Climate change deniers Connolly & Connolly

Tags

aerosols, AGW, air pressure, airports, albedo, altitude, Andy May, anthropogenic climate change, Arctic, argon, atmosphere, axis tilt, carbon dioxide, Celsius, city, climate, climate change, climate change deniers, climate models, climate scientists, CO2, consensus, cooling, correlation, degrees, earth, Earth's surface, emissions, energy, energy equilibrium, evaporation, experiments, glacial period, global warming, greenhouse effect, greenhouse gases, heat, heat islands, heat loss, heat transfer, heatwave, heavy phase, ice melt, incoming radiation, infrared, insulation, interglacial period, IR, IR absorbing gases, jargon, krypton, lapse rate, light phase, linear, methane, Michael Connolly, misinformation, molar density, molecules, multimerization, natural warming, nitrogen, North America, observations, ocean currents, oceans, Open Peer Review Journal, orbit, outgoing radiation, oxygen, ozone heating, papers, phase change, ppm, pseudoscience, Quora, radiation, radiosonde, raw temperature data, research, Ronan Connolly, science, scientific studies, sea level rise, seasonal, solar activity, species extinction, species vulnerability, storms, stratosphere, studies, sun, temperature, temperature data adjustment process, thermodynamic laws, time series, town, tropopause, troposphere, urbanisation, US, volcanic activity, warming, water, water vapour, weather, weather balloons, weather extremes, wind, windows

One of the many anthropogenic climate change deniers on the Quora question and answer site pointed me to a lengthy study by father and son climate deniers Michael and Ronan Connolly: https://globalwarmingsolved.com/start-here/ which includes links to eight long papers, as some sort of ‘proof’ of no AGW. Deniers will run with any old bit of pseudoscience, misinformation or selective data if it suggests that AGW isn’t happening and that what we’re seeing is something else: natural warming, cooling, nothing. We went back and forth a few times and this is his most recent post to me:

“Had a quick look at your link [http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2014/02/global-warming-solved-in-open-peer.html] and find it to be unconvincing, verging on ad hominem.

What you and other true-believers in pseudo-science fail to understand is that, if IR absorbing substances (the majority of which, by the way, is water vapour, not CO2), had any effect on the atmosphere then the lapse rate would be affected, ie, the temperature of the atmosphere with altitude would not accord perfectly with thermodynamic and physical laws. The measured lapse rate does accord with these laws and therefore one can validly conclude that IR absorbing gases have no appreciable effect on the earth’s atmospheric temperature.

If you or your clutch of believers can prove otherwise through the analysis of many millions of weather balloon readings, they you will have proven your thesis. Given no one has been able to do that, any other opinion is a as relevant as a fart against thunder. :-)”

This guy claims an honours degree in mechanical engineering majoring in thermodynamics of gas and steam. Anyway, my response is below. I haven’t heard back. Perhaps he now realises that he and Connolly and Connolly are talking nonsense. I doubt it though.

“What can one say about such convoluted research and set of papers as that put together by Connolly and Connolly seven years ago. The link is attacking the research findings and the method of publication rather than anything personal. No one else is involved with the ‘Open Peer Review Journal: for rigorous open peer review’ except C&C and the papers aren’t peer reviewed. Most of the blog page discusses C&C’s findings such as most global warming being due to urbanisation. No. The temperature data adjustment process takes care of the heat island effect.

As I said before, most of the science is probably okay (and perhaps taken from Ronan’s textbooks?) although there is certainly some pseudoscience in there, and the conclusions are wrong as I explained in detail on Monday. They talk about the globe switching naturally between warming and cooling with each lasting several decades. There is no such cycle. They say the last warming period was the 1980s to 2000s. Not true. It’s 1970s to current. And they say it was just as warm in the 1930s and 1940s as now. Not true. The 1930s were warm in the US but not globally. Temperatures increased globally from the 1900s to the 1940s due to an increase in solar activity. They then fell slightly due to aerosols from the 1940s to the 1970s, and have since increased due to our emissions. About the only temperatures that might be higher in the 1930s and 1940s than now are raw data on the US (2% of the globe) due to a US heatwave in the 1930s and due to high raw temperature data because of the heat island effect in city and town centres before weather stations moved to airports. They mention “the existence of a previously unreported phase change” in relation to temperature changes with altitude. They fall with altitude in the troposphere, are basically unchanged in the tropopause and then increase in the rest of the stratosphere; this has been known for decades. They talk about a “light phase” in the troposphere and a “heavy phase” in the upper troposphere and stratosphere and also in the lower troposphere of the Arctic. This light phase / heavy phase thing of C&C’s and their other stuff has been around for seven years and bits of it are copied onto a few denier blogs. But no one else seems to be talking about light phase / heavy phase or doing any further research into it. I think it’s just C&C inventing a bit of jargon like they’ve found something new. But it seems to be just the usual phase change between the troposphere and stratosphere.

C&C only look at North American weather balloons and up to 35 km for certain dates around 2010–11, thus there is no time series, just seasonal variations. Temperatures fall with altitude in the troposphere, are unchanged in the tropopause and then increase for the rest of the stratosphere. None of this is new. They talk about temperature changes being accounted for by water content and some “previously overlooked phase change”. But virtually all water, including water vapour, is within the troposphere. Re this phase change thing, they resort to a bunch of approximations: “Well, since we calculated the molar densities from the temperature and pressure measurements of the balloons, we can also convert molar densities back into temperature values. Since we found that the relationship between molar density and pressure was almost linear in each region, we decided to calculate what the temperatures would be if the relationship was exactly linear. For the measurements of each weather balloon, we calculated the best linear fit for each of the regions … We then converted these linear fits back into temperature estimates for each of the pressures measured by the balloons.” But the temperature values will include the effects of greenhouse gases, solar activity, albedo, volcanic activity, etc. And the lapse rate won’t be uniform but will be affected by weather: wind, storms, etc. C&C later decide that the phase change “… is due to the partial multimerization of oxygen and/or nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere above the troposphere” (which happens anyway, naturally) rather than ozone heating (which hasn’t been happening naturally). Again, there’s been very little research into the former (most of it is by C&C) and a great deal into the latter. But regardless of which one is correct or if both are correct or both are incorrect, this doesn’t explain the warming at the Earth’s surface.

C&C have the idea that a greenhouse effect has to mean that the heat is permanently trapped and the Earth would get warmer and warmer every day and night. No. Some of the heat is radiated back to space. Besides, their idea here forgets about the role of the sun and its energy heating the Earth by day. The greenhouse effect simply reduces heat loss. They say that CO2 would be favoured as insulation in windows if it could heat. CO2 is a better conductor of heat than many gases. But among greenhouse gases, water vapour and methane are better than CO2 at this. Gases such as argon and krypton are the best for window insulation as they don’t break down. CO2 is less effective but does reduce heat transfer a little. You can’t conclude anything about the effectiveness or otherwise of CO2 as a greenhouse gas simply because other gases are favoured for window insulation. It’s an effective greenhouse gas as it stays in the atmosphere a long time. They talk about theoretical collision-induced heating of nitrogen and oxygen as the basis of the greenhouse effect in climate models (which is wrong). But the article they link to doesn’t say this at all. They then say the energy equilibrium of the atmosphere means the greenhouse effect can’t exist. This is rubbish too. Different things happen to both incoming and outgoing radiation. If somethings slows the outgoing radiation, such as greenhouse gases, this doesn’t mean there isn’t energy equilibrium. And on and on they go. A lot of it looks like textbook science and then they keep throwing in some odd and faulty conclusions.

Well down the Andy May article you link to [https://us-issues.com/2017/09/01/new-atmospheric-theory-explains-radiosonde-data-without-co2/], he says this: ‘IR-active atmospheric gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide do radiate IR in all directions and this can be detected, it is just that this radiation does not affect the atmospheric temperature profile significantly according to Connolly and Connolly’s work.’ Or as you say yourself ‘… one can validly conclude that IR absorbing gases have no appreciable effect on the earth’s atmospheric temperature’. It’s taken 40+ years (since the 1970s) for our emissions to push temperatures up a degree Celsius, so I suppose that this doesn’t sound like a significant or appreciable effect. But CO2 is increasing 100 times faster than coming out of the last glacial period and temperature 40 times faster. So that is very quick, far more than what would happen naturally. That is more than enough evidence in itself for anthropogenic global warming, apart from the experiments, observations, the science itself, thousands of scientific studies, a consensus view of climate scientists based on their research, and of course that there is no other explanation for the accelerating temperatures, accelerating ice melt, and accelerating sea level rise we’re seeing, plus the rapid increase in weather extremes and species extinction and vulnerability. Plus nothing else is causing the warming apart from our emissions (which I suppose is why deniers like to deny it’s warming). Solar activity is falling. Volcanic activity is low. The albedo effect, ocean currents, and earth’s axis tilt and orbit have all had little or no effect. Indeed, albedo, tilt and orbit all have only a long term effect which is currently one of cooling (we are supposed to be heading to another glacial period in thousands of years’ time). Changes in ocean currents are more a result of climate change rather than a cause of it. And of course there is a close correlation between CO2 and temperature as we’re seeing in recent decades, and also in the ice core data as another good example. The graphs show a very close correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels. Deniers like to think that in the warming periods, temperatures change first and then CO2 levels, and this is the impression one gets from looking at the graphs. But after a glacial period, it’s changes in earth’s orbit that initiate warming, not CO2. As the oceans warm, CO2 is released from there into the atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric CO2 (it’s risen from about 180 ppm to 280 ppm between glacial and interglacial periods) causes temperatures to increase as CO2 is a greenhouse gas. About 90% of the warming happened after the increase in atmospheric CO2. Yes, water vapour is far more abundant than CO2. But water vapour stays in the atmosphere an average of 7–10 days. A lot of CO2 can stay there up to hundreds, even thousands of years. Also, extra CO2 causes warming which causes extra evaporation and thus more water vapour (it’s up about 4% in the last 40 years), leading to greater temperature increases. For every degree of warming caused by extra CO2, the extra water vapour will lead to another roughly one degree of warming.”

History of climate change denial

Tags

AGW, American Petroleum Institute, anthropogenic climate change, Australia, Brazil, carbon dioxide, climate, climate change, climate change denial, climate research, climate scientists, CO2, communsim, consensus, cult, Democrats, deniers, economic collapse, Exxon, finances, fossil fuel industry, fossil fuels, Global Climate Coalition, governments, greenhouse gases, history, hoax, ice melt, IPCC, one world government, Pew Research, political movement, polls, pseudoscience, Republicans, right wing, scientific organisations, scientists, sea level rise, social media, temperatures, think tanks, United States

I’m still sparring with various anthropogenic climate change deniers at Quora. Most of them are old white males, right wing, and live in the US. I put together the following brief history of climate change denial and have included it in several replies to comments made by these people. But they are locked into denial. They don’t want to know the background to climate denial or the facts about climate change / global warming …

‘Climate change denialism is kind of a cross between a cult, pseudoscience and a political movement, with all three features very much on show. It’s only developed over the last 30 years or so. Here’s the background to climate denial.

The fossil fuel industry and the scientists it employed were basically on the same page as the climate scientists up until about 30 years ago. In 1968, an American Petroleum Institute report warned that large increases in CO2 could melt icecaps and increase sea levels and change fish and plant life. In 1978, an Exxon scientist warned of temperature rises and their serious consequences and that energy strategies would need to be reviewed.

By the early 1980s, about 10 major fossil fuel companies met regularly to discuss science and climate change and its implications. In 1982, Exxon spoke of “potentially catastrophic events” if fossil fuels weren’t reduced. Exxon was quite aware that the consensus of the scientific community was that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels would result in temperature rises of 1.5–4.5°C, a figure that still applies today. But Exxon cut its climate research budget from $900k to $150k in 1983.

The IPCC was formed in 1988. The fossil fuel companies formed the Global Climate Coalition in 1989 and pushed the view that: “The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood.” Having previously agreed with the science, they were now sitting on the fence. By 1990, they were attacking IPCC findings, perhaps aware that measures taken to reduce CO2 would have serious financial implications for the industry. By 1997, Exxon was saying that climate change wasn’t happening.

The whole denier movement mushroomed. The companies funded various right wing think tanks and paid an assortment of folk with varied backgrounds to write papers denying climate change. More than 90% of papers denying anthropogenic global warming come from these think tanks.

With the rise of social media, all sorts of denier stuff has been spread around the place along with spreading fears of economic collapse, communism, one world government, etc. But the climate scientists aren’t listening, nor are the scientific organisations, nor are governments except the US and Brazil. Australia is probably sitting on the fence with the current centre right government.

Polls show that most people agree with the science. According to Pew Research, the proportion of people in the US who agree that climate change is a major threat increased from 44% in 2009 to 60% in 2020. For Democrats, it’s increased from 61% to 88%, although for Republicans it’s only increased from 25% to 31%. The US is very conservative and most other countries tend to have higher percentages.’

But the deniers pursue. They dispute the facts and figures and regard anthropogenic climate change as some sort of giant hoax.

More on climate change

Tags

adjusted temperature data, Al Gore, albedo, analogue thermometers, anthropogenic global warming, atmosphere, big oil, bushfires, climate, climate deniers, climate science, climate scientists, CO2, coal and gas, digital thermometers, earth's orbit, emissions, environment, experiments, extreme weather, faulty science, fires, Gallup poll, glacial period, global warming, greenhouse gases, health issues, heat islands, ice melt, industrialisation, infrared radiation, lightning, NASA, natural causes, obliquity, observations, peer review, raw temperature data, renewables, right wing think tanks, scientific organisations, scientists, sea level rise, selective data, solar activity, species vulnerability, surveys of the literature, temperature measuring instruments, temperature measuring methods, temperatures, thermometer, volcanic activity, Vostok ice core, weather stations

Here’s some more stuff on climate change that I’ve posted to Facebook and Quora in my perhaps futile attempts to explain a few facts to the deniers …

For a start, it’s no good going with the raw, unaltered temperature data. The raw data needs to be adjusted. Weather stations move, usually from warm central urban areas (heat islands) to airports in cooler spots on the outskirts. Thus the older temperatures are adjusted down to eliminate the heat island effect. Also, changes in temperature measuring instruments and methods have generally resulted in lower and more accurate readings in more recent times. In the 19th century, instruments were typically attached to walls of buildings and protected from the sun by metal screens but this had the effect of pushing up temperatures. Sometimes, a thermometer was simply placed on the wall of a tin building, thus the very high temperatures often recorded in this period. A little later, instruments were often put in gardens away from buildings, but infrared radiation from the ground could push temperatures up on calm sunny days. The instruments used to measure temperature also change, such as from analogue to digital which is more accurate. Scientists need actual temperatures and actual changes in temperature rather than just looking at thermometers. All the adjusted data is there and so is the raw data for anyone to analyse and debate. This NASA graph shows how actual global temperatures have risen: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/.

There are all sorts of deniers whether it’s anthropogenic global warming, round earth, vaccination, AIDS, smoking causing cancer, evolution, the Holocaust, man landing on the moon, various other historical events.

There are various controllers of climate. The sun is the most important one. Others include greenhouse gases, obliquity, albedo. Solar activity has been falling slightly since the 1950s. Obliquity is gradually decreasing as we head to another glacial period in several tens of thousands of years’ time. Albedo is probably having a slight cooling effect. In contrast, the increase in greenhouse gases is pushing temperatures up rapidly.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (numerous experiments and observations have been conducted since the 19th century) and thus heats the earth. Without CO2, the earth’s surface would be at least 30 degrees Celsius cooler. The more of it, the warmer the surface. Vostok ice core data showed the swings in CO2 levels of about 180 ppm and 280 ppm between glacial and interglacial periods. And CO2 changes come first, then temperatures, contrary to what deniers would like to believe. After a glacial period, it is changes in earth’s orbit that initiate warming, not CO2. As the oceans warm, CO2 is released from there into the atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric CO2 (it rose from about 180 ppm to 280 ppm between glacial and interglacial periods) caused temperatures to increase as CO2 is a greenhouse gas. About 90% of the warming happened after the increase in atmospheric CO2. Also, a warmer climate means more evaporation and therefore more water vapour in the atmosphere. Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.

Other factors such as solar activity and obliquity have been far more important determinants of climate throughout history. But it all happened naturally. Industrialisation has meant that CO2 has become by far the most important determinant. Yes, warmer is bad. What’s happening is that we are emitting about twice as much CO2 as the environment can absorb so it builds up in the atmosphere about 100 times faster than coming out of the last glacial period, pushing temperatures up at least 10 times faster than coming out of that period. Temperatures are up a degree since the 1970s (when many developing countries got going with industrialisation, adding their CO2 emissions to those of advanced economies) and temperatures are expected to rise another couple of degrees by 2100. The rapid climate change we’re seeing has brought about a steady increase in extreme weather all around the world: hot, cold, wet, dry, stormy, windy. The number of extreme weather events is up fourfold since 1980 and costs in real terms are also way up: https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-global-catastrophes. Climate change increases the risk of fires starting by lightning; see, for example: Climate change increasing risks of lightning-ignited fires. The bushfires this season in Australia are unprecedented and have been caused mainly by lightning. There are serious health issues and species vulnerability and other problems with rapid anthropogenic global warming. Also, there is accelerating ice melt and accelerating sea level rise. Temperatures rose by five degrees coming out of the last glacial period and sea levels rose by 400 feet. So if we get a temperature rise of three degrees, coastal cities and vast areas of farmland will go under at some stage. We’re not all going to die in 10 years’ time or 100 years or probably 1000 years. But it won’t be much fun being around in several hundred years’ time.

Virtually all climate scientists have concluded that we have global warming and that it’s our fault. No scientific organisation takes a contrary view, nor does hardly any government except the Trump regime and Brazil. The science is settled. For quite some time, climate scientists have been mainly researching the effects of this warming and what we can do to try and avoid the worst of it such as shifting to renewables (solar and wind are now cheaper than coal), rather than trying to show we have anthropogenic warming which has already been done.

Don’t listen to the deniers. They haven’t got a clue. Numerous experiments and observations since the 19th century show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What is happening is that we are releasing about twice as much CO2 emissions as the environment can absorb so it builds up in the atmosphere about 100 times faster than coming out of the last glacial period and this is pushing temperatures up at least 10 times faster than coming out of that period. There is nothing else that can be causing it. Solar activity has declined slightly since the 1950s. Volcanic activity is low and accounts for less than 1% of human emissions. Albedo is giving a long term cooling effect. Obliquity is decreasing and is also resulting in long term cooling.

Virtually all climate scientists agree with have serious anthropogenic climate change. No scientific organisation takes a contrary view. Luckily, most of the politicians around the world agree with the scientists and the scientific organisations and are taking action to help mitigate the problem such as the shift to renewables.

Who’s getting wealthy from climate science? Nearly all the scientists are employed by universities and by government organisations and are on fixed salaries. But I presume you’re referring to Al Gore. He made his money selling a TV network, from Apple shares, from being a politician and also some from his documentary. The serious money is in big oil, coal and gas which pay heaps of money to right wing think tanks and the like who then pay money to various climate deniers to produce rubbish papers, blogs, etc.

All I can do is give you the facts. If you choose to believe something else, that’s up to you. I am familiar with the science sites and the denier sites and it’s abundantly clear who is correct. If you don’t understand or accept the fact that a number of large surveys of the literature have found 96–98% agreement with anthropogenic global warming, try the polls of the climate scientists themselves and you’ll find a similar level of agreement that we are causing the warming.

These people spend years studying climate science and then make a career of it as they are interested in and good at science rather than to try and fudge results to get more money or something. No one is going to give anyone more money if their research finds that we have anthropogenic global warming. Besides, nearly all the research these days is into the effects of global warming and what we can do to alleviate it. Also, any errors will be found during the peer review process or by deniers, but on the rare occasion some denier has got stuck into a climate scientist, the denier has been found to be incorrect.

You present no case for the denier side, basically I suppose because there isn’t one. Denier stuff contains faulty science, selective data and information, and wrong conclusions. More than 90% of denier papers are from right wing think tanks funded by big oil, coal and gas and are rubbish. Deniers seem to be an endangered species with most remaining deniers being in the US. Even in the US, the latest Gallup poll shows that 66% of residents say the increase in temperatures over the last century is more due to us than natural causes. How about you put forward a case for the denier side and I’ll show you where it falls down.

Climate deniers still at it

Tags

absorption, anthropogenic global warming, atmosphere, carbon, climate, climate change, climate denier, CO2, emissions, environment, evaporation, glacial period, glaciation, greenhouse gas, industrialisation, IPCC, obliquity, radiation, scientists, solar activity, temperatures, United Nations, volcanic activity, water vapour

I was in England, my birthplace, for three weeks and basically offline. It was good to see the place again before it goes down the Brexit gurgler. Meanwhile, climate deniers are still busily trying to deny reality: that we have serious anthropogenic global warming and it’s our doing. The kids have got it right with their marches even if the deniers haven’t.

A guy on a Facebook page here is Australia was going on about the ‘evil’ UN, all sorts of nonsense about CO2, and how our government is guilty of child abuse as our schools don’t teach climate denial. I fired off the following four replies to his rubbish.

–Climate change was natural until the industrial age. Now it’s main influence is our CO2 emissions. We are releasing twice as much CO2 as the natural environment can absorb, thus the build up of CO2 and rapid increase in temperatures, at least 10 times faster than coming out of the last glacial period. Yes, CO2 was much higher in the past such as 500 million years ago but solar activity was 4% lower. CO2 levels were falling due to carbon being sucked into the ocean and also due to mountain building and rock weathering. Because of this and the lower solar activity, the CO2 threshold for glaciation was about 3000 ppm.

–CO2 has a greater effect than water vapour on temperatures. Water vapour is in the atmosphere a short time. CO2 can last hundreds or even thousands of years. Also, the extra water vapour in the atmosphere is due to the extra warmth caused by more CO2. Temperatures peaked around 5000-10000 years ago after the glacial period and overall gradually fell after that, until last century. They have shot up with industrialisation. They are supposed to be still gradually decreasing as we head to the next glacial period in several tens of thousands of years time as earth’s obliquity gradually decreases.

–Your understanding of CO2 is lacking. Yes, CO2 absorbs virtually all the heat it can. It’s also true that extra CO2 won’t absorb too much more heat at the earth’s surface. But CO2 also radiates heat and does this in random directions including back to earth. Higher up, the atmosphere is much thinner and unsaturated although there is still plenty of CO2 up there but not much water vapour. This high altitude CO2 absorbs some of the heat that would otherwise have been heading for space and radiates some of it back to the surface. For a fuller explanation, see http://www.realclimate.org/…/a-saturated-gassy-argument/. Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. Extra CO2 causes higher temperatures which means more evaporation, thus there is more water vapour in the air too. There is about 4% more water vapour than 40 years ago.

Solar activity has been falling since about 1960 and is not the cause of the higher temperatures we’ve seen in recent decades. Nor is volcanic activity which is low these days by historical standards. Besides, our emissions are currently about 100 times volcanic emissions over a year.

Yes, CO2 is essential and all that. Problem at the moment is, as I said before, we are releasing about twice as much CO2 as the environment can absorb naturally so it builds up in the atmosphere causing temperatures to increase.

–Virtually every country in the world is a member of the UN. Climate change is a small part of its work. Most of its work is in the areas of peace, security, human rights, aid and development. It became involved in environmental issues in 1972. It set up the IPCC in 1988 to monitor climate change research as many scientists had found plenty of evidence for anthropogenic global warming by then and AGW came to be regarded as a worldwide issue. From 1997, the IPCC set emissions reductions targets for each country. The IPCC doesn’t research or monitor climate change itself but assesses the literature. Thousands of scientists are involved in this. The scientists write and review reports and get consensus from governments of countries participating in this process, which is about 120 of them. It has nothing to do with the “rich and elite”. And no one is attacking kids although the kids (and the scientists) seem to know a lot more about climate science than deniers.

Cosmic rays, solar activity, and temperature change

Tags

carbon, climate, climate change, cloud cover, cloud formation, CO2, coal, cooling forecast, cosmic ray flux, cosmic rays, Craig Kelly, denier, Denmark, global warming, Henrik Svensmark, Russia, scientists, solar activity, solar magnetic field, temperatures

One of my New Year’s resolutions was to stop posting comments to Australian politician Craig Kelly’s Facebook page. He’s a climate change denier and posts a lot of very selective stuff on climate, coal, socialism, crime, etc and his followers get sucked right in. The other day, I tried to post the following in response to an article he posted by some Russian scientists who had written a paper, ‘Cosmic rays, solar activity, and changes in the earth’s climate’, trying to link cosmic rays and solar activity to global temperatures. By the time I finished writing it, there was a message to say I might not be authorised to post comments here and I noticed my other posts had gone. I guess he’s done me a favour. Here’s what I hadn’t intended to post …

“Cosmic ray fluxes have been monitored since about 1950 and no significant trend is apparent. Similarly, there have been no significant trends in solar activity since at least the 1970s (it has probably gone down a fraction) except of course the 11-12 year cycles.

The authors seem to be forecasting that cosmic ray fluxes will increase, leading to greater cloud formation which will mean cooler temperatures. Their work seems to use the same principle as that of Henrik Svensmark of Denmark who has been going on about the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation and global temperatures for a couple of decades. He says cosmic rays have decreased over the last 100 years, leading to less cloud formation and therefore higher temperatures, rather than the higher levels of CO2 causing the higher temperatures. Many studies have been done to try and replicate his work but they find little or no correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover.

For his theory to be correct, there has to be a long term increase in the solar magnetic field. But this and other measures of solar activity haven’t increased. There is good satellite data back to the 1970s. When you look at the sun’s energy output as measured by watts per square metre, it has fluctuated between about 1366 and 1367 in short term cycles of about 11 years, and a slight decline if anything in the long term. It’s different if you’re looking at a scale of many thousands or millions of years.

Also, there needs to be a long term negative trend in cosmic ray flux and there isn’t; there’s no significant trend. Also, there needs to be a link between cosmic rays and cloud formation but various studies have found no significant link. And there also has to be a long term negative trend in low level cloud cover, and that hasn’t been the case either.

Good luck to the Russian scientists with their cooling forecast. They might need it.”

Climate denier Malcolm Roberts on Q&A

Tags

adjusted data, AGW, Anthony Watts, anthropogenic global warming, Australia, BOM, Brian Cox, Bureau of Meteorology, climate, climate change, climate denier, consensus, data, empirical evidence, global warming, Greg Hunt, James Powell, John Cook, Lily Serna, Malcolm Roberts, metadata, models, NASA, National Academy of Sciences, NOAA, Q&A, raw data, scientific organisations, scientific processes, scientists, statistical agency, statistical processes, statistics, Steve Goddard, temperature, weather bureaus, weather stations

In Australia, new senator and climate denier Malcolm Roberts appeared on television on the ABC’s Q&A program last Monday, 15 August 2016. I posted the following comment on his Facebook page but it got deleted and I got tossed off (haha). I guess the truth sometimes hurts …

After watching Q&A, I think I’m figuring out why Malcolm Roberts keeps saying there is no empirical evidence for warming or AGW [anthropogenic global warming] despite abundant evidence. He just doesn’t believe in any of the data that shows warming. Brian Cox [physicist and television presenter] showed a graph of NASA data that clearly shows significant warming since the 19^th century. Roberts said not true as the data is corrupted and manipulated, by NASA. His reason for this: a well known denier, Steve Goddard showed that the 1930s were allegedly warmer than the current decade and that 1930s recordings were reduced and latest decade inflated, and that BOM [Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology] did the same.

For years, Goddard has been picking off bits of data and declaring there’s no warming. Sometimes, he admits he’s wrong but not always although his claim that NASA and NOAA were fabricating data was even rejected by fellow denier Anthony Watts. For an account of the whole silly saga, see http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/noaa-and-temperature-data-it-must-be.html.

Seems that much or most of the problem was Goddard’s failure to understand that raw data is adjusted to give a truer picture, including estimates of missing data. Statistics of all sorts are adjusted for seasonal and other impacts. It means the data gives a more accurate representation of what is actually happening. All official statistical agencies around the world do it for all sorts of collections. Temperature data are also adjusted. Weather recording stations move and this can have a big effect on temperature; moves from a post office to an airfield have been common. Adjustments are also made due to changes in measuring instruments and their accuracy over the years. Another reason is that a weather station may become more closed in, such as by additional nearby buildings, which can affect temperatures. These things are taken into account by all weather bureaus around the world.

Hunt [Greg Hunt, ex-environment minister, now industry minister] wasn’t buying Roberts’ argument for no warming either. He pointed out that weather bureaus, scientific organisations and leading universities all come to the same conclusion: global warming is real. Serna [Lily Serna, mathematician and television presenter] couldn’t believe we were still having this conversation, that there was overwhelming consensus from scientists who are the experts in their field, and that we should be getting on with mitigation and adaptation. Roberts said consensus isn’t science and that he still needs empirical evidence. Cox tried to explain the scientific process to him, including measuring temperature and CO2 and making predictions. Roberts said the numbers have been hopelessly wrong.

My conclusion was that Roberts doesn’t understand scientific or statistical processes and just looks for any odd bit of data that supports his case for no warming and especially no AGW. I’ve looked at statistical adjustment above. On models, we can get an idea of what might happen, but it’s impossible to know exactly how hot it will be or how far sea levels will rise in however many years’ time, just as it is impossible to know what the economic growth rate will be: there are just so many variables. On consensus, the following is probably the best empirical evidence there is for warming and AGW, i.e. looking at the metadata:

– In 2013, John Cook et al looked at about 12,000 academic papers on climate change / global warming, covering all sorts of issues. They found that 66.4% of abstracts had no position on AGW, 32.6% supported it, 0.7% didn’t and 0.3% were uncertain. Thus about 97% of papers with a view on AGW supported it. According to Roberts on Q&A, the figure for support was 0.3%, which is strange given that most scientific organisations have a statement supporting AGW [and most governments accept it too].

– In 2004, Naomi Oreskes analysed 928 papers published between 1993 and 2003. About 75% went with the consensus view of AGW, 25% were about methodology and paleoclimatology, and 0% opposed the consensus view.

– In 2007, Harris Interactive took a random sample of 489 members of the AMS and two other relevant bodies and found that 97% agreed with global warming, with 84% saying it was AGW and 5% said there wasn’t AGW.

– Bray and von Storch found that 40% of climate scientists agreed with AGW in 1996, 53% in 2003 and 84% in 2008.

– Doran and Zimmerman in 2008 found 97% agreed with AGW.

– A National Academy of Sciences study in 2010 put it at 97-98%.

– James Powell in 2013 found 24 of 13,950 articles disagreeing with AGW. In 2014, Powell found 1 author out of 9136 rejecting AGW.

And of course all national and international scientific organisations believe there is warming and most of it is due to our activities except a handful of geology groups that are still sitting on the fence.

Some conspiracy, like thousands of scientists around the world study in areas relevant to climate science and undertake careers in science to be involved in a scam; ditto all scientific organisations; and governments of all major countries. Yeah, and the world is flat too.

Climate change: Global warming is real

Tags

AGW, anthropogenic global warming, atmosphere, carbon emissions, climate, climate change, climate scientists, CSIRO, deforestation, deniers, extreme weather, glaciers, global warming, human activity, humans, man-made global warming, NASA, oceans, scientific organisations, scientists, solar activity, temperature change, temperature record, temperatures

I posted this to Bubblews writing site, now gone, a couple of years ago. Since then, 2014 was a record warm year and then 2015 was another record. And February 2016 was the record hottest month …

There is virtually universal acceptance of global warming among scientists and scientific organisations and that man is almost certainly the cause of much or most of it. The deniers are likely to be concerned about business costs or perhaps have religious convictions. They also like to single out individual studies they think use less than robust methods, but it doesn’t change the overall situation.

NASA data shows that 2005 was a global temperature record and 2010 was another record. The years 2011 and 2012 were considerably higher than anything before 1998. In fact, global temperatures each year since 1995 have been higher than anything we saw before 1995 (and going back several thousand years at least). Short term levelling off occurs, e.g. first half of the 1980s, first half of the 1990s, and arguably in some recent years, but the overall trend is upwards.

The CSIRO (Australia) states: “All measurements of the climate system indicate the long term warming trend is continuing. It is inappropriate to use short term data sets to determine long term trends.” http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Has-Global-Warming-Stopped.aspx

Annual levels of carbon emissions continue to increase each year. Temperatures are up. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more severe. Deforestation continues. Glacier thickness is diminishing at a greater rate each year. The oceans are rising and their temperatures are increasing faster than the atmosphere.

NASA states: “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.” http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

This is followed by statements by a number of leading scientific bodies saying that climate is changing and it’s largely due to human activity. Further down the page is a link to 200 scientific organisations around the world who have concluded that “climate change has been caused by human action”. The CSIRO is included. Here’s the link: http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Does anyone know of any national or international scientific body that rejects man-made global warming? I think the last one was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which moved from rejection to non-committal in 2007. There are still a handful of others who are non-committal, solely geology groups, I believe, although I think most geology groups now concur with man-made global warming.

There are of course some individual scientists who don’t concur with man-made global warming. Most or all seem to cop a fair bit of flak from colleagues.

It’s interesting that some of the deniers link temperature change to solar activity, but if anything, solar activity has fallen slightly since about 1980.

Uruguay

Tags

Amerindian, armbands, Blancos, Broad Front, Cathedral Hill, Catholic, Charrua, chivito, climate, Colorados, communication, culture, economy, foot and mouth disease, Football World Cup, geography, government, grappamiel, Guarani, history, Holy Grail, Italian, literacy, meat, Mestizo, Montevideo, mountains, Movement of National Liberation, Oriental Republic of Uruguay, parrillada, Partido Blanco, Partido Colorado, pasta, people, petroleum, politics, Portuguese, Protestant, reform, religion, river where the painted birds live, roads, South America, Spanish, tourism, transport, Tupamaros, unemployment, Uruguay, water

(originally published to Helium writing site, now gone)

Uruguay is the second smallest country in South America after Suriname. About half of its population of 3.5 million live in the capital city of Montevideo and its metropolitan area. The country is located on the east side of the continent along the Atlantic Ocean. It borders Brazil to the north, and Argentina to the west and southwest. The nation’s official name is the Oriental Republic of Uruguay as it is east of the Uruguay River and the Rio de la Plata or River Plate that separate it from Argentina. Uruguay means “river where the painted birds live” in the Guarani indigenous language. There are many other interesting facts about Uruguay.

Geography and climate

Most of the country consists of plains and rolling hills. Four river basins empty into the Atlantic. The highest mountain is the rocky and treeless Cerro Catedral, or Cathedral Hill, at an altitude of just 1,685 feet. An ongoing border dispute with Brazil relating to islands and waterways on the northern coast has not affected diplomatic relations between the two countries. About 89 per cent of arable land is used for cattle and sheep and 7 per cent is under crop. Uruguay has a temperate climate with few extremes. A lack of mountains makes it windy, especially in winter and spring, and the weather can be quite changeable. Storms are common in summer.

History

The Guarani and the Charrua are the indigenous people of Uruguay. The Spanish settled in the area in the 16th century and the Portuguese in the 17th, setting off various disputes between the two groups. The country gained its independence from Spain in the 1820s. By the 1830s, the Charrua had integrated with the Spanish and the Guarani, or been killed. Two parties that fought an ongoing battle from the late 1830s to 1870 were the Colorados, or the Reds, representing Montevideo business interests and the Blancos, or the Whites, who looked after the agricultural community. Members were identified by the color of their armbands; the city group initially wore blue armbands but changed to red as blue faded in the sun. Despite the fighting, tens of thousands of Europeans migrated to Uruguay during this period, banks opened, rail and canals were built, and exports rose, assisted by the natural harbor.

A group called the Tupamaros started robbing banks and shops in the early 1960s to give to the poorer neighborhoods. The US Office of Public Safety assisted local police who were allegedly taught how to torture suspects. Finally the army defeated the Tupamaros and another group, the Movement of National Liberation, in the 1970s. Uruguay had the highest per capita number of political prisoners of any country at that time. The torture continued until military rule ended in 1984 and various economic and social reforms were introduced.

People

About 88 per cent of Uruguay’s population are European, mainly Spanish and Italian, but from many other countries too. A further 6 per cent are Mestizo, or of mixed European and Amerindian heritage, 4 per cent are of African descent, and 2 per cent of Asian background. About 54 per cent are Roman Catholic, 11 per cent are Protestant, 9 per cent are believers without affiliation, and 26 per cent have no religion. Uruguay is South America’s most secular country and the majority of the population are regarded as not being strongly religious. Uruguay has a high literacy rate at 97 per cent and has a large urban middle class. About 600,000 people emigrated during the country’s dark days in the 1970s and 1980s.

Culture

Uruguayans eat a lot of meat. The national dishes are a beef platter called ‘parrillada’ and a large steak sandwich known as ‘chivito.’ Pasta is also very popular. ‘Grappamiel,’ made of alcohol and honey, is the national drink. The Guarani indigenous language is one of the official languages, along with Spanish, and is spoken by 88 per cent of residents. Half of the rural population speak only Guarani. It is the only indigenous language in the Americas where nearly all speakers are not indigenous. Uruguay hosted the first Football World Cup in 1930, beating Argentina in the final, and won it again in 1950.

Economy

Economic reforms from the mid 1980s led to a boom in the 1990s. However, the Uruguay economy slowed due to a devaluation of the Brazilian real in 1999, an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001, and the collapse of the Argentinian economy in 2002. Unemployment peaked at almost 20 per cent, and nearly 40 per cent of people lived in poverty. Reform slowed and people opposed plans to privatize the state petroleum and water companies. The economy bounced back with growth reaching 7 per cent in 2006. Uruguay is regarded as safe and attractive for investors and more economically developed than most Latin American countries. It became the first computer software exporter in Latin America in 2005. Estancia tourism or agritourism is a new industry that has grown rapidly in recent years.

Government and politics

The two parties engaged in many battles in the 19th century are still slugging it out today in parliament. The Partido Colorado has been the ruling party for most of the country’s history. Partido Blanco has only been in power twice. The left-wing Broad Front, made up of various socialists, communists, democrats and former Tupamaros, won the 2004 elections. Colorado was a distant third with just 10 per cent of the vote. Transparency International regards Uruguay as Latin America’s least corrupt country. It has freer political and labor conditions than most Latin American countries and in 2007 was the first to legalize civil unions between different and same sex couples after five years together. The country was ranked 23rd on the 2008 democracy index, a measure of political freedom, and first in Latin America.

Transport and communication

Most passenger and freight movement in Uruguay is by road, although only 10 per cent are paved, including the highways and other roads between urban centers. The rail network was bought from Britain after World War II but has fallen out of use, except between Montevideo and San Jose, a distance of 60 miles. A hydrofoil operates between Montevideo and Buenos Aires in Argentina on the other side of the Rio de la Plata. Uruguay has over 115 mobile phones per 100 persons and one million internet users. The phone system is fully digitized and several attempts to privatize it have failed.

Ecuador

Tags

aguardiente, airports, Amerindian, Andes Mountains, bananas, buses, Chimborazo, climate, cocoa, communication, Correa, culture, diversity, economy, Ecuador, Escuela Quitena, Galapagos Islands, geography, government, Guayaquil, history, Ibarra, Inca Empire, Mestizo, oil, Panama hats, people, politics, poverty, Quito, rail, rainfall, rainforest, roads, snow, soccer, South America, Spanish, transport, War of Independence, World Heritage Site, Yahuarcocha

(originally published to Helium writing site, now gone)

Ecuador is a small country located on the western side of South America on the Pacific Ocean. As its name suggests, the country is situated on the equator. It in one of only two South American countries that don’t border Brazil, the other being Chile. Its capital, Quito, is the least altered and best preserved of any city in Latin America and is a World Heritage Site. Ecuador is one of 18 megadiverse countries as named by the United Nations. Its constitution was renewed in 2008 and includes legally enforceable nature or ecosystem rights, the first in the world to do so. There are many other interesting facts about Ecuador.

Geography and climate

The country has several diverse geographic regions. The low lying coastal area has most of the plantation crops and the nation’s largest city, Guayaquil. Many mangroves have been destroyed by shrimp farming. Behind this coastal plain is the highlands region, featuring the Andes Mountains with their snow covered peaks year round, even on the equator. To the east is the thinly populated Amazon rainforest area occupying nearly half the country. You can drive through the temperate coastal area, the cold highlands, and the hot and humid rainforest all in one day. The Galapagos Islands, 620 miles off the coast, have the world’s largest tortoises. This is where Charles Darwin started developing his theory of natural selection. Ecuador’s Chimborazo, an inactive volcano, is the farthest point from the earth’s center due to the planet’s ovoidal shape.

History

Evidence of human occupation in Ecuador dates back 5,500 years. Various distinct civilizations arose and could be quite hostile towards one another and outsiders. At the battle of Yahuarcocha (meaning Blood Lake), thousands were butchered and thrown into the lake. The region came under the Inca Empire in 1463, and a civil war was raging at the time the Spaniards arrived in 1531. After the Ecuadorian War of Independence in 1820-1822, the territory became part of Gran Colombia before separating in 1830. Ecuador’s history has been marked by many periods of instability. War broke out between Ecuador and Peru in 1941, each country blaming the other for invading its territory. Tensions between the two countries continued, finally escalating into all out war in 1995. A peace agreement was signed in 1998.

People

About 57 per cent of Ecuador’s 13.6 million people are Mestizo or of mixed Spanish and indigenous descent. A further 24 per cent are Amerindian, 16 per cent are white, and 3 per cent are black. A major population shift from the highlands to the coastal areas occurred in the late nineteenth century when world demand for cocoa and other commodities rose. More recently, both immigration and emigration between Ecuador and many countries around the world have been high. More than 600,000 Colombians live in Ecuador, mostly illegally, escaping conflict in their own country. Many festivals and parades combine indigenous beliefs with Catholicism. About 38 per cent of the population live in poverty.

Culture

Panama hats originated in Ecuador in the nineteenth century. Like many other South American products, the hats were taken to Panama before being shipped around the world, and came to be known by their place of international sale. Ecuador’s food is diverse, varying between the regions. A national alcoholic beverage is ‘aguardiente,’ a spirit made from sugar cane. Another favorite is drinkable yoghurt which comes in many different fruit flavors. The most popular sport is soccer. When international matches above 2,500 meters were banned in 2007, there was uproar as Quito and a number of other South American venues are above this altitude, but the ruling stood. The country is well known for its art, especially the Escuela Quitena style which can be seen in old churches in Quito.

Economy

Ecuador’s economy depends largely on agricultural and mining exports. Oil accounts for a third of government revenue and 40 per cent of export earnings. The country is the world’s largest banana exporter. An economic crisis emerged in the late 1990s due to falling oil prices, deterioration in the world economy, and El Nino damage. The situation was exacerbated by Ecuador’s expansionary economic policy of large fiscal deficits and low interest rates. Higher oil prices in the early 2000s assisted recovery, although debt remained high. In December 2008, President Correa, who holds an economics degree, decided not to make an interest payment on the nation’s global bonds, declaring it ‘illegitimate.’

Government and politics

Ecuador has been a republic since 1830 and was led by a series of authoritarian rulers. Populist politicians emerged in the 1930s and 1940s. Jose Maria Velasco Ibarra was president five times but was ousted by the army each time, except his fourth term from 1952 to 1956. He never gave up, once stating, “Give me a balcony and I will become president.” The army finally removed him altogether in 1972 and he was exiled to Argentina. Ecuador returned to democracy in 1979 but volatility remained. The political voice of the indigenous people emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, while both elite and leftist groups have continued to try and destabilize the government.

Transport and communication

The country has 27,000 miles of roads, with only 15 per cent paved. National highways connect the major cities, although quality can vary, especially in the mountainous areas. Intercity buses are extensive and popular. Ecuador has 600 miles of rail, but neglect and El Nino events have taken their toll. By 2008, only 10 per cent of the lines were still operational, basically the tourist trains. The country has 418 airports, ranking it nineteenth in the world. Ecuador has 75 mobile phones per 100 persons.

Colombia

Tags

airports, Amazon Rainforest, Amerindian, Andes Mountains, Athens of South America, Bogota, climate, coca, cocaine, Colombia, communication, Conservative Party, diversity, economy, El Nino, emeralds, exports, Gachala Emerald, geography, government, Gran Colombia, history, homicide, inequality, La Violencia, Liberal Party, Mestizo, mulatto, natural resources, Pacific Ring of Fire, people, politics, radio, rail, rainfall, Republic of Colombia, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, road, South America, Southern Oscillation, Spaniards, television, temperature, Thousand Days War, transport, volcanoes, Whyuu, zambo

(originally published to Helium writing site, now gone)

Colombia is in the top four megadiverse countries in terms of diversity of species, along with Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa, according to the United Nations. The country is ethnically very diverse too. It is famous for its cocaine trade, producing 70 per cent of the world’s coca production. For years, Colombia had the world’s highest homicide rate, although it has eased since 2002. Its capital, Bogota, has many universities and libraries and is often called “The Athens of South America.” There are many other interesting facts about Colombia.

Geography

It occupies the northwest corner of South America and is the continent’s only country to border both the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean (at the Caribbean Sea). The Andes Mountains dominate the landscape and are the location of most of the nation’s major cities. At an altitude of 8,700 feet, Bogota is the world’s third highest major city after La Paz of Bolivia and Quito of Ecuador, although it is much larger than either of these cities. To the east of the mountains is tropical grassland and in the southeast the Amazon Rainforest. The country is located along the Pacific Ring of Fire and has 15 major volcanoes.

Climate

Colombia’s climate varies from hot and humid in the Amazon jungle to very cold in the mountainous areas with permanent snowy peaks despite its location near the equator. Much of the country has two wet seasons, corresponding to spring and autumn. The Pacific coast is one of the world’s highest rainfall areas, while over 200 inches often falls in the southeast. The country is in the El Nino-Southern Oscillation path, resulting in variable rainfall and severe flooding along the western side. Bogota has a cool climate that hardly varies through the year. Average maximum temperatures by month vary from 63 to 67 degrees Fahrenheit, while average minimums range from 41 to 47 degrees.

History

The territory of what is now Colombia has been occupied by indigenous people for 12,000 years. Their lives were thrown into upheaval by the arrival of the Spaniards in 1499, who set about conquering and colonizing the area. One group refusing to be subjugated was the Whyuu people who were unusual in that they used horses and firearms. In 1718, the governor described them as “barbarians, horse thieves, worthy of death, without God, without law and without a king.” After independence in 1819, Gran Colombia stretched over much of the northern part of the continent and included Panama. The Republic of Colombia dates from 1886, still with Panama which separated in 1903.

People

Most of Colombia’s 45 million people live in the mountainous areas and on the Caribbean coast. Three-quarters of the population are of mixed ancestry. About 58 per cent of residents are mestizo, meaning mixed European and Amerindian background. A further 14 per cent are mulatto or of European and African descent, and 3 per cent are zambo or of Amerindian and African ancestry. Of the remaining quarter, 20 per cent are white, 4 per cent are black and just 1 per cent are Amerindian. Colombia has the third largest number of Spanish speaking people outside Spain, after Mexico and the US. With the protracted internal fighting, more than four million of its population are regarded as internally displaced persons, among the world’s highest number. Ironically, the nation is ranked sixth by the 2009 Happy Planet Index, down from second place in 2006.

Economy

Despite the internal conflict, Colombia’s economy has grown strongly, averaging four per cent annually from the 1970s through to the 1990s. In 2007, it grew by eight per cent. Its stock exchange index jumped from a starting base of 1,000 points in 2001 to 7,300 points by late 2008. However, inequality is high, and almost a quarter of government spending is repaying debt. The country has an abundance of natural resources, and leading exports include petroleum, coal, and gold. Colombia is the world’s leading supplier of emeralds. The 858 carat Gachala Emerald, one of the largest emeralds in the world, was found in Colombia in 1967.

Government and politics

Colombia has long had a constitutional government. Its two major parties, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, were founded in the 1840s and are among the oldest in the Americas. The two have fought many battles, including the Thousand Days War of 1899-1902, which started over allegations of electoral fraud, and La Violencia, a series of skirmishes from the late 1940s and lasting about a decade. Battles were continuous from the 1960s and escalated in the 1990s due to the cocaine trade. The political situation has been less volatile in recent years, with sharp falls in the number of murders and kidnappings, as well as a weakening of the terrorist group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

Transport and communication

Two-thirds of cargo in Colombia is transported by road, and most of the roads are now paved. Rail has been neglected with passenger numbers shrinking from over five million in 1972 to 160,000 in 2005. The country has nearly 1,000 airports, ranking it eighth in the world, although only 107 have paved runways. Waterways are also well developed, but guerrillas control those in the south. Lonely Planet regards Colombia as one of the top 10 destinations. The country has more than 500 radio stations, 60 television stations, and 12 million internet users. There are about 75 mobile phones per 100 persons.