Assuming it was a hoax, what would be the goal of the global warming hoax?

[CultureCitizen]

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So tell me, where exaxctly is mans input signal? Where is the rise attributed to man contributions? It is not in the empirically observed evidence.

It is possible that the CO2 doesn't have an immediat effect , but rather it takes several years to cause an increase in temperature.
I'll admit that's speculation on my part, since I am no climatologist. On the other hand to say that chart is correct you would have to proove the oposite : that the full blown effects of increase in CO2 are felt in the following year in which it was produced.
There goes a plausible explanation for the lack of correlation in your chart .

All empirical data says otherwise. The data shows warming occurs and then, between 400 and 800 years AFTER the warming there is a corresponding rise in CO2. CO2 has NEVER initiated a rise in global temperature. It has always risen as a result of warming.

Interesting.... any links ?

Here you go....





"Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores
In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated."

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed « JoNova

ANZICE - Antarctic Research Centre - Victoria University of Wellington

Interesting, thanks.
I am not sure of what conclusions to draw .
First, we are facing a situation that is new in the last 400,000 years ( at least) : carbon spiking before temperature rise.
Second it is intresting to note how after reaching a maximum both temperatures and co2 drop almost vertically.
Third , our situation is unique in another sense judging by the second chart: the changes in co2 and methane levels we are seing usually take 15,000 years . We are now having the same level of change in 100 years.
I can only conclude that the previous natural cycles have a very different nature
We can conclude that a raise in temperature creates a rise in co2 with a lag of 800 years or so. But the oposite will not necesarily be true ( a rise of co2 will create a rise of temperature with 800 years of lag ).

 

[CultureCitizen]

No, I understood your analogy, but as you don't understand the relationship between greenhouse gases and the global temperature your analogy fails. The pan is heated by external means but it can only heat it to a certain point, all covering the pan does is bring it up to that temperature faster. The same is true of the Earth. The Sun heats the planet but it can only heat it to a certain point. Any claim of runaway temperature from CO2 is thus a violation of physics as we know it. The Earth is not a perpetual motion machine.

Let's see:
"The pan is heated by external means but it can only heat it to a certain point, all covering the pan does is bring it up to that temperature faster."

This would be incorrect. The lid ( specially one that seals the pan) will make the pan reach a much higher temperature.
In the pan you can see this clearly because a pressure cooker can reach much higher temperatures than a regular pan.
At a planetary level you can see it by comparing the surface temperature of mercury and venus.
Venus is a lot hotter , because it has a thick atmosphere, and this is true even though mercury is closer than the sun and receives more heat.

"The Sun heats the planet but it can only heat it to a certain point"
Yes , to a certain point , but that point can be 10 or 20 C higher, it has happened before , it can happen again.

Any claim of runaway temperature from CO2 is thus a violation of physics as we know it. The Earth is not a perpetual motion machine
No , it is not , again , take a look at Venus. This has nothing to do with being a perpetual motion machine. It simply means the amount of energy received from the sun minus the amount of heat leaving the planet is kept as heat , heat which will rise the temperature to a certain level.

 

[westwall]

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So tell me, where exaxctly is mans input signal? Where is the rise attributed to man contributions? It is not in the empirically observed evidence.

It is possible that the CO2 doesn't have an immediat effect , but rather it takes several years to cause an increase in temperature.
I'll admit that's speculation on my part, since I am no climatologist. On the other hand to say that chart is correct you would have to proove the oposite : that the full blown effects of increase in CO2 are felt in the following year in which it was produced.
There goes a plausible explanation for the lack of correlation in your chart .

All empirical data says otherwise. The data shows warming occurs and then, between 400 and 800 years AFTER the warming there is a corresponding rise in CO2. CO2 has NEVER initiated a rise in global temperature. It has always risen as a result of warming.

Interesting.... any links ?

Here you go....





"Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores
In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated."

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed « JoNova

ANZICE - Antarctic Research Centre - Victoria University of Wellington

Interesting, thanks.
I am not sure of what conclusions to draw .
First, we are facing a situation that is new in the last 400,000 years ( at least) : carbon spiking before temperature rise.
Second it is intresting to note how after reaching a maximum both temperatures and co2 drop almost vertically.
Third , our situation is unique in another sense judging by the second chart: the changes in co2 and methane levels we are seing usually take 15,000 years . We are now having the same level of change in 100 years.
I can only conclude that the previous natural cycles have a very different nature
We can conclude that a raise in temperature creates a rise in co2 with a lag of 800 years or so. But the oposite will not necesarily be true ( a rise of co2 will create a rise of temperature with 800 years of lag ).

No, actually we're not. The MWP occurred 800 years ago so the current CO2 rise is consistent with the Vostock ice core data. The CO2 is thus spiking right on schedule.

One of the primary axioms in science is "correlation does not equal causation". Climatologists have ignored that axiom for decades.

How do we know? The information you are relying on comes from computer models of dubious nature. We do know that as they are trace gasses they really have virtually no impact on the global temp. Methane is a naturally occurring gas. There are many moons in our solar system that are nothing more than little methane balls. I assure you that no whales have been farting (just one of the more ridiculous "theories" that climatologists came up with in the last few years) to make that happen.

No. Natural cycles absent catastrophic impacts stay the same. We are seeing NOTHING that is different than what has come before. The storms today are actually LESS violent than those of old. Look up The Great Drowning of Men storms. Or check out the Great Flood of 1862 in the western US. The entire Central Valley of California was a lake. The whole thing. We haven't seen anything even remotely as powerful as those storms so the meme that our storms are more frequent and more powerful is an outright lie. The storms I told you to look up are well known to anyone who studies climate and paleo climate.

There is zero empirical data to support your last statement. Absolutely none.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So tell me, where exaxctly is mans input signal? Where is the rise attributed to man contributions? It is not in the empirically observed evidence.

It is possible that the CO2 doesn't have an immediat effect , but rather it takes several years to cause an increase in temperature.
I'll admit that's speculation on my part, since I am no climatologist. On the other hand to say that chart is correct you would have to proove the oposite : that the full blown effects of increase in CO2 are felt in the following year in which it was produced.
There goes a plausible explanation for the lack of correlation in your chart .

All empirical data says otherwise. The data shows warming occurs and then, between 400 and 800 years AFTER the warming there is a corresponding rise in CO2. CO2 has NEVER initiated a rise in global temperature. It has always risen as a result of warming.

Interesting.... any links ?

Here you go....





"Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores
In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated."

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed « JoNova

ANZICE - Antarctic Research Centre - Victoria University of Wellington

Interesting, thanks.
I am not sure of what conclusions to draw .
First, we are facing a situation that is new in the last 400,000 years ( at least) : carbon spiking before temperature rise.
Second it is intresting to note how after reaching a maximum both temperatures and co2 drop almost vertically.
Third , our situation is unique in another sense judging by the second chart: the changes in co2 and methane levels we are seing usually take 15,000 years . We are now having the same level of change in 100 years.
I can only conclude that the previous natural cycles have a very different nature
We can conclude that a raise in temperature creates a rise in co2 with a lag of 800 years or so. But the oposite will not necessarily be true ( a rise of co2 will create a rise of temperature with 800 years of lag ).

If thermal release is slowed, it is the oceans which will govern the rate at which the earth warms. Average lag of ocean temp increase is 15-25 years, a far cry from 800 year lag. Our current warming hiatus is proof that the added CO2 is not causing a rise in global mean temps. and ocean cooling rates are now spiking indicating that we have lost thermal input required to maintain the current levels of warmth. Oddly this is right in line with the end of the last solar cycle.

IT is truly funny how the activists blame man and forget the very basics of thermal; dynamic laws... Where does earth derive it heat from?

 

[SSDD]

[

Burden of proof? YOU are claiming they are WRONG. Where is your burden of proof?

I'm expecting laughing, calling names and no proof.

The burden of proof lies on those who are working from the AGW hypothesis...That is how it is with science....Those who believe the hypothesis claim that additional CO2 is going to cause catastrophic warming and because of that we must alter our lifestyles radically. I am asking for the empirical evidence which supports that claim. Cleary neither you, nor anyone else can provide such evidence because it simply does not exist.

That being the case, why should I believe the claims and more importantly, why do you?

 

[westwall]

No, I understood your analogy, but as you don't understand the relationship between greenhouse gases and the global temperature your analogy fails. The pan is heated by external means but it can only heat it to a certain point, all covering the pan does is bring it up to that temperature faster. The same is true of the Earth. The Sun heats the planet but it can only heat it to a certain point. Any claim of runaway temperature from CO2 is thus a violation of physics as we know it. The Earth is not a perpetual motion machine.

Let's see:
"The pan is heated by external means but it can only heat it to a certain point, all covering the pan does is bring it up to that temperature faster."

This would be incorrect. The lid ( specially one that seals the pan) will make the pan reach a much higher temperature.
In the pan you can see this clearly because a pressure cooker can reach much higher temperatures than a regular pan.
At a planetary level you can see it by comparing the surface temperature of mercury and venus.
Venus is a lot hotter , because it has a thick atmosphere, and this is true even though mercury is closer than the sun and receives more heat.

"The Sun heats the planet but it can only heat it to a certain point"
Yes , to a certain point , but that point can be 10 or 20 C higher, it has happened before , it can happen again.

Any claim of runaway temperature from CO2 is thus a violation of physics as we know it. The Earth is not a perpetual motion machine
No , it is not , again , take a look at Venus. This has nothing to do with being a perpetual motion machine. It simply means the amount of energy received from the sun minus the amount of heat leaving the planet is kept as heat , heat which will rise the temperature to a certain level.

Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.

Look it up.

The Earth was warmer in the past because the Sun was more energetic. Once again look it up. Also there was much less actual land area hundreds of millions of years ago. The increase in continental crust as opposed to oceanic crust has seen a marked drop in overall temperature. We are truly living in a golden age. The temperature of the planet through most of mans existence has been much colder.

Venus has a atmosphere almost wholly made up of CO2. I suggest you look up the Ideal Gas Laws and how pressure influences temperature. You're trying to compare an elephant with a fly.

By your line of reasoning I can tell that you are not very conversant with science. Might I suggest you join a physics forum where they can educate you in short order on the Ideal Gas Laws and how they pertain to the Venusian atmosphere and temperature. There are also some good geology forums that deal with paleoclimatology as it pertains to the ice ages etc.

I am by no means trying to insult you. I just feel that were you better informed you would be able to understand the arguments better and come to your own conclusions. Not conclusions that are being fed to you in the belief (rightly so at the moment) that you won't understand where their theories fall apart and the fiction begins.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

 

[westwall]

Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

 

[jc456]

Nobody with any science background that matters denies the small warming blip during your lifetime. Or that CO2 MIGHT play a limited role in that. Fact is that natural variations have been largely under estimated and the role of CO2 is way over estimated. As witnessed by the failures of most climate models to predict temperature even 15 or 20 years out..

As for the 2degC trigger -- it's headline news. It's the mantra of the next Climate Conf. in Paris. And it's the most quoted number for the "trigger". Interestingly enough, the REAL warming powers of CO2 would NEVER get us to 5degC by itself.. Not without the speculated (imagined) list of positive feedbacks and magic multipliers that are the CORE of the debate.

If the Earth was gonna go suicidal with a 2degC spike in warming -- we wouldn't be here now. THAT's what your GW speculates.

So are you aware of the socio-political statements that CONFIRM the larger agenda of the GW Zealots?
I'll provide them for you if you're really oblivious to the movement side of this circus.

My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade.
I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) .
That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands.

Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.

How do you support your supposition? There is almost no empirical data to support that.

It's actually quite simple : co2 gives a blanket effect the effect is not immediate, it builds up with time.
Some people cheer at the fact that we have 400 ppm co2 and almost no warming .
But the correct expression is : we've had 400 ppm for one year and have had almost no warming. We will probably see the effects 5 or 10 years later. That's why I am almost certain we are under no immedeate threat.
By analogy when you put a lid on a pan being heated you will not notice the effect immediately , but wait five minutes and you'll notice the effect on the temperature.

The problem is you misunderstand how the greenhouse effect works. It doesn't warm up anything. It merely prevents heat from escaping into space. It is a blanket and not an electric blanket. Absent our atmosphere the Earth would be like the Moon, blistering hot during the day and hundreds below zero at night. Our atmosphere keeps the heat in. That's all. It does not add heat. The Sun is the source of heat on the planet with a dash of geologic heat from the core as it transmits to the mantle and finally the crust with eruptions.

No , I didn't say it warmed anything I said :
"By analogy when you put a lid on a pan being heated", so I was comparing it to a lid put on top of a pan.
It seems you misunderstood my analogy.

But it isn't

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

The suns corona is 200 times hotter than the surface, how does that happen?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

The suns corona is 200 times hotter than the surface, how does that happen?

Magnetic fields turn the gas into plasma like what happens in a tokamak

 

[Billy_Bob]

I am still waiting for any empirically observed evidence to prove any CO2 forcing (man made).

 

[westwall]

Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

And energy is lost in the passage. You are ignoring that fact.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

I am uncertain about the amount of the current heating which is man made. If you want a guess : more than half.

What is certain is the spike in CO2 and methane is man made.
What effect will such amount of these gases have in the long term (20 years ) is uncertain.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

I am uncertain about the amount of the current heating which is man made. If you want a guess : more than half.

What is certain is the spike in CO2 and methane is man made.
What effect will such amount of these gases have in the long term (20 years ) is uncertain.

Actually man is responsible for more than 100% of the recent heating.

 

[westwall]

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

I am uncertain about the amount of the current heating which is man made. If you want a guess : more than half.

What is certain is the spike in CO2 and methane is man made.
What effect will such amount of these gases have in the long term (20 years ) is uncertain.

Actually man is responsible for more than 100% of the recent heating.

Care to show us the math for that one!

 

[westwall]

Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

I am uncertain about the amount of the current heating which is man made. If you want a guess : more than half.

What is certain is the spike in CO2 and methane is man made.
What effect will such amount of these gases have in the long term (20 years ) is uncertain.

That's the problem with climatology today. It is all guesswork and precious little actual facts.

 

[jc456]

Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.

The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted.

"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water.

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

it does not add heat to the equation.
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.

Incorrect. Water vapor has no ability to heat anything. It RETAINS heat. It doesn't generate it. The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws. You really should look them up. Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.

"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."
1 ) I wrote "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source.
2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.

1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth. CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.

I am uncertain about the amount of the current heating which is man made. If you want a guess : more than half.

What is certain is the spike in CO2 and methane is man made.
What effect will such amount of these gases have in the long term (20 years ) is uncertain.

Wow, just wow.