Dr. Nils Axel Morner – Sea Level Basics

Categories: Climate & Weather, Science & Technology
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner

Perhaps the most graphically disturbing piece of information in the climate arena is the assertion that sea levels will rise to a catastrophic degree. An Inconvenient Truth scared many people, and the sea level issue continues to worry them. The imagery from the movie is still etched in our minds and hearts. Imagery is powerful even if it is untrue. It lingers in the subconscious mind, where it can affect our ability to think critically and receive whole-systems information. We must be vigilant to prevent this.

In this show, Dr. Nils Axel Morner clarifies many misconceptions about rising sea levels and offers a comprehensive understanding of this subject. Dr Mörner is highly qualified to speak on the matter. He was the former President of International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA). Under his charge, when INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, after deliberations and discussions at several international meetings, declared a possible sea level change of +5 cm ±15cm by the year 2100, it was based on a huge amount of world-wide data gathered by scientists from different parts of the globe.

Dr. Nils Axel Morner got his Ph.D in geology in 1969, and has worked with sea level problems for 40 years in areas scattered all over the globe. As the head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, he worked with many different geological & geophysical problems. He organized two major international conferences: one on Earth Rheology, Isostasy and Eustasy in 1977 and one on Climate Changes on a Yearly to Millennial Basis in 1983. He has run several international field excursions through Sweedon and was President of the INQUA Commission on Neotectonics (1981-1989). He was President of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution from 1999-2003.

He headed the INTAS Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003). In 2000, he launched an international sea level research project in the Maldives. Among his numerous publications, one may note the studies on: the interaction among isostasy and eustasy, the oscillating regional eustatic curve of NW Europe, the changing geoid concept, the redefinition of the concept of eustasy, the dynamic-rotational redistribution of oceanic water masses, the interchange of angular momentum between the hydrosphere and solid Earth, and finally the new sea level curve of the Maldives with an absence of signs of any on-going sea level rise.

In 2008 he was awarded The Golden Condrite of Merit from University of Algarve (at an international sea level meeting in Portugal).

Dr. Nils Axel Morner’s extensive hands-on experience and 40 years of mindful focus bring valuable context to the climate change debate. Is the IPCC giving us an accurate picture? Tune in and find out!

63 comments… add one
  • Viking Feb 27, 2010 @ 12:27

    Du er en helt Nils!

    Aldri gi opp!

  • Dave McK Feb 27, 2010 @ 14:32

    I really enjoyed that- thanks!
    When he got into talking about the science he loves, it was great.

  • humanpersonjr Feb 28, 2010 @ 5:13

    Thanks for the great write-up. I only just learned of this site, but you can bet I’ll be back often.

  • mark Mar 3, 2010 @ 14:19

    When Dr Nils-Axel Morner publishes his claims in the scientific peer reviewed literature on climate change I will listen to him. This is how TRUTH in science progresses and it is its greatest strength.

    • Kim Greenhouse Mar 3, 2010 @ 14:26

      We will be doing a very interesting segment on peer review very soon. There are a few things the public needs to know about this area of establishing credibility and truth in science & academia.

    • Windy Oct 27, 2017 @ 4:11

      He’s published more than 500 peer reviewed studies, mostly on the subject of sea level rise. Derp.

  • ohgod Mar 4, 2010 @ 2:04

    Oh fer christ sake folks.

    We’ve got the following peer-reviewed studies:







    Using global data, all peer-reviewed studies that show Sea Levels rising on one hand. In the other we have THIS ONE GUY, with no peer-reviewed study, claiming all those other ones are false.

    The onus is on you deniers to prove your science.

  • Lars Dane Mar 5, 2010 @ 18:55

    mark: Just because you are ignorant of the work of Nils-Axel Mörner does not mean that he has not published peer reviewed papers. Go check Google Scholar and learn about the more than 150 papers he has published during the past 40 years.

  • mark Mar 5, 2010 @ 23:07

    Lars: Every scientist has published peer reviewed paper(s). Give me the name of one peer reviewed paper by Nils-Axel Morner in the area of CLIMATE CHANGE.

  • Lars Dane Mar 6, 2010 @ 2:16

    mark: It seems that you do not realize that Mörner is an expert on SEA LEVEL CHANGE and that is what he talks and writes about. Sea level change is part of climate change excactly as are temperatures, precipitation, glacier behaviour, albedo, greenhouse gas forcing(s), atmospheric physics, chemistry, geology etc. etc. You wouldn’t really expect Mörner to publish on any of these subjects which are outside his expertise; would you?

  • Nils-Axel Mörner Mar 6, 2010 @ 9:18

    In reply to some of the comments:
    1. I have published 200 peer-reviewed paper
    2. I have given over 400 papers at major international meetings
    3. Many of those were keynote papers
    4. In 2008 I was awarded “the Golden Condrite of Merit” from Algarve University (at a major international sea level meeting) for my “irreverence and contribution to our understanding of sea level change”
    5. 1997-2003, I was the leader of the INTAS project on Geomagnetism and Climate
    6. 1999-2003, I was the President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution.
    7. from 2000 on, the Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.
    So, sorry for those who hope for someting different, I silmply know the subject.

    Someone asked about papers in climet. Well, I have several through the years. Note the book in 1984 on “Climatic Change on a Yearly to Millennial Basis”, and, to pick a recent one, the paper just posten in Global and Planetary Change.
    So, sorry again, I cover that subject sufficiently well.
    Best wishes to you all – for as well as against
    The Speaker & Author

  • Mark Mar 6, 2010 @ 17:57

    I have struggled through many hours of background reading since my last blog entry. I acknowledge Dr Nils-Axel Morner’s 7 listed achievements and congratulate him on them but what do I do now? The strength of science does not rest on one or even a few scientists but on a whole community of scientists currently engaged in the research.
    The claim that sea levels are not rising over the last 50 years is not
    supported by that community in the peer review literature. The present scientific evidence in the peer review literature is that sea levels are rising and rising at a greater rate than in the IPCC

  • Joe Leary Mar 6, 2010 @ 19:25

    Mark, at this point I think it makes sense to consider the source. I wouldn’t be surprised if the IPCC community or other proponents of the official climate change story have been circularly peer-reviewing each others’ work (for full transparency, the peer review process should be open to scientists in a variety of related disciplines and of differing opinions). Corruption IS an option; after all, they have vested interests – for example, funding and credibility / reputation – in perpetuating the story.

    In other words, heavily-funded organizations have a lot to lose, which is a reasonable basis for questioning their assertions. The people who’ve stepped up against them have significantly less to lose, and are presenting viable evidence to the contrary of the official story (whether or not it is correct, it is based on sound reasoning and should be considered). It’s silly (to put it mildly) for such a new field of science to have that much funding AND insist that compelling data from other historically proven scientific fields (i.e. physics & astrophysics) are essentially worthless.

    Methinks it might be a good time to start looking at these issues from depoliticized points of view.

  • Roger Mar 6, 2010 @ 20:09

    ” declared a possible sea level change of +5 cm ±15cm by the year 2100″

    Am I reading right or is that a typo?



  • Roger Mar 6, 2010 @ 23:05

    I like your interview with Dr Nils-Axel Morner.

    Even more reveiling than I imagined.

    I have put a link on my site to this page and I hope many people will enjoy your interview as I did.

    To Dr Morner I say keep up the good work and you have my admiration for speaking up on this subject and being honest with your expertise.

    My site at http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com analyses the AGW hypothesis in an entertaining but well referenced way that any lay person will understand.
    A new page, currently under research, will analyse the dangers to ourselves from the economic repercussions that will flow on from the co2 reduction requirements and the transfers of wealth currently being asserted by the IPCC. A subject that has been featured very little so far.

    Good Luck.


  • Roger Mar 6, 2010 @ 23:18


    Why dont you ask some of the scientists at http://www.petitionproject.org/
    to review some of those papers for you.
    At 31,486 scientists including 9,029 with PhDs, Im sure between them that they will be far more authorative than the few scientists associated with the IPCC can be.



  • Mark Mar 7, 2010 @ 18:30

    Joe: Nearly all scientists complain about insufficient funding, including climate scientists.
    Much of the negative commenting on climate science on the internet and other media is political rather than scientific.
    There is no field of human endeavor that is more self- regulating and more anti-corruption than science.

  • mark Mar 8, 2010 @ 15:33

    I left 2 words out of my last sentence.

    There is no field of human endeavor that is more self-regulating and more anti-corruption of data than science.

  • Joe Leary Mar 8, 2010 @ 18:34

    “There is no field of human endeavor that is more self-regulating and more anti-corruption of data than science.”

    This is an assumption, and an honest look at NASA’s behavior over the last several years suggests that unwavering faith in scientific INSTITUTIONS – which are administered by people, not by an incorruptible system – is perhaps a bit misplaced.

    Furthermore, there’s perhaps no field of human endeavor that is more SUSCEPTIBLE to corruption than government. That’s fairly obvious from an honest review of the American political process (Diebold voting machines?), which is itself compromised because industry has greater influence than civilians. Historically, industry has banked on questionable research, hiring third-party research organizations to find specific results; although the research org may have actually carried out the study multiple times, only the skewed version that supports the position of the funding party is published. Unfortunately, to expect government to behave any other way is a bit naive – they’re beholden to corporate interest themselves.

    Please understand that I’m not arguing with you as to the rigor and validity of scientific method – rather, I suggest that you’re mistaking science for the institutions that claim to practice it objectively and honestly.

    If you hold science in such high esteem, then do as a scientist would. Question everything (and everyone). Acknowledge data without bias until it has been ruled out by your own observation. Otherwise, you simply replace science with faith.

  • Hasnaae Mar 9, 2010 @ 7:34

    Thank you for the informations dear Dr. Mörner, it’s very nice to learn from you.

  • mark Mar 9, 2010 @ 17:31

    “There is no field of human endeavor that is more self regulating and more anti-corruption than science.”

    This is not an assumption but a conclusion based on my life experiences. I have been involved with science since the 1960’s.
    I have a B.Sc. majoring in chemistry and a Master of Education degree.
    I have taught Science and Chemistry from 1975 until 2008.
    My science teaching has been practical based with an emphasis on questioning the required science text and improving on it through the class’s collective understanding of the work. Student research using web sites required analysis of sources.

    From 2005 until 2008 I was privileged to work along side many of Australia’s brightest young (aged under 40) scientists in my school and at workshops. I was amazed by the passion, dedication and principles of these scientists. It did not surprise me that four of Australia’s leading climate change scientists were prepared to lose their jobs to speak out on carbon dioxide emissions.(google CSIRO climate experts defiant)

    I am dismayed that some Americans are losing confidence in NASA. In Australia the CSIRO is held in high regard (despite gross underfunding). Maybe googling CSIRO for information could be an alternative for Americans who have lost confidence in NASA.

  • Dave H Mar 10, 2010 @ 0:27

    Isn’t real science interesting? When Gore was pushing the carbon tax back in the early 1990s we in the political sphere called them “watermelons” not in a racial sense, but because they are “green on the outside and pinko on the inside”. When Gorbachev founded the Green Cross nobody cared. I love the Polar Bear story. Nothing better than Greenpeace getting zapped. Viva La France for ramming the Rainbow Warrior. Losers. Scammers. Preying on weak minded people. If people studied science in school anymore none of this would be happening. Idiots.

  • Michael Snow Mar 10, 2010 @ 8:47

    “mark March 3, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    When Dr Nils-Axel Morner publishes his claims in the scientific peer reviewed literature on climate change I will listen to him. This is how TRUTH in science progresses and it is its greatest strength.”

    Mark has a lot to learn about the politics of the peer review process. [read climategate emails]

    Here’s just one insight by Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT: “Science and Nature have both publically taken positions against publishing anything that opposes the notion of dangerous anthropogenic warming, while
    publishing highly dubious science endorsing the notion.”

  • Joe Leary Mar 10, 2010 @ 21:03


    I’m happy to hear that you’ve devoted so much of your life to science. I think that’s great.

    However, you are still assuming: assuming that your admirable dedication to the objectivity of science is universal. I wish it were, but it isn’t.

    Science is a field of study. Fields of study are not sentient and cannot regulate themselves. The onus to regulate any field of study falls upon the shoulders of practitioners in that field. Do you seriously suggest that you can vouch for the integrity of every single scientist or scientific organization in the world, especially in a budding field that is at least as prone to mistakes as any other budding scientific discipline?

    The UN is not composed of scientists, and like any other political group, its purpose is to promote an agenda. Any scientific organization spawned from a political organization should be heavily scrutinized. Agendas are not objective.

    Don’t feel bad that anyone is losing faith in NASA. Their data was used to support the argument that 2007 was the hottest year on record (*ever*), and when someone pointed out that their data was flawed, they corrected it silently when the ethical thing to do would have been to issue a press release or call attention to it another way. But they didn’t. That’s kind of a big deal.


    If they want people to have faith in them, they should own up to their responsibility to be accountable.

    “Much of the negative commenting on climate science on the internet and other media is political rather than scientific.”

    Much of the commentary and funding rationale for climate science is political, PERIOD, and it has resulted in a skewed debate in which skeptics are (for better or worse) associated with supporters of intelligent design, a callous attitude towards life and the planet, and greed, to name but a few sweeping generalizations. Frankly, the institutionalization of climate change has made it practically impossible to get a balanced viewpoint or get a clear picture of all the factors involved.

    I can tell you’re as passionate about these issues as I am. Please understand that when I say you’re putting too much faith in the official story, I mean it with the utmost respect.

  • Roger Mar 12, 2010 @ 20:35

    As you are a scientist, I dont have to tell you what a hypothesis is.
    Now we all should know that the Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming theory is just that, an unproved hypothesis.

    If you read IPCC WG1 AR4 http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html
    for instance, you will find the whole thing is based on the assumption that the AGW hypothesis is fact, or so close to being a fact that it dosnt matter.

    Now we have had little analysis on the consequences to ourselves from the reducing of CO2 emissions and transfers of wealth as being promoted by the IPCC, but as an economist I can tell you that they will almost certainly result in stretching western economies to a tipping point which mean economic collapse which will lead to widespread poverty and starvation.

    If this is the case we had better make damn sure the AGW is a FACT before we do this to ourselves.

    In fact the AGW hypothesis has a number of facts which disprove it. Some of these are discussed in my blog. Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.



  • Paul Aug 4, 2010 @ 1:55

    It kind of amazes me that in the argument for sea level rise – which depends on increased global temperatures – no one mentions that water will evaporate and significantly reduce sea levels – thus there is an equal and opposite force at work. For every action there is an equal and opposite action. Newton’s Law.

  • brewsta Aug 4, 2010 @ 20:04

    Dear Oh God(march 4 2010)
    your self referencing group of “peer reviewed” articles remind me of the pathological science practised by the closed shop of Cold Fusion adherents. They too claimed peer reviewed status from an impressive sounding list of self serving institutes and commitees that coincidentally denied peer review to any contrary point of view , i.e. that cold fusion is unproven and has remained so. They (the cold fusionistas) persist in milking whatever funding they can from the gullible. No matter that no one has ever replicated the initial lab results that gave rise to the hysteria. there are still conferences being organised by self seeking empire builders under the guise of science all justified by a “Peer Review” process that has long been shown to be as ethically corrupt as that of AGW driven climate change. Scepticism is a healthy attribute for any scientist rather than the religious affirmation manufacturing consent in the much touted “peer review” of the IPCC.


    • Kim Greenhouse Aug 4, 2010 @ 20:45

      Brewsta, “Your self referencing group of “peer reviewed” articles remind you of”…

      This kind of commenting does not at all fit with the content spoken about regarding Sea Level Basics.
      We have done an entire show with Gavin Menzies about “Peer Review” which you should hear. Perhaps that is the correct place to comment.
      The segment with Gavin Menzies talks about how the “Peer Review” process serves to block discoveries which are not part of the established paradigm.
      Here is the correct Peer Review link to the other show: https://itsrainmakingtime.com/2010/peerreview Best, Kim Greenhouse

    • Daniel_G Aug 7, 2019 @ 6:25

      Brewsta, you really don’t have any idea what you are talking about. Cold fusion data is in the peer reviewed literature and the data is compelling. Are there frauds in the field? yes! Are they all fraud? No! Not hardly. Some brave and very credible scientists are continuing their hard work in the field despite lack of funding and massive opposition from mainstream scientists. Perhaps you are not familiar with recent published papers that are showing 50%, 100% and sometimes even 1000% excess heat and kW levels. There is a currently a seminal paper in preparation for publication so please reserve your comments until the paper is published.

  • Thomas T S Watson Aug 12, 2010 @ 0:25

    Gentlemen, I invite you to review this PP
    Have a wonderful day

  • Bubba the Brave Sep 15, 2010 @ 9:50

    “What is remarkable about our 19th Century is not the victory of science, but the victory of scientific institutions OVER science.” Friedrich Nietzsche
    (just wanted to share that — Nietzsche was ahead of his time and remains ahead of ours!)

  • Paul Starr Oct 17, 2010 @ 4:42

    You may be interested to know that when I was in Tongatapu in the middle of the Pacific Ocean not long ago, I made a study of their sea level to which the local museum was very helpful. The level there has dropped over 3 meters during the last 2000 years. It is also visibly obvious by the stranded rock coral formations. This fall in sea level has created a shallow lagoon which once served them well with a unique shell fish and with an abundance of other fish that was their main diet – today it has a muddy bottom and is a sad version of it’s former self. The locals, once strong and slim are today over weight and suffering from type 2 diabeties – they live on pig and chicken and receive reject meat from New Zealand in the form of 2 kilo cans of corned beef. Discusting stuff but the point is, all the South Pacific islands sit on top of volcanic mountains – these of course are on the move – pushing upward – it is not the sea that is falling but the land that is rising. After leaving Tonga a brand new island appeared. Too bad I missed out on seeing it. Google Underwater Volcano Tonga and see it for yourself.
    BUT in conclusion, in all the places to which I travel and most recently Vanuatu and New Zealand, there are no signs at all of sea levels rising. It only exists in the minds of the Political Terrorists – The Greens and The Australian (Communist) Labor Party. BTW, did you know that solar power is sold to the grid and that this means an increase in the use of power FROM the grid ? It’s an observation that I have made. If you’de like me to explain why, please ask. cheers !

  • spangled drongo Oct 29, 2010 @ 22:29

    Having assisted in preventing houses from being washed into the ocean [not always successfully] 50 years ago and being involved in sea-wall construction, I have benchmarks going back 47 years and they show that in my area, sea levels have fallen over that time by at least 20 cms [8 inches].
    More recently by twice that amount but it will be interesting to check again at the next king tide of this current La Nina.

  • Jon Oct 30, 2010 @ 7:14

    “Are you sad about what’s happening?” What a great follow-up question to his rambling nonsense answer about satellite altimeter readings which show rising trend.

  • pjpf Feb 25, 2011 @ 2:42

    Dear Ms. Greenhouse,
    I have listened to, and read most of the information on your web-site.

    Being involved with environmental issues for the last 30 years, at senior level, I would like to say that you are just wonderful. You are a beacon of light for all of us out here, who have been unable to find answers to what we know is true. Please keep up the good work and many, many thanks for putting science back into the realm of ‘searching for the truth’.

  • andrew dunbar May 29, 2011 @ 5:35

    Excellent interview, thorough concise and utterly eye opening. thank you very much.

  • aaron edwards Jun 18, 2011 @ 10:29

    Dear Oh God;
    Did you actually read the abstacts of any of the papers you cited? The last one you listed was:

    “The sea level trends obtained in the ITRF2005 reference frame are more consistent than in the ITRF2000 or corrected for Glacial-Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) model predictions, both on the global and the regional scale, leading to a reconciled global rate of geocentric sea level rise of 1.61 ± 0.19mm/yr over the past century in good agreement with the most recent estimates.”

    OK 1.61 mm per year = .161 cm per year, multiply times 100 years and you get 16 mm per century. Fairly close to the 15 cm per century measured by
    Dr Nils-Axel Morner

  • Thomas T S Watson Jun 29, 2011 @ 19:04

    With a colleague, Dr Alberto Boretti from the Ballarat Uni, we have been peer reviewed. OK’d by them but not accepted by the editors. Why? It is my belief that the editors of some Australian Journals have invested interest from grants from the Governments, and this is why the public of Australia do not hear the truth about why this climate is changing.
    Yes! We have had one paper approved showing that in New Zealand, their values of climate were desperately not accurate: “Is New Zealand Globally Warming” with the International Journal of Climate Change,, as are two states in Australia, namely Victoria and the Northern Territory.

    Re the Ocean level status, it is the Tectonic plates that are rising and falling as they have been since time began, and I support Paul Star, for he has seen with his eyes and this is again supported with the CO2 observations from the Island of Hawaii showing Mount Kilauea reported as putting our 3,000 to 8,000 cubic Tonnes of CO2, per DAY. Is it not strange that just 35 Km away, there is a research station post on top of Mt Mauna Loa, This is the station that the IPCC used to claim that Humans were contributing to the CO2 increase. I wonder why?
    We seem to be not aware that nature emits so much CO2 compared to the emissions of Humans. The actual life span of CO2 is four years and when activated by Infra Red from our Sun, has a recycled life span of 20 Milliseconds. Believe it or Not.
    My book is still available….

  • seesoo1001 Sep 3, 2011 @ 7:18

    Подскажите кто-нибудь, где можно нормально скачать любые программы?

    • Thomas T S Watson Oct 6, 2012 @ 17:54

      Please write in English, thank you. You have obviously read in it.

  • Thomas T S Watson Jun 29, 2012 @ 0:15

    Dear Reader.

    I invite the world to understand what has been researched and found, and to make it known that nature has total cyclic control of our climate, with its influencing factor of authority that controls the emission of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into our atmosphere, never changing our seasons or climate.

    When mankind introduced a system that opposes natural cycles, what happens? The human life changed without a whisper, because everything around them changed naturally, slowly at first, to correct the new environment condition, they did not remember what happened last Tuesday.

    Likewise, our seasons changed when our Earth found itself in a new location while orbiting between the Sun’s Positive (Magnetic) Heliosphere polarities, that initiated a switching sensation to its atmosphere, for it had just experienced a harmonious cycle during its previous Negative Heliosphere condition. This new environmental change slowly affected our Earth and environmental condition, and was not immediately noticed, until some astute scientist realized that something had happened to the seasons, so began to look for the cause of why the Earth changed its seasons. Science observed that there was a constant rise of CO2, and established this constant rise with the relative constant rise of the human population, hence they claimed a parallel of these two local factors assuming that it was the increased rise of the worlds human population that linked to the rise of CO2, since the Industrial Revolution, causing this Climate to Change..
    They did not reveal that CO2 was constantly rising many thousands of years, prior to this period of time.

    This was the basis for the original scare campaign from Mr Al Gore’s dramatic production and the IPCC’s claim that humans’ breathing out CO2 was the cause.

    They: (Mr Al Gore and the IPCC) did not research how or why CO2 is naturally assembled by the Sun’s Cosmic Rays. Yes!, CO2 is naturally contrived by our Sun’s influence to react to the Earth’s atmosphere. This process is described very briefly hereunder:

    Our Sun produces many electrical radiated frequencies (Wave Lengths) ranging from, Ordinary Radio, Infrared, Visual Light, Ultraviolet Rays, Cosmic Rays, X-Rays and Gamma Ray and each one of these frequencies has a specialized functions of responses of movement, and here, we single out one, the ‘Cosmic Ray.’ It was discovered by Victor Francis Hess (1911). In 1932, Carl David Anderson found that when these rays smashed into lead particles, they produced a Positive Electron. With this new found energy source, science showed that this energy reaction was attributed to this ray to generate other activity. After observing the results of this research they found that when this energy ray collided with other atoms within our atmosphere, smashing them to countless places, and one of these elements of the elements stood out, is was the Neutron that accelerated to smash into a Nitrogen element, that went on to smash into a Carbon element, which changed into a Carbon 14, that continued on with its increased energy, to collect two oxygen elements, eventually completing its final assembly as a Carbon Dioxide molecule, then settled near the Earth’s surface. When evening fell, this CO2 molecule was sucked into the green trees, shrubs and grasses re-generate their respective growth cycles we observe as a natural process of Synthesis, and during this process, replenishes the atmosphere with Oxygen.

    This single descriptive truth was a huge error of esteemed scientist’s judgement who recommended to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that their approval of their found facts that humans were associated to this climate change was associated to the CO2 molecule contribution to this dramatic seasonal change. With statements like this from scientists who were correctly presenting the facts as they saw it, was to them, a truthful statement, and now, there are the challenges from those who have found that the original cause for the climate to change, are slowly finding their way to tell and show how these seasons changed, was initiated by our Earth’s orbital position, and that this explains why I’ve endeavoured to penetrate this school of thought, to present my new and proven theory of a new approach to understand initially how magnetism flows, for when my new understanding of the magnetic flow is applied to the above situation, it positively shows that humans can breathe freely, and that the IPCC claim that their CO2 influence did not contribute to this changed climate, and lives of free life from Carbon Taxes and the like, is justified.

    Our world will serve the natural growth of prosperity, by changing the way we accept seasonal changes, for at last we now understand why our seasons have changed 150 days since 15th. February 2001.

    While the initial challenge of the magnetic reactions are between the Earth’s Orbital positions reaction within the Sun’s Positive (Magnetic) Heliosphere began on the 15th.February 2001, I’m claiming that the Earth’s reactive movement initiated the change of seasons and these reactions have a supplementary switching effect that is altering the Barometric Pressure systems, NOT CO2. No amount of CO2 has the ability to change the seasons we are currently experiencing, for CO2 to relocate our Earth’s orbital position within the Solar System, is totally, impossible.

    The following work out shows a simple recorded exercise that positively demonstrates how my scientifically proven fact shows that CO2 is harmless and beneficial to the natural cycles of Earth and for the benefit of all life factors that makes our planet harmoniously consistent.

    Introduction: These records herewith are from my science exercise books, 13 and 14, dated to: 12 May 2012.

    Aim: To find at what altitude CO2 sits in our atmosphere, because of its atomic weight of 44, is a heavy gas.

    The element of: Carbon Dioxide (44) – (CO2) is broken down to its element structure.

    Carbon (12) – (C) = 9784812.418gw

    Oxygen (16) – (O) = 9784750.62gw

    Oxygen (16) – (O) = 9784750.62gw

    (CO2) = 29354313.66gw / 3(elements)

    Carbon Dioxide CO2 (44) = (a) 9784771.22gw.

    My new understanding of science: Because of my close encounter with having the same values, but having a different numerical value, the base principles shown in Section 6 of my book, ‘Climate Change Explained by Magnetism?’ ISBN9780646477220, shows that the theory of how these gravitywatson (gw) values answers have obviously the same values as previously calculated from the accepted averaged constants of the past, while mine are co-ordinated to form the same accepted gravitational values, and the ‘C’ and ‘O’ values, but use my gw values, and are found in Appendix A (p155 and 156.), yet are based on the magnetic value of emissions from all elements.

    From the Commonwealth Publication, ‘Gravity Base Station network values, Australia’, Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology & Geophysics – Report 261-(p.38), derived sea level as (b) 9785075.8um-2 at the Equator, however, on consideration to accepting my theory values of gw, as having a true value at the poles and being accepted by science, chose (c) 9823836.3um-2 at Wilkes Hut.

    The beginning of the new understanding: Now because of my accurate conversions shown in my book, I reversed the procedure and changed the identity to the conventional values, as follows:

    (b) 9785075.8um-2 to (d) 9.7850758m/s/s. and,

    (c) 9823836.3um-2 to (e) 9.8238363m/s/s.

    A new constant found: In Book 13 (p 34 & 41), a constant of 0.75:1 was developed that simply conversed Mercury to metric applying Barometric values, and this became a ratio and made a simple formula: Atmospheric Pressure ÷ 0.75 = (Metric Gravity values ÷ 2). This simple formula, graphically referred above, and fully illustrated in my power point presentation.

    Now for the New Scientific Application: Applying my basic accepted atmospheric pressure value, (f)14.7lbs/sq inch/0.75 = 19.6 ÷ 2 = 9.8m/s/s. These are accepted science values in Technical Colleges and Universities.

    Reversing this process to establish the Atmospheric Pressure at sea level, as worked through in book 13 (p34), shows that the atmospheric air has a value of (g1)(9.796549883m/s/s × 2) × 0.75 = 7.339912412lbs/Sq Inch × 2 = (g2) 14.67982482lbs/Sq inch. (ie: 14.7lbs/Sq. Inch)

    And (a) converted value of (9.78477122m/s/s × 0.75) = 7.3385683lbs/sq inch × 2 = (h) 14.67715683 lbs/sq. inch is where the CO2 sits in our atmosphere.

    Applying (g2) 14.67982482lbs/Sq inch and subtracting (h) 14.67715683 lbs/sq = (j) 0.00266799m/s/s. (is the gravity difference within Earth’s atmosphere pressure at Sea Level)

    Again from (Book 13 p41), there’s a total altitude value of (k) 278,870 feet, (52.81628788 Miles) being the neutral gravitywatson (gw) atmospheric height value, and averaging these to the relative air pressures, found above.

    (k) 278,870 feet ÷ (h) 14.67715683 lbs/sq inch = (m) 18995.41223feet – (average)

    (k) 278,870 feet ÷ (g2) 14.67982482 lbs/Sq inch = (l) – 18991.96077feet – (Average)

    Establishing the Truth: Subtract (l) from (m) = (n) 3.45146 feet of CO2 in still air conditions.

    Proof of this Reality: Having seen a metal container of CO2 (Dry Ice) at Geelong with dimensions of 5’L x 3’W x 4’H, the top was open and internally had an open plastic liner bag in which the Dry Ice was contained. There was no closing seal within the container. At night, for security, they place a clamped cover.

    This simple exercise answers the previous recorded studies referred to above showing how the CO2 molecule is naturally produced by the Cosmic Rays and shows how this is happening in our everyday lives.

    It would be interesting to have a confirmed statement from these chemical companies to support this, for there would be a safety value of only about six inches to stop the frozen gas from flowing over the top. They must feel that this product, ‘Dry Ice’ will not escape from the container, because of the factual 14.7pounds per square inch of atmospheric pressure being constantly applied, even when, full. The Fire Department apply Dry Ice to extinguish certain fires. Why? Because CO2 pushed the other fuel elements, that created the fire. (Interesting, is it not?)

    A Period of Conjecture: There will be conjecture to my statements of applied values, however, scientifically, it is worth noting for official acceptance, that there are harmonic averages associated with this whole gravity science study, for it is based on averages, as is the case for determining the value of 9.80665m/s/s is the averaged accepted Gravity value at 45 degrees Latitude, within both hemispheres.

    My concluding and refreshing thoughts: If what has been claimed by the IPCC is a fact that CO2 is a heavy gas while in its singular state, a molecule, why has CO2 been applied by the IPCC supporting their claim that humans are responsible for this changed climate, because they are breathing out CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. My research information shows conclusively, that the Australian seasons have naturally changed by 150 days to 22 December 2012. For CO2 to change this status of seasonal change is totally impossible.

    Ask for further information from:
    32 Kinlock Street
    Bell Post Hill
    North Geelong
    Australia 3215 Ph: 03 52787628

    Kind regards,

    Thomas T S Watson.
    Author of: A Fresh Approach to Magnetism (2006), Climate Change Explained by Magnetism? ISBN9780646477220, (2009). Co-Author with Dr Alberto Boretti of the University of Ballarat: ‘Is New Zealand Globally Warming?’ ,(2011) by InderScience Publishers, and ‘The Increditable Truth, Oceans are not Accelerating in Australia or in the World’, by Energy & Environmental Publishers (2012) and a financial nominee of “Worldwide Who’s Who”
    ps: I admire progress, providing it is base on proven scientific principles.

  • max Oct 2, 2012 @ 12:38

    Does Earth have a governor? Are sea levels regulated?

    • Thomas T S Watson Oct 5, 2012 @ 4:27

      Yes Max, they are controlled by the magnetic emissions from our Moon. What is happening here is that the earth is revolving internally to the Moon’s orbit and generates a slow 24 hour movement of the fluid waters of the oceans and seas, by the function of the opposing and attracting magnetic forces between the Moon and Earth. In the case of the Southern hemisphere, this opposition only allows for a small tidal effect while in the Northern hemisphere, there is a tidal effect of over 15 meters (50 Feet) at latitude 50 degrees.(Harmonics apply here too)
      There is more to this than I can apply within this small space, but please refer to my site and make yourself known to me and I will help you understand why and how this is occurring.

      • max Oct 5, 2012 @ 19:27

        What about gravity vs. centrifugal force? Ever seen a governor on a steam engine?

        • Thomas T S Watson Oct 6, 2012 @ 17:47

          Yes, The governor is rotated by an internal force that initiates its rotation. Our Earth has a similar internal force initiating the rotation energy is initiated by the internal magnetic forces and both have Inertia.

          Centrifugal force as you will expect is the force that is applied by a rotating object that has mass (weight) and has a motivating force/energy that has been applied by an internal/external force.

          Max, where the Earth is, it is the motion force being applied by the internal activity of its collective atomic structure and it is this total internal magnetic energy that we observe when we see a prismatic compass swivel and indicates the potential magnetic force by telling us that it is pointing to a North Magnetic pole.

          It is this total magnetic force that drives our Earth the reaction to rotate, and the Earth’s magnetic emission is reacting to the Sun’s Positive Magnetic Emission within the Sun’s Heliosphere.

          In a nut shell, it is the Earth’s magnetic field reaction that allows and and controls the oscillations frequencies of our Moon. In every case, the Moon’s lowest orbital distance of its elliptical pattern has always been within the Northern Hemisphere. (It has never crossed the Equator), because of the fact that the Moons face, facing the Earth’s surface is a Positive magnetic emission and it is this magnetic emission that totally controls the High tidal effects within the Northern hemisphere.

          Positive and Negative magnetic fields attract each other.

          Once you realize what is happening, you will see why the Moon has total control of our environment and is directly associated to the rise and fall of the two daily tides of the oceans.

          The rising Sun’s temperature to the oceans and land masses dictates barometric pressures that controls the heights of clouds and the like It is these elements that dictates climate change and these occur every eleven year cycles. (Known as the Swarbe cycle) and these cycles have been registered by science oven many hundreds of years.

          The claimed approach to climate being initiated by humans is totally ignorant of these home truths, and should be educated to know what is actually happening within our universe.

          Let this debate open some eyes and stop this mad debate with these facts.

          I trust that I’ve made this clear to you.

          • max Oct 6, 2012 @ 18:39

            You missed my point.

  • Thomas T S Watson Oct 5, 2012 @ 4:14

    Gentlemen. I’m a peer reviewer to the IPCC who invited me to apply to continue on to 2013.

    I’m totally against the reason of Humans being responsible for the climate change, because I have established without doubt doubt that two things are happening naturally.
    1; Our Earth oscillates between the Sun’s two magnetic Heliosphere sectors over a period on average of 11.1 years. This is known as the “Swarbe Cycle’ and because of this natural cycle, the overall effect to our atmosphere changes the barometric pressures that eventually changed the climate. In this case, since the 15 February 2001.

    2, I’ve proven that it is our Moon that has changed our Earth movements and our tides, because of what a Polish scientist determined that the Moon;s face, facing Earth, has a positive Gravitational value, and my understanding of this is that it is a Positive magnetic field emissions that is generated from the atomic structures, and that this is also a Positive Magnetic field emission: Ref: Climate Change-Explained by Magnetism/ Chapter 6 (ISBN9780646477220)

    What is not totally appreciated by science, is that the Moon’s lowest orbital oscillating pattern is always in the Northern Hemisphere of Earth and NEVER passes over the equator (or if you like, the Ecliptic alignment), and while it continues on to oscillate between the poles of Earth, its greatest distance between Earth is in the Southern Hemisphere. Now what is happening here? The Southern Hemisphere is emitting a POSITIVE magnetic field and this is pushing the Moon away from Earth creating its maximum distance from the Earths surface, while in the Northern Hemisphere, it has an attractive effect. Like poles repel, while unlike poles attract.

    This concept also is the base reason why our solar system has a general alignment to each other and our Galaxy has a similar system generating within its eminence system.

    What I’m saying here is that it is our Sun’s magnetic influence that has changed our season and the in-significant gas: CO2, within our atmosphere has had no influence in the natural sequence to the orientation of our Earth’s orbital pattern.

    Finally, I am proud of my achievements and have been identified by Worldwide Who’s Who researcher for 2012. Thank you for your time and please, be very careful of how you look at nature, for the Earth is always rising up and going down, and this is basically what is being observed throughout the world. Just compare the tidal effects between the 50 Latitude North and compare the same tidal effects within the same latitude of Southern Hemisphere. You may get a real surprise when you realize, that they are not the same.

    Ask the question: Is this Magnetic theory got something to do with these tidal variations?, and, Is Gravity a true answer for this effect? I await your realistic answer.

    Let the peer review begin here among scientists.

    • Kim Greenhouse Oct 5, 2012 @ 18:17


      I would like to have you on as our guest soon.

      Kind Regards,

      Kim Greenhouse

      • Thomas T S Watson Oct 6, 2012 @ 17:03

        Thank you. May I ask where, and projected ‘when’ period.

      • Thomas T S Watson Dec 1, 2012 @ 3:07

        Kim, Greenhouse, I’m still waiting for your kind invitation

        Since this above listing, I decidd not to get myself involved with the IPCC 2013 paper, becasue to change it, I’d need a staff of many to change the paper, because of the statements and diagram presentations being presented therein, are in my opinion, totally quite true..

  • max Oct 6, 2012 @ 18:45

    Sea Levels are irrelevant anyway except to tell if your going to get your feet wet and what altitude ASL your airplane is.

  • Thomas T S Watson Dec 1, 2012 @ 3:01

    Interensting and abssorbing, for what has not been linked to this whole debate is that our Moon has a Positive Magnetic Flow coming from its face, facing Earth and this is generating the variable tidal effects between the two hemispheres of Earth.

    This conbination is why our Moon has a Full face facing the Northern hemisphere known as ‘Full Moon” and this is also when the tidal effects of this sector of EArth expereinces tidal effects of over 15 meters at the 50 degree latitude areas.

    Interensting here is that when the Moon is oscillating and orbiting over the Southern hemisphere of Earth, the tidal effects are not as sevier, indicating the prooof that the Moon has now gone to its highest altitude from earth, telling us that the two magnetic flows from the Moon’s Face is opposing that og the Positive magnetic flow from the Southern Hemisphere (Magnetosphere).

    There is NO GRAVITY flow here, only magnetic interferences, proving that the external magnetic flow from the Earth is pushing the Moon, back and froe between the two magnetic flows from EArth. The magnetic poles and it has been proven by me that this is a natural effect of nature as has been since time began, and foils the taught principle of Flemmings continuous magnetic flow laws.

    I have also shown that our Earth is totally responsible for this seasonal change becasue of thise characteristiv learning that is now in book formate and must be expanded by those eager to read into what is actually happening within the Intergovernmental Pabel on climate Change, for I have shown and proven that carbon dioxide has not and cannot change the orbital position of the Earth, and becasue of this fact, we are being fraudelently been brainwashed into believing that we are responsible for this situation.

    For those out there who wish to contact me, please feel free to do so, for I will forward to you my latest short paper that shows conclusively that our Earth is in total control of its seasonal change and that,Carbon Dioxide is a heavy gas (Atomic weight 44) and when in free, still air conditions, the gas will only rise to 3,54feet or about one Meter in height above sea/ground level. You can check this out yourself by observing how “Dry Ice” is sold, as a fire retardant. Think about it. Why would the fire department use it if the gas went up to heaven. It is sold and housed in an open container with walls about four feet high, and an open top.

    We are pawns being used to make people rich. What are you prepared to do about it?

    The seas are Not Rising. It is the tectonic plate expanding activity that gives this impression.

    • Kim Greenhouse Dec 2, 2012 @ 8:31

      Dear Thomas,

      Please come on the show and share the entire matter with us. How would December work for you? Kim Greenhouse

  • Steve Smith Sep 2, 2019 @ 20:02

    Thomas, I am totally interested in your work and will buy your book to get a better understanding of the connections between Climate Change and magnetism. Being a peer reviewer for the IPCC, can you answer this question, where does the IPCC collect their raw data from on land, in the ocean and in the different layers of the atmosphere ? THanks

  • Stephen Aracic Nov 2, 2019 @ 17:57

    Have read a lot of comments all I can say to that about Sea level rising is nonsense. I made a simple experiment plastic glass of water I marked level and put to freeze. After few hours had a look and it was ice, but it haven’t increased at all. Then I melted and still same amount was in the glass.
    Thats what will happened in nature if ice melted. I have done my work and proved to my self!

Your Comments and Feedback are Very Important to us.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.