“Mean”, or average, US and world temperatures have been rising at approximately 1.5 degrees F over the past 100 years. Almost all temperature measuring sites are located in, or near, cities and airports. So, the effects of the “urban heat island” are certainly contributing to this rise in temperature. The “effect” occurs mostly at night, because urban environments reduce evaporative cooling, by paving over what once was grassland and forests. If you have a thermometer on your car, just drive a few miles from a paved environment out into the country on a night with light winds and notice the difference in temperature. It can be 5-15 degrees! So, how much of this 1.5 degrees of warming is really “global warming” and how much of it is caused by concrete and macadam?

It would be better to talk about average daily HIGH temperatures and not MEAN temperatures. During the day the urban effect is much less of a factor because of mixing in the lower atmosphere. So, be skeptical when looking at statistics for “mean” or average temperatures.

It should also be noted that the rise of global surface temperatures occurred after about 1750, coincident with the industrial revolution, but also exactly coincident with the rise in solar activity after the minimum of sunspots that also occurred in the 18th century, the so-called “Maunder Minimum”. So, there are many questions about the validity of the data.

The entire debate about the future of climate is based on the projections of the climate models. So, the real question is: what have the models predicted in the past about our current climate, and how accurate have those models been? In other words, if a meteorologist predicts rain tomorrow, and he/she has a good record of accuracy, then bring your umbrella. If the forecaster is usually wrong, then it's anybody's guess. What matters in forecasting is verification. And, this applies to weather, as well as economic or political forecasting.

rlhailssrpe: I would suggest reading histories of the industrial revolution, the associated relative increases in populations, population densities, and life expectancies, between the industrialized nations and non developed nations, the history of electrification of the United States, and its impact on our standard of living, (e.g. TVA, REA), the development of electrical metal smelting, and its societal impact, and the development of the internal combustion engine.

Why? What purpose would it serve other than looking backward?

Looking forward, I suggest sources such as reports from MIT's Sloan Automotive Lab. They, and others, judge that the internal combustion engine will be a dominant propulsion technology during the foreseeable 21th century.

Okay, now we're talkin'! Here is a list of recent reports, publications, etc., from the Sloan Automotive Lab on the topic of “Fueling our Transportation Future”. Which ones would you like me to read? Are there others? Also, if I recommend articles for you to read, will you?

Finally, can we agree that the solutions currently available for transportation energy are different than the solutions currently available for stationary (i.e., more or less “grid”) energy?

For the record, and quite apart from whether it impacts any of the above, I don't understand your comment, “In summary, from an prime energy balance – direct cost viewpoint, and national load consideration, there are no dominant energy technologies that will not exploit combustion or fission for at least one or two generations.” Perhaps it was not well-stated, but as it stands it make so sense. More to the point, it sounds like gobbledygook.

Also for the record, I respectfully ask you not to try to talk down to me, or impress me with your “knowledge” in the absence of any evidence. That just won't work. And I would never do that to you.

Did I say That?! What a smart guy I am!

I'm just trying to say that all of this current argument about “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” or Clean Energy,” as Barbara Boxer likes to call it, is simply BS.

There is no such thing as a “postive energy machine.”

Best,
IrwinB

I know… I'm an A-Hole. But you started it. What Choo Got?

IrwinB

So, explain “El Nino” or “la nina,” and what it means to overall Climate change?

I'm surprised that so few “Experts” know what ocean currents mean.

Best,
IrwinB

Go ahead…. I'm on line and waiting ….

In summary, from an prime energy balance – direct cost viewpoint, and national load consideration, there are no dominant energy technologies that will not exploit combustion or fission for at least one or two generations. If green house emissions are significantly dangerous to mankind (extremely high albeit poorly defined costs), there are no known, workable technologies, on “a hard dollar basis”, which can supplant these two base loaded technologies. Many have been looking, since circa WWII. There are possibilities, no clear winners, but many false starts and dead ends. Beware of any technology whose proponents claim it is 5 – 10 years from a killer app. Some, e.g. fuel cell spokesmen, claimed this in 1955.

I have done my homework for forty five years. The US faces a hard landing, or a hard landing if we eschew these technologies. The facts are public record. All are invited to study. How many read IEEE, or ASME engineering reports? Do you know a Professional Engineer? What does he think? If we get it wrong, America may cease to exist. That, not climate change, is my personal fear.

I ignore puerile responders; you may not live long enough to learn the answer.

Keep it up!

Best,
IrwinB

Would it be too much to ask for you to supply some actual data, rather than exclusively appealing to your own personal authority?

That's certainly true, and well recognized among serious climate scientists. But that is exactly the favorite strategy among climate skeptics who have been arguing that “global warming is over”.

Interestingly, Joe Romm of Climate Progress recently posted an article entitled, “NCDC: Second hottest June on record — and once El Nino really kicks in, expect global temperatures “to threaten previous record highs” in which he made a comment similar to my first one on this thread: “And no, I don’t think the monthly data tell us much about the climate. But I know reporting it annoys the deniers.”

Again, I would say Nate Silver probably knows it, too. I further suspect that's exactly the point. Plus, he gets to make a little money in the process of embarrassing skeptics — assuming any of them are dumb and/or deluded enough to take him up on his bet, lol! At any rate, his ain't no crap shoot.

To “know” a lot from limited information means that you know very little.

Best,
IrwinB

Actually, study after study (e.g., the CBO, the DOE, the Center for American Progress, the McKinsey Group, etc.) have indicated that there is no reason to believe you need to fling a fortune at it.