicated that sea level had not been rising. Modelling is not a suitable method of determining global sea-level changes. the chief ground of concern at the potential effects of anthropogenic “global warming” – that millions of shore-dwellers the world over may be displaced as the oceans expand – is baseless. a group of Australian environmental scientists uprooted a 50- year-old tree by the shoreline. This is a further indication of political tampering with scientific evidence about sea level. . unethical “sea-level-gate”. since a proper evaluation depends upon detailed research in multiple locations with widely-differing characteristics.
and a baseless one. for the raw data from the satellites show no sea-level rise at all. “Liberty and freedom consists in having of government those laws by which the people’s life and goods may be most their own. Above all. luridly and profitably predict anthropogenic apocalypse. concise and yet comprehensive paper. relying upon their X-Box 360s and Playstations. the Professor has heard the keepers of the global satellite altimetry record of sea-level rise admitting – nay. it is just that – a big scare. As Professor Mörner often points out in his lectures. In the dialogue des sourds about the climate. as the Professor demonstrates in this admirably clear. He has clambered over the glaciers that others merely model. to measure and then to think. as this revealing paper shows. Professor Mörner alone took the trouble to climb up and down 100 feet to calibrate his GPS altimeter accurately.Foreword By The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley I T IS with particular pleasure that I commend to the reader this revised and updated version of Professor Niklas Mörner’s recent paper on sea level. On the one hand lurk the computer modellers. fuel prices and energy bills that the European Union and its satraps in the Department of Climate Change are ruthlessly imposing. He found that sea level in Bangladesh had fallen somewhat. On a recent visit to Bangladesh with others who called themselves experts. As King Charles I said on the scaffold. there are two schools of thought.” . originally published in 21st-Century Science and Technology. On the other stand the scientists old-fashioned enough and careful enough to observe. Most of these do not subscribe to the Doomsters’ Union. if there is little or no sea-level rise there is little or nothing to worry about even if the world warms as fast as the profiteers of doom would have us believe. Professor Mörner is in the latter category. who. He has caught out Australian environmentalists uprooting a tree on the Maldivian shoreline whose location had demonstrated no sea level rise for half a century. proclaiming – that they had tilted the sea-level record for the entire satellite era to make it show a rate of increase. The sea-level scare is the big one: and. The implications of this fabricated scare for the future of democracy are already evident in the hikes in taxes.
“The true facts”. It was not difficult to see why the citation for the award to him of the Gold Chondrite of Merit the previous year at an international sea-level conference at the University of the Algarve had spoken not only of his “contribution to understanding of sea level” but also of his “irreverence”. I first met Professor Mörner at a debate on the climate at the St. most of them about sea level. His paper demands no prior scientific knowledge. When the climate scare is over – and it is already well on its way out – the Professor will be remembered as one of a tiny handful of scientists who had the courage. integrity and independence of mind to stand against the prevailing political tide and to demonstrate that the real tide is not rising dangerously. “are to be found in nature itself. Gentleman’s strictures I will undertake to try harder in future. Andrews University Union – the oldest undergraduate debating union in Britain – in the spring of 2009.” . but in the light of the Hon. hard way – by going out into the field and taking careful observations and measurements – and the mere silly computer games of the modellers. Andrews University Union was the first student audience in Britain to vote “global warming” down. eclectic and relentlessly charming speech captivated the House. combined with confiscatory taxation. Professor Mörner has been as good as his word: as the extensive references in this paper show. and the St. without which there would be no “global warming” panic pandemic.Predatory pricing mandated by the State. and hence to diminish their economic democracy – their right to decide for themselves how to spend what is theirs. The Professor’s witty. Professor Mörner writes as charmingly and as accessibly as he speaks. It demonstrates the growing disparity between results obtained the old. conspire to take away the people’s goods. his recent publication record would be envied by a younger man. if at all. I do apologize that in a 40-year career I have only published 530 papers [now 547] in the peer-reviewed literature. the Professor concludes. The undergraduates loved it.” The House collapsed in helpless laughter. When a true-believer in the New Religion of “global warming” got up and sneeringly advised the Professor to see if he could get his ideas about sea level published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. his answer won us the debate: “Madame President.
Carie. Scotland February 2011 . Rannoch.
This paper will highlight the differences and examine the question what data we should trust and what we should discard. In Mörner. there is no serious threat and no real problem. In subsequent papers. 2007b. Figure 1. I continued to present new data demonstrating that sea level is stable. my short sea-level booklet The Greatest Lie Ever Told (Mörner. Here I will investigate the rates of sea level changes projected by the IPCC and others. After 1965. Also. Fig. 2007c) was updated in new editions in 2009 and 2010. presenting two totally different views. separated by the area with the question mark. the two curves start to diverge. The curve marked “Models” represents the IPCC’s combination of selected tide-gauge records and corrected satellite altimetry data. 2010b). Which of these views is tenable? .Introduction I N an interview and paper published in 21st Century Science and Technology in 2007. If sea level is not rising at a high rate. 1840-2010. New data with respect to general sea level changes were published in a further paper (Mörner. I showed that global sea level is not rising alarmingly. After 1965. our field observational database from the Maldive Islands was described in detail. The curve marked “Observations” represents the observed eustatic sea level changes in the field up to 1960 according to Mörner (1973) and (in this paper) thereafter. Modelled and observed sea-level changes. 2010a). 1 illustrates the differences between the IPCC models and the observational facts. the two curves start to diverge significantly (the area marked with a question mark). Yet a rapid and perhaps dangerous sea-level rise is the main threat in the scenario offered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A new study in Bangladesh was published in 2010 (Mörner.
2007abc. No reply has come. 2. Vanuatu. 2 shows the spectrum of present-day sea level estimates.Fig. All these are key sites in the sea level debate. 2009). The spectrum of proposed rates of present-day sea level changes ranges from 0. I addressed the divergence between his claim and our field observations. In an open letter to the President of the Maldives (Mörner. Tuvalu.0 mm yr–1. and French Guyana (Mörner. I will try to straighten out the question mark in Fig.2 mm yr–1. The IPCC group and the Presidents of the Maldives and Tuvalu continue to claim that the flooding is in progress. The projected rates of sea-level rise range from 0. The erroneously-inferred sea-level rise is the basis for wild claims that tens to hundreds of thousands of people may be drowned and “millions of individuals will be displaced from their homes over the course of the century due to sea-level rise” . to 3.2 mm per year. where sea level has remained stable for the last 40-50 years (Mörner 2010a). it has been claimed that sea level is rapidly rising. The reality is different from what the IPCC claims.0 to 3. This claim has been discredited by my study in the Sundarban area. 1 by undertaking a critical examination of the rates given in Fig. and will soon swamp these island nations and wipe them off the surface of the globe (or rather ocean). 2010ab). not all these rates are correct. Figure 2: Projected and observed rates of sea-level change (mm yr–1). however. As if this were not bad enough. where the IPCC and its ideological associates have predicted terrible flooding. Bangladesh. Observation and measurement in the field Clear observational measurements in the field indicate that sea level is not rising in the Maldives. Obviously. according to calibrated satellite altimetry. according to observational facts from a number of key sites all over the world. Bangladesh is a nation cursed by disasters—heavy precipitation in the Himalayas and coastal cyclones.
. Murphy.6-year tidal cycles (Gratiot et al. 1. This casts clear doubt on the satellite altimetry value. if the entire empirical basis for those concerns is absent? The President of Tuvalu continues to claim that his islands are being flooded. that is. 2008). The tide gauge at Korsør in the Great Belt (the strait between the main Danish islands of Zeeland and Funen). The north-west European coasts are interesting because here we have sites that are experiencing both uplift and subsidence. Figure 3. For the same area. In Vanuatu. the tide gauge indicates a stable sea level over the last 14 years (Mörner. . it shows a sea level falling around 1970 (Mörner. This is a serious exaggeration: yet the journal that published it. no acceleration whatsoever in the last decades. Adding the eustatic component of Mörner (1973) for the period 1840-1970. Yet the tide-gauge data provide clear indications of stability over the last 30 years (Mörner.(Byravana and Raja 2010).4 mm/year. the Venetian record reveals no rise of eustatic origin.0 mm/year. satellite altimetry gives a sea level rise of 3. 1843-2003. and it shows a halt in the sea-level rise at around 1960. 2010b). The gray area gives the actual tide-gauge reading for the German North Sea port of Cuxhaven for 1843-2003—that is. Subtracting the subsidence factor. 2007ac). for example. a trend totally different from that proposed by the IPCC models but in full agreement with the observational facts recorded in Fig. we must ask: What is the meaning of raising moral concerns.000 years. It exhibits variations around a stable zero level over the last 50 years (Mörner. gives a straight line of subsidence with a rate of 1. Ethics and International Affairs. instead. 2007ac. The sea-level record from Venice may be used as a test area for global eustasy. for 160 years. From the coasts of French Guyana and Surinam there is a very excellent sea-level record covering multiple 18. refuses to print a comment from me “that focuses on empirical data. is located at the hinge between uplift and subsidence for the last 8. as discussed further below. A polynomial curve was fitted by Jörn Herold to this tide-gauge record. followed by a continuous fall until 2003.” With surprise. This tide gauge shows no sea-level rise in the last 50-60 years. Cuxhaven tide-gauge record (cm). The eustatic component (the difference between the polynomial curve and the linear trend) can now be extended up to 2003. 2007c). 2010b. 2007).
I was able to isolate a eustatic factor for 1680-1970 (Mörner. 3 shows the annual mean values for 160 years. Some further field observations that I have recently made are given later in this paper.g. 3). 1. personal communication). showing a centennial rise of 11 cm from 1830-1840 to 1930-1940. Superimposing the subsidence record here on the uplift record from the Stockholm tide gauge. This is well below the rate estimated by the IPCC and satellite altimetry (as discussed below). there is a very good fit between sea-level rise and rotational deceleration.0 mm/year.The tide gauge in Amsterdam. there is the opposite trend: a slow decline. The values of NOAA’s 159 tide gauge stations indicate that they range from uplifted areas (bottom left zone) to subsiding areas (top right zone). 1973). Cuxhaven. e. Fig. becomes flat around 1950-1970. we get partly the local rate of subsidence (the straight line). If the uplifting and subsiding sites are excluded. The regional eustatic sea level change decelerates after 1930-1940. installed in 1682. which seems to provide a measure of a global sea-level factor (the polynomial curve with respect to the linear trend-line in Fig. extended up to the present and double-checked for the pre-1970 section (the difference between the polynomial curve and the straight line). Adding to this the eustatic component of the northwestern European region (Mörner. and partly the eustatic component. in an area that represents the subsiding segment of the North Sea coasts. Consequently. has a tide gauge dating back to 1843. we are left with 68 sites (central dark zone) where the rise in sea level ranges between 0. with a long-term trend polynomial fitted to it (Herold. is the oldest in the world. In that 100-year period. Spectrum of rates of sea-level rise (mm/year) reported by NOAA’s 159 tidegauge stations. the Earth’s rate of rotation decelerated at a value which corresponds to a 10cm sea-level rise (see. . These data are combined in the “Observations” curve in Fig. on the German coast. 1973).0 and 2.. Tide gauges Figure 4. 1996). and falls from 1970 up to the present. Mörner. This provides firm evidence that sea level is not rising at all rapidly today: rather. This polynomial curve gives a slightly sinusoidal rising trend that represents the mean relative sea level changes in the area.
8 mm/year.g. records from tide gauges are bound to exaggerate sea-level rise. is to exclude those sites that represent uplifted and subsiding locations (the bottom left and top right zones in Fig. as shown in Fig. 2010). Satellite altimetry Satellite altimetry is a wonderful. new technique for reconstructing sea-level changes all over the ocean surface. 1995.6 mm/year (Burton 2010). A better approach. 1996). The Amsterdam tide gauge is the oldest. as discussed above). for sea level not only changes vertically but also horizontally. The trend thereafter is less clear. quasi-periodic climate pattern that occurs across the tropical Pacific Ocean every few years. A much more realistic approach is to treat that ENSO signal as a separate event superimposed on the long-term trend. the Stockholm tide gauge is the second-oldest. 2004. Menard (2000) and also Aviso (2000) presented a first sea-level graph for 1992-2000 (Fig.0 mm/year is established by taking the linear trend. 2008). Church et al.Tide gauges were installed at harbor constructions to measure changes in tidal level and long-term sea-level changes. The IPCC authors take the liberty to select what they call “representative” records for their reconstruction of the centennial sea level trend. followed by the JASON mission. Most tide gauges are installed on unstable harbor constructions or landing piers. the IPCC story-line prescribed from the beginning of the project—is imposed in the selection and identification of their “representative” records. The Fig. a naturallyoccurring. however. installed in 1768.0) mm/year. recorded variations in the altitude of the ocean surface with high resolution. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tide-gauge database has 159 stations (Fig.45 mm/year (Fig.g. This graph . however (Mörner. 2004). 2010. (2006) selected 6 tide gauges and obtained a rate of 1. Casenave & Llovel. Douglas (1991) chose 25 tide gauges and obtained a rate of sea level rise of 1. This implies that their personal view—that is. 6 shows a variability (of ±10 mm) around a stable zero level to end 1996 and a strong ENSO-driven peak in 1997. 5 trend of 1.0 (± 1. 6 (Mörner. Fig.5-0. This leaves 68 sites of reasonable stability (still with the possibility of an exaggeration of the rate of change. 2). The horizontal redistribution of water masses was first observed for centennial-to-decadal sea-level changes in the late Holocene (see e. 5). installed in 1682. This is vital. This is far below the rates given by satellite altimetry. These sites give a present rate of sea level rise of ~1. and the Liverpool tide gauge is the third-oldest. 2007c. 4). Nicholls & Casenave. It is also clearly shown in the satellite record from 1992-2010 (see e. 4). The mean of all the 159 NOAA sites is 0. Therefore. With this selection methodology.4 mm/ year. and Holgate (2007) selected 9 tide gauges and got a rate of 1. Mörner. a method which overlooks the fact that substantial high point in tidal cycles 175-200 was caused by an exceptional El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The TOPEX/POSEIDON mission. installed in 1724/1774. Having applied all technical correction needed. Problems remain with respect to the zero level chosen and to the long-term trend.
so that a “reinterpretation” of the raw data needed to be carried out in order to obtain the desired result. after technical “corrections” were applied (from Menard. 2007c. allowing for the El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998.provides no indication of any rise in sea level over the time-period covered (Mörner 2004. The sea-level changes as recorded in Fig. Figure 6. 2007ac). 5. Figure 5. but this linear trend may have been largely an artefact of the naturally-occurring El Niño Southern Oscillation event in cycles 175-200. This shows stability over the first 5 years (to end 1996) and possibly over the whole time period covered. 2000). Source: Mörner 2004. was orally confirmed by a member of the satellite altimetry team in 2005 when I attended a meeting on global warming held by the . which turned a near-zero trend in sea-level rise to a trend of 2. they faced a problem they had not expected: there was no discernible sea-level rise visible. and they extended the trend up to 2003. Annual mean sea-level changes observed by TOPEX/POSEIDON in 2000. The fact of this “reinterpretation”.3 mm/year (later 3. When the satellite altimetry group realized that the 1997 rise was an ENSO signal. 5 are presented here with a more realistic trend analysis that treats the 1997 ENSO peak as a separate event superimposed on the long-term trend.0 mm/year was identified.2). A slow. long-term rising trend of 1. Sea-level changes from Fig.
In most reproductions of the graph representing the satellite-altimetry sea-level record. as the satellite altimetry groups do not specify the “corrections” they carry out. According to Peltier (1998).8 mm/year (IPCC 2001) The isostatic adjustment is intended to allow for the deformation of the Earth’s crust by tectonic influences.3 ±0. must have been tilted to show a rise of as much as 2. 7 of Aviso (2003): see also Aviso (2000). As presented by Aviso (2003). and obviously represents a site-specific subsidence. passed through Hong Kong. The satellite altimetry record from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellites.3 mm/year relative to the isobase. for example. this single tide gauge record is an outlier: it is contradicted by the four other records existing in Hong Kong. which is the reference point for calculating the global isostatic adjustment.1) mm/year (Fig. 7). seen in Figs.3 mm/year. This is exactly the same as the apparent trend in sea-level rise over the decade 1992-2003 in Fig. 2003) suddenly took a new tilt. on the Internet and in journal papers. Sea-level changes after “calibration” in 2003. the record suddenly has a new trend representing an inferred sea-level rise of 2. Fig. In 2003.3 (±0. it is not even stated that the graphs do not represent trends taken from the raw data as read by the satellites.4 mm/year (see. which showed little or no sea-level rise. At the Moscow global warming meeting in . We must now ask: what is the justification for this tilting of the record? Originally. some sort of “correction” has been made. unspecified “correction” referred to the global isostatic adjustment. Obviously.Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. Instead of the near-horizontal trend of 1992-2000. the zero isobase. 5 of 2000 are tilted sharply upward in Fig. 7 shows that the keepers of the satellite altimetry record have introduced a new calibration factor – an upward tilt compared with the raw data. Exactly what was done remains unclear. given as 2. but the “correction” has not been disclosed so as to permit independent verification (see Mörner 2007c. This means that the original records presented in Figs. 2008).” Figure 7. However. the satellite altimetry record (Aviso. it seemed that this extra. but trends only after “corrections.1 mm/year. Nevertheless. 7 . 5-6. a fact well known to local geologists. where a single tide gauge gives a sea level rise of 2. Peltier 1998) or 1. From where does the new tilt come? The data that lie flat in Fig. which show no real uptrend in sea level. suddenly there was an uptrend of 2. followed by the JASON satellites. 5-6.
B.” Therefore. Very often there is no long-term trend.8 mm/yr rate is not well established. “we adopted the rate given by Douglas (1991. it is a matter of personal opinion. The tide-gauge records play a central role in this calibration. 2010b). 7 was tilted back to its original position as indicated by the unaltered data from the satellites (Fig.8 ± 0. rather. “We had to adjust the record. The 1. but rather the opposite (this applies for the 6 sites used by Church et al. The tide-gauge records. as well as the 25 sites used by Douglas). which certainly has not been done by the groups dealing with the satellite altimetry records and the IPCC community. Mitchum (2000) states that. In my opinion. C) encompasses multiple variables that need painstaking and skillful handling.” and that. sea-level rise. 6 and shown for the Tuvalu record by Mörner (2007c. To establish a local tide-gauge trend (box B) is far from straightforward. Local sedimentary ground changes (such as compaction. discussed by Mörner. otherwise there would not be any trend. the actual data did not show sea level rising at all. especially those selected. The “global sea level factor” (box A) is never clear and trustworthy. the graph reproduced here as Fig. implying some sort of circular reasoning. in my 2007 booklet (Mörner 2007c). Cyclical trends. as illustrated in Fig. if any. El Niño Southern Oscillation events (and especially super-ENSO events such as that of 1997-8) must be subtracted. water withdrawal.” In other words. as seen in the wide range of global sea-level change estimates set out in Figs. event signals. in part. and see Casenave and Nerem 2004. The calibrations applied to the satellite altimetry readings were discussed in Mitchum (2000. 2010a). just segments that need individual treatment (as in the case of the Bombay tide-gauge record. as expressed in the boxed equation below: Each of the three boxes (A. a better value would be at or a little above 0. 2). “the tide gauges were assumed to be vertically stable”. Both of these assumptions are wrong.1 mm/yr. and so on) are a prime . and segments must be identified and subtracted. Other important factors are the global isostatic adjustment and vertical movements of the tide-gauge sites. 2). are far from vertically stable.2005. 2 & 4. since it is based on a probably unrepresentative subset of the tide-gauge stations (see Fig. Mitchum (2000) provided the following relations.0 mm/yr – little. in part.8 mm/yr is surely an overestimate that is strongly affected by subsidence at the tide gauges selected (Fig. 5). The rate of 1. Leuliette and Scharroo 2010).” one of the persons in the British IPCC delegation said. I replied: “Did you hear what you were saying? This is just what I am accusing you of doing. Numerous different variables affect and interfere with the long-term trend. The local land motion at the tide-gauge sites (box C) is another intricate issue that calls for geological understanding of the specific site in question. 1995) of 1. in answer to my criticisms about this “correction.
2009). Casenave et al. to sea level records. The raw data show a slight fall in sea level over the period by –0.12 (±0. which given an approximation of changes in mean global sea level (Fig. With the space gravimetry observations from the GRACE satellites it has become possible to record changes in the ocean water mass (Casenave et al. One thing is for sure. In the harbor in the Maldives capital of Malé. The question is whether or not this “correction” is justifiable. 2010b).9) mm/year (upper curve). it is profoundly dependent on those variables.g. and now to ocean mass changes. Instead. 1998) but contradicted by other data (e. 2005). For instance. which is to be questioned. The difference is significant. Crustal movements and seismotectonics are other factors. Figure 8. Mörner. 2009). Satellite altimetry is not providing what is often claimed: a measure of sea level changes truly independent of tide gauges and global isostatic adjustments.. Inferring a global isostatic adjustment correction.9 (±0.factor in the assessment (Mörner 2004. The space gravimetry readings from the GRACE satellites record changes in ocean mass which are approximately equal to changes in mean global sea level (Casenave et al. (2009) presented a corrected rate of 1.g. Peltier.06) mm/year (lower curve). Global isostatic adjustment corrections have been applied to tide gauges. Ocean mass changes obtained from G RACE satellite data. Site-specific knowledge is key. the island is so heavily overloaded by building that the harbor constructions fracture. 8). many tide gauges are installed on harbor constructions and landing piers that are far from stable. 2003-2007. The concept of the global isostatic adjustment is a model supported by some data (see e. . Satellite measurements cannot help here. It appears that without these corrections there is little or no room for any global sea level rise. causing distortions that invalidate any tide-gauge reading there. to satellite altimetry data.
8 for 2003-2007. 9 shows the satellite altimetry records as presented by NOAA (2008). showing no signs of any sea-level rise. 5-6 for 1992-2000 and the raw data from the G RACE satellites in Fig. The original record . 9 is back-tilted to fit the original trend in Figs. which suggest a sea-level rise of 3.Correcting tide gauges for global isostatic adjustment or regional crustal movement is not the correct way of treating records of this type. Instead. unaltered data. Fig.” Consequently. wind. This gives an un”corrected” satellite altimetry graph. loading. The (GRACE) GIA-corrected trend (Fig. A blind global isostatic adjustment model correction may provide quite wrong results. this satellite altimetry graph has a long-term trend which is significantly greater than that which actual instrumental measurements provide: it is created by inferred “corrections.2 (±0. and tectonics. This suggests that the satellite record is strongly affected by “corrections. sedimentation. compaction. Figure 9. The TOPEX-JASON satellite data provide a record suggesting a mean sea-level rise of 3. Satellite altimetry as given by NOAA. from two independent sources of actual. it is a dangerous shortcut applied by scientists who are not sea-level specialists by training and hence lack the skill to undertake careful site-specific stability analyses themselves. the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimetry record of Fig. 8) for 2003-2007 (arrowed line) agrees with the JASON data. each site must be evaluated individually with respect to stability.2 mm/year over the period 1993-2007.” In Fig.4) mm/year. 10. waves.
The “corrections” applied are not specified by the responsible groups at NOAA and the Centre National des Etudes Spatiales. . 2008).for 1992-2000 is restored (cf.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data (Fig. provide that they are clearly declared and described. these two untampered datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007. France’s space agency. un“corrected” data. 5. 9). Various types of corrections may be applied.g. Aviso. Together. The “calibrated” satellite altimetry record tilted back to match the original. This is not the case with the presently-circulated trends in sea-level rise from satellite altimetry (see e. 5. 2003. The original TOPEX/POSEIDON raw data for 1992-2000 showed variability around a stable horizontal zero line (Figs. 9 satellite altimetry record is significantly altered by nontechnical “corrections” (whatever they may be). altogether eliminating the apparent 3. 6). The G RACE raw data (Fig. This implies that the Fig. 6) and the GRACE raw data fit the record perfectly well: Figure 10. NOAA. Figs. 8) show a gently falling trend for 2002-2007.
otherwise there would not be any trend. 2008). 2008) that the satellite altimetry recording consists of three steps: first. 11 illustrates the difference between the instrumental record (in this case from the TOPEX/POSEIDON and GRACE satellites: Figs. For the actual. appropriate technical adjustments are applied to the satellite instrument readings. to yield the correct sealevel rise. which is actually little more than zero. 6. Aviso. 5-6. the “interpretational record” after the application of what I have called “personal calibrations”. 2003. un“corrected” instrumental satellite-altimetry record (Fig. the raw data read by the satellites. Stage 1 is the collection of readings from the satellite by altimetry. 2000. in Stage 3. Fig. 8) and the interpretational record from the University of Colorado (Fig. If so. However. we are facing a very grave. The “instrumental record” gives a sea level trend on the order of 0. It may be mere disinformation.” No trend means no sea-level rise. How “corrections” change sea level rise of ~0 mm/year to ~3 mm/year.If the “corrections” applied are not clearly specified (and discussed and argued for).0 mm/year. In Stage 2. after additional subjective “personal calibrations”. These corrections were applied to the original altimetry graph (Figs. 2008) that imply sea-level rise in the order of 3 mm/year (Fig. an IPCC member discussing subjective adjustments to the instrumental record told me: “We had to do so. Our examination of the satellite data seems to confirm that this is indeed the case. secondly. the “instrumental record” after appropriate technical correction.0 mm/year (Figs. As reported above. 9). perhaps disseminated with the intention of supporting the IPCC’s wild claims about sea-level rise. the “interpretational record” represents disinformation. 2000). NOAA. unethical. 2. and is not a true “instrumental record” (Mörner. then the resulting corrected data cannot be objectively evaluated. and thirdly. Aviso. I have previously asserted (Mörner. This fits the observational . interpretational graphs were produced (see e.g. 5-6: Menard. 9): Figure 11. Therefore. “sea-level-gate”. 10) gives a true sea-level rise of around 0. 10).
The facts found in site after site and in all types of coastal environment were quite straightforward: in the Maldives. The Maldives The IPCC and its supporters have frequently claimed that the Maldives are doomed to become submerged well before 2100. Some 20-30 cm above storm level.” indicates a beach rock-platform. and to form interpretations and theories based on those facts. 2004.facts much better. A group of sea-level experts was formed and the work commenced in 2000 with a month-long expedition in the field. 2009.R. Several additional field expeditions were to follow. In recent years President Nasheed has taken the lead in maintaining that his own nation has no future and will soon rest beneath the waves. however. As a geologist. by contrast. “B. This is illustrated in Figs. equivalent to 2 inches per century) over the last 50 years. It has been stable for the last 30-40 years. All this talk is sheer nonsense. 2004). high-tide level and storm level. As president of INQUA.. and further discussed in a number of papers (Mörner et al.. providing a coherent picture of no sea-level rise (or at most a harmless ~0. Personal observations in the field The IPCC bases all its argumentation on computer models and scenarios. Figure 12a. I find it natural to turn to observational facts in nature itself. Mörner.5 mm/yr. Here. 2011a). 12a and 12b. together with an indication of what my observations mean for the IPCC’s projected future changes in climate. a decade ago I launched a special sea level research project in the Maldives. . now abandoned and overgrown. Shoreline profile of most islands in the Maldives (from Mörner et al. the International Commission on Sea-Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. sea level is not rising. I will give a brief summary of some of my recent fieldwork on sealevel changes. there is an older beach with storm level. 2007bc. In the 1970s sea level even fell by some 20 cm. We visited several islands. The present sea level is recorded as mean sea level.
natural phenomena. The cyclones and flooding caused by heavy rain in the mountains are another factor that we cannot do anything about. The locals are quite aware the sea level is not at all rising. Minicoy is the southernmost island. however. unfortunately. They took a scientific colleague to the shore and presented the clear observational fact that sea level is not rising. Maldives. 13. Again we are facing observational facts revealing no rise at all in sea level despite severe coastal erosion attributable to cyclones (Fig. for they are.Figure 12b. . The reality is totally different. An actual field section from the Guidhoo Atoll. demonstrating the shoreline zonation illustrated diagrammatically in Fig. 2011a). The lowering of sea level occurred in the 1970s. The Laccadives Just north of the Maldives lie the Laccadive Islands. however. according to local fishermen. Bangladesh There are no limits to the terrible scenarios that have been proposed for the future of Bangladesh as a consequence of an imagined global sea level rise. It is recorded all over the Maldives and in different shoreline environments. 2010a). The ultimate nonsense was a recent claim that 25 million to 1 billion people will have to be relocated by 2050. it recently fell. Mörner. so that new land was formed. They also say they understand that it is “all a matter of money”. The people of Bangladesh are not about to be flooded by rising sea level. On the contrary. They say they are amused to hear what President Nasheed of the Maldives has been saying. an archipelago belonging to India. The new land is now starting to become overgrown and has been settled by terrestrial snails (Mörner. 12a.
however. Tuvalu and Vanuatu A continuing sea-level rise is said to threaten to flood both Tuvalu and Vanuatu. the tide gauges indicate stability for 14 years in Vanuatu and 32 years in Tuvalu (Mörner.Figure 13. However. Instead. the tide gauges in both regions show no rise at all. satellite altimetry in the same region gives a rise of 3. indicating that sea level has been quite stable over the last 50 years. which swings up and down around a long-term zero trend (the arrowed line). Mörner. 2010b. Satellite altimetry gives a rise of 3 mm/year in the same area. 2010b). On the internet and in the news media.. This implies the same level of mud-flats as the delta surface behind. and do not indicate rising sea level. .0 mm/year – another revealing example of the difference between recorded facts and “reprocessed” satellite data. French Guyana and Surinam From this region. The record is dominated by the 18. which spread their roots just below the mud-flats (right above). Additional information indicates. horizontal zerolevel. however. 2007). Facts and fiction seem to clash. 14). The horizontal roots reveal that the trunks are from mangrove trees.6-year tidal cycle. we often see pictures of partially-flooded areas in Tuvalu. The map of satellite-altimetry changes from 1992-2009 give a general rise over the whole region in the order of 3 mm/year or even more. The cycles vary symmetrically around a stable. Accordingly. Some people take tree-trunks on the exposed beach as evidence of a sea-level rise. Figure 14. 2008. that the photographs were taken at extreme high tide. there is a very good tide-gauge record covering three 18. There is no basis for this suggestion. Erosion is not sea-level rise: The outermost edge of the Sundarban delta in Bangladesh was severely eroded by the 2007 cyclone (left above). 2010a). Changes in mean high-water level (cm: left axis) measured by tide gauges at the coast of French Guyana and Surinam (Gratiot et al. 2007c. However. Murphy. there has been no change in sea level (Mörner.6-year tidal cycles (Fig.
000 years. time and a substantial input of energy are required. as illustrated by the sea-level record from Cuxhaven (Fig. North-western Europe The north-west European region. A sea-level rise of 1 cm per year is. to have an upper bound on sea-level rise as a yardstick allowing us to discriminate between realistic estimates and much-publicized extreme values that can be discarded as physically impossible. both before and after the data have been “reprocessed” or distorted to take account of purely subjective adjustments as discussed earlier. satellite altimetry Most tide-gauge records are far too short to provide meaningful information about real trends. . during which time sea level rose 130 m. yet sea level rose by little more than 1 cm per year or 1 m per century. when it stopped rising. above the maximum rate that can arise today from melting ice and other causes combined (Mörner. It is very useful. however. the tidegauge records we have mentioned above are all long-term records and are. The Last Ice Age ended with an extensive melting of the continental ice caps under extreme climatic forcing. It even seems to have fallen somewhat in recent decades. gives a large high over most of the western Pacific and a low over the equatorial region west of the Americas. Sea level rose 11 cm from 1850-1950. The process of melting took 10.6-year tidal cycle) or large spikes caused by the naturallyoccurring El Niño Southern Oscillations every four years or so. The map of sea level changes inferred from satellite altimetry in the period 19922009. they are often dominated by segments of cyclic variations (e. therefore. Today. This suggests that there is much still to do in calibrating the satellite altimeters to ensure that they monitor sea-level changes correctly. the main 18.g.000-12. in effect. Discussion Tide gauges vs. Ice melt For large bodies of ice to melt. 3). However. with uplift over Fennoscandia and subsidence over the North Sea coasts. sea-level rise caused by ice-melt must be significantly below 1 cm a year. In the short term. useful indications of the trend in sea level.Venice The sea-level record from the tide gauges in Venice shows that there has been no acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise in recent decades (Mörner. This picture fits very badly with available tide-gauge records in both areas. 2007c). offers another test region where the global sea-level component can be isolated and identified. 2011b).
It has sometimes been suggested that if temperature were to rise as the IPCC has projected the Earth might return to the climatic conditions of the last interglacial period. this rock-cut platform is likely to mark the maximum sea level of the last interglacial. The elevation is only 1. Hidden in the adjacent forest is the foot of a steep fossil sea cliff. Thermosteric expansion of seawater The water column will expand when heated. There have even been claims that sea level was 7-10 m higher. The amount of expansion is in the order of centimetres up to a decimetre per century. 2011b). 1996. ~125. It was once generally believed that sea level was some 2-4 m higher than today. The last interglacial During the mid-Holocene. 6000-8000 years ago. A fact often ignored is that as the water depth becomes shallower towards a coast. hardly more (Mörner. Therefore. including the IPCC’s current maximum of 2 m per century) must be dismissed as impossible. Only the upper part of the ocean may be heated. This has raised new interest in the actual sea level of the last interglacial. mean global surface temperature was about 2.5 C° warmer than today. .5-2 m above the present sea level. Rock-cut platform from the Last Interglacial in Hong Kong.000 years ago. the effect is zero. however. ~125. owing to the strict stratification of the oceanic water masses. mean surface temperature was 4 C° warmer than today and sea level was generally higher than today. At the shore. Figure 15.000 years ago. During the last interglacial.All claims of a sea-level rise by year 2100 exceeding 1 m (and there are several. there is less and less water to expand.
1440-1460. Conclusions Observational facts indicate that sea level is by no means rapidly rising. 2010.g. Venice. the Maldives (and also the Laccadives to the north of the Maldives). . French Guyana.000 years). 2011c). varying in elevation between +2 and +4 m. Satellite altimetry is shown to record variations around a stable zero level for the entire period 1992-2010. This is the case in key sites like the Maldives. It is quite stable. Whatever the next Solar Minimum will bring. Here. Vanuatu. Qatar. we can now return to Fig. there is no reason to hypothesize that any similar event would be likely to occur in our near future. 1687-1703. At all the previous solar minima (e. When Hansen & Sato (2011) propose a 4 m sea-level rise between 2080 and 2100. Bangladesh. there is a quite clear rock-cut platform (Fig.The western Mediterranean is widely taken as a reference point for changes in sea level during the last interglacial. it will be likely to invalidate all the linear and exponential extrapolations of temperature change in the IPCC’s models. and Korsør (a stable hinge for the last 8 . they violate the laws of physics. It is a serious mistake to look for horror scenarios in the behaviour of sea level during the last interglacial. the climatic conditions generated “little Ice Ages” (Mörner. Early in 2011 I visited Hong Kong. 2010c). Venice (after subtracting the subsidence factor). Tide gauges tend to exaggerate rising trends because of subsidence and compaction. where we have worked extensively. 1809-1821). Mörner. Reported trends in the order of 3 mm/year represent “interpretational records.” after the application of subjective “personal calibrations” which cannot be substantiated by observational facts. Its elevation is only ~2 m above today’s sea level. Full stability over the last 30-50 years is indicated in sites like Tuvalu. Therefore. The same result is evident from the passive continental margins of east South America and Tanzania. 2011b). The next solar minimum The next solar minimum is due in 2040-2050. with stability over the last 40 years. 1 and claim that the “models” (upper curve) provide an illusory picture of a strong sea-level rise and that the “observations” (lower curve) provide a good reconstruction of the actual changes in sea level over the last 170 years. however. Cuxhaven (after subtracting the subsidence factor). Tuvalu. 15) from the last interglacial. Two peaks in sea level are well recorded. In 2010 an international excursion was therefore devoted to field evidence from Sardinia (Carboni & Lecca. Saint Paul Island. India. and northwest Europe. Consequently. empirical geology and scientific ethics (Mörner. No catastrophic sea level rise at the end of the last interglacial can be substantiated.
realizing that the location of the tree was fatal to their notion of ever-rising sea level. but is well below the 37 ±19 cm projected by IPCC (2007). is clear and straightforward.g. 2000).3 to 3. They are certainly not to be found at the modelling consoles. This is illustrated in Fig. In that paper. still in leaf. 16. The idea of an ever-rising sea drowning tens of thousands of people and forcing hundreds of thousands or even millions of people to become sea-level refugees is simply a grave error. Figure 16. but differs significantly from the values proposed by the IPCC (2001. Some data depend heavily on interpretation.0 mm/year to at most 0. This fits well with the values proposed for year 2100 by INQUA (2000) and Mörner (2004). I hope that by this research we can free the world from the artificial crisis to which the IPCC has condemned it. Observational facts suggest 0. Only rates in the order of 0. Reliability of different proposed rates of sea-level rise. 2004) and 10 ±10 cm (INQUA. There will be no extensive or disastrous global sea-level rise in the near future. This result agrees with estimates of a possible sea level rise of 5 ±15 cm by 2100 (Mörner. The validity of the spectrum of rates of sea-level rise shown in Fig. 2007c. Consider trees. 2 can now be assessed. 2) and evaluate the various values proposed.7 mm/year (<3 in. Values close to 1 mm/year represent minor centennial rises and falls. I described the significance of the lonely tree by the shore in the Maldives which indicated that sea level had been stable for 50-60 years. That was the main threat in the IPCC’s arsenal of bugaboos. Mörner.7 mm/year seem realistic. Values >1. then the greatest threat imagined by the IPCC disappears. indicating significant coastal erosion (caused in part by the clearance of mangroves to make way for shrimp-farms) but no sea level rise at all (Mörner.0 mm/year to maximum 0. A group of Australian environmental “scientists”./century). and now it is gone. I have often said that “trees don’t lie”: see e. 2007). hereby revealed as an illusion. 2010a). If sea level is not rising fast. 2007c.4 mm/year are untenable overestimates. uprooted it and left it. and is not going to rise fast. . The true facts are to be found in nature itself. however. There are also the trees on the beach in Sundarban. Other evidence.We can now return to the spectrum of present-day sea level rates (Fig. lying on the strand.
Geophys.T. 1995. 96. 12-22). the paper would never have appeared. 83-88. Sea-level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands. Douglas. Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change. Hansen. Anthony. Llovel. Casenave. and G. & M.pog.. E. Casenave. 2008. this paper stands out as a Mörner & Monckton contribution. 1-20. W.columbia.. A. Present-day sea level changes: Observations and causes. Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. Berthier. 1991. S. .A. 48 pp.T.R. pp. Sato.6 year tidal cycle to regional coastal changes. Global and Planetary Change 65.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.cis. Climate Change: the Physical Science Basis (J. Douglas. 6981-6992. A. My sincere thanks. www. including distanceweighted averaging. 239-260.. For me. 145-173. London & New York.. Geophysics 42. Geophys.oceanobs. 33. Hunter.pdf Holgate. Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A re-evaluation from GRACE space gravimetry. 2010. Contemporary sea level rise. J.A.pog. N.burtonsys. 2001. Rev. C. Cambridge Univ. I acknowledge the skilful input into this paper of Christopher Monckton as editor-in-charge. Nerem.J. Workshop on “Decoding the Last Interglacial in Western Mediterranean”. 2010. www.J. Marine Sci. www.nu). A.. Rev. M.aviso. 2010.J. & S. Ablain. 34.1038/ngeo127. 155-168. Church.html Byravana. Proisy. B. White & J. 2008.. www.. Larnicol. doi:10. www. Madrid.C. Mean Sea Level as seen by altimeters. Global and Planetary Change 53. 1425-1432.1029/2006GL028492. The ethical implications of sea-level rise due to climate changes. S. 2011.). Press.cis. Gardel. Geophys. Carboni.C.fr Aviso.su. References Aviso..fr Aviso.. Houghton et al. Global sea level changes: determination and interpretation. 2010. B. Observing the oceans by altimetry.com Burton. ETS. J. doi: 10.aviso. 2007..C.com/global_msl_trend_analysis.. & R. Rajan. Global sea-level rise. C. 2006. E. & L. 2000.cnes. Res. Ann. Dominh. 2009. Casenave. Observing the oceans by altimetry. INQUA Project 0911–CMP Commission. 169-172. Out of this work the present paper emerged. Christopher Monckton sensitively extracted the introductory main points. Field Trip Guide. Rev. & W.S. Res. Guinehut. Gratiot. Gaucherel. 2004. K. Llovel. eds. 2000. J. D. 2. 2003.. Lecca. LO1602. Its origin lay in a paper published in 21st Century Science & Technology (winter 2010/2011. satellite altimetry and Argo. N. Wells. www. Analysis of global linear mean sea level (MSL)-trends.aviso. Without the vision and input of my friend Christopher Monckton.se (from 2005: www. S. A. S.Acknowledgements With deep gratitude. G. redrew several graphs and asked for additional observational material.E.. and J. INQUA. Significant contribution of the 18.cnes. On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century. Ethics and International Affairs 24:3. and especially not in this elegant and expressive form. Lett. Nature Geoscience 1. Rammien. IPCC.
2009. D.). Sea level changes in Bangladesh: new observational facts. Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones.-A.. New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter 53.. Comments. Cambridge Univ. Mörner. N.S. London & New York. 2004. vol. 2011c. Murphy.-A.-A. 2011b. N. Palaeoecol. 2010). Mörner.. Mörner. 145-166.R. [in press]. 2010b. Geomorphology N. N. Solar minima. Peltier. & A. N. eds..J.-A. W.-A. N. Mörner.. R. N. Tooley & G. Possnert. 91-102.. 1996.” Palaeogeogr.. Mörner. Postglacial variations in the level of the sea: implications for climate dynamics and solid-earth geophysics. 2010c. 2009. 2007a. Mörner. D.. The Great Sardinian Sea Level Excursion [submitted]. N. 177-182. The Greatest Lie Ever Told. 1-14. 219-220.J. Science 328. Mörner.T. Internationales Asienforum 38. Geophysics 36. N..J.. Elsevier. MEDIAS Newsletter 12. Energy and Mörner. Mitchum. 21st Century Science and Technology. 2000. G. Mörner. Climate Change (S. Press... 2008.. G. 2007. Global and Planetary Change 72. 1973. Rev.-A.-A. Some problems in the reconstruction of mean sea level and its changes with time. There’s no danger of global sea level rise. ... Mörner. ocean circulation and paleoclimate. 353-374. New perspectives for the future of the Maldives. Sea Level Variability. Ed.gov.-A. Ed.. N. Environment 21:3. Fall 2007.oco.IPPC. Sea-level changes and crustal movements with special aspects on the Mediterranean..-A. 2010a. Global and Planetary Change 40. N. 31-34. 9-17.-A. 137. 2004. Geomorph.F. N. 3-8.. Palaeoclim. 80-83. 419-430.-A. 21st Century Science and Technology. 2011a. Easterbrook. Z. 2005. NOAA. The Maldives as a measure of sea level and sea level ethics: In Evidence-based Climate Science. The NOAA satellite altimetry program: Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry: Argos and Grace. Earth rotation. An improved calibration of satellite altimetric heights using tide-gauge sealevels with adjustment for land motion.-A. N. 249-263. The Sun rules climate. Mörner.. Setting the frames of expected future sea level changes: In Evidence-based Climate Science. G.-A. Easterbrook. 2010. Open letter to the President of the Maldives. 49-54. 2007c.. 1998. Solomon et al.. 2008. Nicholls. P&G-print (2nd ed.-A. Estimating future sea level changes. 13. Mörner. 2007. 15171520. Earth’s rotation and Little Ice Ages in the past and in the future: the North Atlantic/European case. N.noaa. Quaternary International 221. GeoJournal 37:4. Marine Geodesy 23. N. M.. 2007b. 223-232. Mörner. 1995. Sea Level Changes and Tsunamis: Environmental Stress and Migration over the Seas. N. Mörner. Mörner.. N. Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud [interview]. Mörner.-A. 102. www. Global and Planetary Change 62. 2000. Mörner. Eustatic changes during the last 300 years. suppl. Casenave. [in press]. Menard.-A.. 603 ff.J. Elsevier.. Z. Global & Planetary Change 40. 3rd ed. Satellite-based altimetry reveals physical ocean.-A. 33-37. 282-293. N. N. Fall 2007.
the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. every cession of sovereignty from a nation to a supranational or global entity at present entails a real transfer of legislative and increasingly of fiscal power from elected to unelected hands – both legislation and taxation without representation. the tendency towards global governance is gathering both momentum and permanence through entities such as the United Nations. the Spaniards and the Austro-Hungarians. With the British Empire. Governance. Today. publishes papers and educates the public and students in schools.T Why the Centre for Democracy and Independence? HE CENTRE for Democracy and Independence conducts research. youth organizations and institutions of higher learning. the Romans. the World Trade Organization. Pandya Director . but also. what laws they shall live by and what imposts they shall endure. at will. governance became truly global for the first time. Abhijit P. and by the directives of centralizing bureaucracies from the Delian League via the later Ottoman Empire to the European Union. said the philosopher Santayana. the Medes and Persians. notwithstanding the sunset of that first global Empire. the Aztecs. formerly confined to the territorial jurisdictions of city-states and then of nations. who shall govern them. however necessary it be that nations should collaborate and cooperate in matters of common concern. never had sweeter masters. providing a non-partisan forum for informed discussion on questions of policy in the United Kingdom and worldwide which may affect – for good or ill – the rights of the people openly and freely to debate. the Moghuls. to make and unmake their laws? The Centre for Democracy and Independence exists to ask and to illuminate questions such as these. the Incas. Only at the level of the nation-state – and even then by no means universally – is government of the people. The world. the Moors. Therefore.G. became regionally supranational by the swords of the great empires of the Chinese. Has the nation had its day? Is the globalization of governance a public good? Can democracy survive it? Should it? Should the use of the ballot-box be extended? Should supranational and global institutions of governance be elected? Should the people have the right not only to make and unmake their lawmakers. the Law of the Sea Conference. and secretly by ballot to decide. Yet not one of the multiplying and expanding institutions of supranational and now global governance is truly a democracy. by the people and for the people the custom.
Centre for Democracy and Independence .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.