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

[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.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

 

[SSDD]

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

I am afraid that you have fallen victim to some misinformation there. Venus is hot because its atmosphere is 90+ times more dense than ours, not because it is comprised of mostly CO2.

The venus probe provided some valuable information about venus, but alas, the warmistas, even those in NASA haven't done a very good job with explaining what it means to those not inclined to find out for themselves.....and it doesn't take much effort to learn on your own.

I am guessing that you are familiar with how the climate change establishment describes the greenhouse effect? Radiation hits the earth, the earth absorbs radiation and emits IR radiation...then, depending on which version you support, greenhouse gasses either radiate some energy back to the surface of the earth which further warms the earth and causes even more IR or the greenhouse gasses act like a blanket and slow the escape of that IR.

The first problem with assigning a runaway greenhouse effect to venus is that its surface gets virtually no direct sunshine so there is no greenhouse like mechanism for the surface of the planet to radiate IR. The greenhouse hypothesis says that the effect works by shortwave from the sun warming the ground....not happening on venus.

Then there is the fact that there is almost no difference between the daytime temperatures on venus and the night time temperatures on venus in spite of the fact that the night on venus lasts approximately 1400 hours.

Then there is the fact that the albedo on venus is very high.. So high, in fact, that about 65% of the sunlight that hits venus is immediately reflected by the atmosphere back into space. The upper atmosphere gets almost twice as much solar radiation as earth (1.9X as much) but because the albedo is more than double that of earth, the upper atmosphere receives a lower TSI than earth.

Then there is the fact that there is almost no water vapor on earth...0.00002% and water vapor is a much more important "greenhouse" gas than CO2 because it absorbs much more of the spectrum...CO2 only absorbs in a very narrow band.

If we had no water vapor in our atmosphere, the equator would experience arctic like temperatures...and the excess CO2 in the atmosphere of venus in no way compensates for the lack of water vapor.

Finally there is the fact that if you travel up into the atmosphere of venus to an altitude where the pressure is equal to that of earth and compensate for the difference in the amount of solar radiation between venus and earth, the temperature is very similar to that of earth even though the composition of the atmosphere is almost entirely CO2.

You are quite wrong to hold up venus as an example of the greenhouse effect...the temperatures on venus can be explained almost entirely by the atmospheric pressure.

 

[Crick]

Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere? Oh, please do.

 

[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.

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.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

What about Venus?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere? Oh, please do.

Of course it is because of the pressure

 

[SSDD]

Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere? Oh, please do.

Of course it is because of the pressure

You had to know that he was going to think that the temperature on venus was because of CO2.....the fact that the atmospheric pressure is 90X that of earth and the fact that if you travel up in the atmosphere till you reach the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure and then compensate for the difference in received solar radiation, the temperature is very close to that of earth....such facts can't penetrate stupid on crick's level.

He is sure that it is a greenhouse effect even though almost no sunlight reaches the surface to be converted to IR which CO2 can absorb....and the fact that the night time side of the planet is the same temperature as the day time side in spite of the fact that the night on venus is 1400 hours long.

 

[SSDD]

Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere? Oh, please do.

Of course its' the pressure you idiot....tell me how you believe a greenhouse effect would work on venus 65% of the sunlight reaching the planet is reflected back into space and virtually zero percent of what's left ever reaches the surface to be converted to IR by absorption and emission.

By the way....ever get any of that empirical data proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming that you claimed that you had?....or are you still a lying sack?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere? Oh, please do.

What is it, Crick? Mann's tree rings? Shankun's proxies?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere? Oh, please do.

AGWCult Theme Song

 

[SSDD]

An another thing...earth and venus have almost identical dry lapse rates. On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C. This tells you that the primary factor determining temperature on venus is the thickness of the atmosphere, not its composition.

With a constant dry lapse rate an atmosphere twice as think would be twice as warm....an atmosphere three times as thick would be three times as warm...etc. etc.etc.

 

[martybegan]

This guy is quoting movie scripts lmao!

1984 is a book you sniveling twit.

And a movie dumbass rofl. Great debating bro. Next will you be quoting Top Gun or Home Alone?

It was a book first, a book written by a socialist who saw the pitfalls of the system he preferred.

Of course it was a book first and it was a movie also. Since I didn't say the movie was first I have no idea what you have a problem with. So I was correct and you're just bitching.

Top gun and Home Alone are not critiques on authoritarianism,and thus are not material to this discussion. 1984 is, and answers the question of IF AGW was all a hoax, what the reason would be.

 

[martybegan]

From 1984:

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were- cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?"

Both government and corporations have now a lot of control . Arguably google, the smartfones, facebook and the NSA have much more control over us than what could possible be achieved from green tech.

Also , if you install panels in you roof you gain independence instead of being dependent on the grid.
So exactly how would such control mechanisms be enacted ?

It isn't about panels on a person's roof. it's about carbon use taxes, higher fees for cars not considered "proper" Higher costs for power that are artificially created, and higher costs for goods due to higher energy costs, all due to government diktat, not any market conditions.

 

[SSDD]

[

It isn't about panels on a person's roof. it's about carbon use taxes, higher fees for cars not considered "proper" Higher costs for power that are artificially created, and higher costs for goods due to higher energy costs, all due to government diktat, not any market conditions.

And like all liberal ideas, it ends up hurting those who can least afford it the most. I can afford $5 or $6 a gallon for gas, but what about people who are struggling to buy gas to get to work at $2 a gallon....I can afford a higher electric bill, but what about those people who have to decide whether to pay the electric bill or buy food. Liberals don't think through their crazy schemes and inevitably hurt the poor the most....or maybe they do think them through and act in such a way to keep a permanent underclass too uneducated to see who is keeping them down voting for "free" goodies.

 

[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.

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.

Where is the evidence to support your supposition!

 

[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.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

Thickness of atmosphere and presure is the key play in that event not GHG's. the make up of Venus's atmosphere has little or no water vapor.. its depth is three to five times that of earth and has a level of CO2 that is 95 % of the atmosphere, not 400 parts per million. This is another straw man argument trying to compare apples to oranges.

 

[Billy_Bob]

An another thing...earth and venus have almost identical dry lapse rates. On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C. This tells you that the primary factor determining temperature on venus is the thickness of the atmosphere, not its composition.

With a constant dry lapse rate an atmosphere twice as think would be twice as warm....an atmosphere three times as thick would be three times as warm...etc. etc.etc.

Thank You! The circular logic used by Crick and others is boring and lacks even basic knowledge of thermal dynamics.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Please show us the empirical evidence, the math, and system descriptions which show how you ascertained this! To my knowledge, not even the IPCC or EPA have done this science work and have clearly stated they do not know. But some how you have...

SHOW ME!

 

[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.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

I didn't know you lived there. How is the weather today? What are the sources of your CO2?

 

[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.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

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.

The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.

Yet again you try and compare an elephant with a fly. Venus is not hot due to GHGs. It is hot because of the density of its atmosphere. Nitrogen (not nitrous oxide) is not a GHG yet if you replaced the Venusian atmosphere's CO2 with nitrogen the temperature would remain the same. It is not the type of gas it is its density that makes the difference. You really need to learn some of the basics.

 

[westwall]

Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere? Oh, please do.

Yes, it's a combination of Venus's atmospheric density (which is 100 times greater than Earth's) and the greenhouse effect (though that effect is almost unecessary due to the density of the atmospher) of the CO2. The problem with your use of Venus as a monster under the covers is the CO2 content of our atmosphere is thousands of orders of magnitude less than that of Venus. Venus's atmosphere is over 90% CO2. It is 100 times denser than our atmosphere to boot. In our atmosphere CO2 will NEVER reach even 1% of the atmospheric content. It is physically impossible.