Actually it should be President Jonathan as his full name is Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan.

I was commenting more on the "In the US that battery would have been trashed already." comment than anything else.

The last CO2 spike comparable to the current one was the PETM about 55.8 million years ago. The rate of carbon increase then appears to be at least 10 times slower than it is now and there was a mass extinction that accompanied it on benthic formaminifera. If the rate today was 10 times slower ocean life would have a much better chance of being able to adapt.

I don't think that's true. On a cloudy but windy night in the desert it doesn't get nearly as cold as on a clear windless night all other things being equal. In fact when I searched for "Desert nighttime cooling" here is the first thing that came up. It basically says under clear low humidity conditions at night radiative cooling is by far the the largest reason for cooling.

Well, there is a light bulb in Livermore, CA that's been burning for 114 years. That hasn't been continuous as there have been some power outages and it's been moved a few times but the Livermore fire department seems pretty attached to it.

I think you'll be surprised how soon the base load issue of solar and wind get solved.

Living in the Pacific Northwest we have lots of hydro-power and wind.

As I posted in a previous reply here is more of a big picture look at it:

GISTemp Decadal Global Surface Temperature
(Anomaly from 1950-1981 mean)

Decade_______Anomaly
1884-1893_____-0.26
1894-1903_____-0.25
1904-1913_____-0.40
1914-1923_____-0.28
1924-1933_____-0.17
1934-1943_____+0.00
1944-1953_____-0.03
1954-1963_____-0.02
1964-1973_____-0.02
1974-1983_____+0.10
1984-1993_____+0.24
1994-2003_____+0.46
2004-2014_____+0.59

As you can see the temperature rise from 1904-1903 to 2004-2014 is 0.99 degrees. Looking at it in decadal slices takes out the noise of year to year variability.

Sez you. I've seen plenty of analyses from others including economists that say otherwise. At the rate we're going the "small amount" of warming over a few hundred years is still 10 times faster than the warming at the end of the last glaciation (ice age) and will cause sea level rise in 10's of feet.

I would probably vote no because solar and wind power are cheaper than nuclear. I'm not against nuclear power for environmental reasons although it has its problems there but because they are expensive. If someone develops inexpensive modular nuclear power units I'd be willing to see them deployed.

So what? 2014 certainly is in the top 5 hottest years ever in the instrument record. As I said you're getting lost in the details and not seeing the big picture.

Try Berkeley Earth. The source files for their analysis are here. The description of their dataset is here where they say they used raw data wherever possible and describe the filtering they did.

Ok, if you prefer you can call it debasification. It amounts to the same thing. The pH of the oceans is dropping.

The 19334-1943 mean was the same as the 1951-1980 mean so 2014 is equally unusually hot (and in case you're going to ask what about 1930-1933 the 1924-1933 mean was -0.17 compared to the 1951-1980 mean). 10,000 years ago was at the tail end of the last glaciation (ice age in the common vernacular). From proxy research it appears to at most been about the same as the 1951-1980 average although of course the error margin is larger.

Don't worry. If you live another 150 or 200 years you might get your wish.

"Denier" is a perfectly good word. The only ones I see linking it to holocaust denial are the people who are butthurt over being called climate science deniers.

No, the IPCC says we apply corrections for the UHI effect and the corrections have been scientifically validated.

It takes a pretty narrow view to try and make that statement. Meanwhile the oceans continue to absorb more energy, sea level continues to rise and ice keeps melting, symptoms of a warming world.

Which just shows that you don't understand the magnitude of natural variability is over 10 times the magnitude of the warming signal from CO2 and feedbacks. Eventually as the warming continues to rise it will overcome the vicissitudes of natural variability. The fact that 2014 is the warmest in the instrument record and it wasn't also an El Nino year indicates that's starting to happen.

2-4 times is gross hyperbole. Temperatures are still within the uncertainty bands of climate model projections so it's impossible to say the models are wrong.

Considering that the year to year increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is only about 45% of yearly output of human emissions the answer has to be 100%.

If the possible bad effects of not reducing CO2 emissions are even moderately possible then risk management theory says it's far more costly to wait than to do something about it. Even now the cost of wind and solar power is starting to be competitive with existing electricity production so the cost really isn't that great. And the cost of renewables is still going down.