It's the sun! Analogy?

The only perfect analogy for a thing is the thing itself. That said, good analogy. Makes sense to me... (it can join my biological carbon cycle fountain)

edit: Gryph, I refer back to "the only perfect analogy for a thing is the thing itself". David's trying to counter "Well, how can CO2 be changing the Earth's temperature, when all the energy comes from the sun?", while leaving it at a level (and with an analogy) that can be understood by the kinds of people who'd think that...

Well I have two answers for you. Here is the first one:

The reason a pot of water boils faster with the lid on is that the heat escapes less quickly due to the reduced convection and the condensation of the water vapor on the lid which releases energy back into the system. The analogy for reduced convection is a glass greenhouse or car parked in the Sun with the windows rolled up. The analogy for water vapor condensing would be precipitation although I'm not sure what in the physical world the lid would represent (maybe an atmospheric inversion layer or a frontal system?).

The second answer is to picture the water as the oceans and the Sun slowly heating the surface of the ocean (i.e. the bottom of the pot). So the lid would be the bottom of the ocean. What usefulness that analogy has? I have no idea.

However, your point is still made. There are many other factors which control the rate at which energy leaves the Earth system. There are also factors which dictate how much of the Sun's energy enters the system (e.g. clouds, ice/snow albedo, deforestation, aerosols, etc.).

I have never argued that additional CO2 doesn't increase warming. The problem I'm having is the amplified feedback hypothesis as well as the projections and predictions of catastrophe. As well, I think it's entirely plausible the Sun and its cycles plus the other system cycles it affects are more responsible for temperature variations than human activity of which CO2 is but one of a few others (which are rarely mentioned).

You got a good start. Real scientists can accurately predict the future. A properly programmed computer can also do this.

Notice that when you take the pot off the burner the temperature reduces. Now put the pot back on the burner and the pot will heat up again. So which came first? The action or stimulus came first then the heating of the water. Same way in all science. Right now for the last decade the earth has been cooling while the CO2 level has increased during that same time. That scientifically proves that CO2 is not the stimulus.

Any grade school level scientist can see that. It is not that hard.

What have you been smoking. This is not even a realistic analog. The

Earth while the burner bringing the water to boil is constantly providing heat beneath the pot.

The lid although similar to the greenhouse cap isn't permeable. While the Suns heat can and is reflected back through the greenhouse cap, the steam/heat doesn't escape through the lid.

Totally different physics and chemistry involved. You really need to get beyond and elementary school approach to this stuff.

http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspot...

The lid corresponds to greenhouse gases. Of course the heating element effects the temperature of the water, but if someone were turning down the heat on the element and put the lid on, and the temperature of the water in the pot continued to increase, I would suspect that the lid is the cause of the increase of temperature.

Sagebrush

<Real scientists can accurately predict the future.>

So, are these people real scientists?

http://psychics.californiapsychics.com/Goog/S/PC/P...

Moe

<I'd like to find out how much the sun has contributed to the earths warming.>

It depends since when. Since the beginning of the end of the last ice age? That would be more orbital variations than the Sun.

In the last 150 years? Probably about 40%.

In the last 30 years? That would be a negative number. Probably about -50%.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sun... (Razzberry sound effects for SageFreedomMaxx.)

WOW, I've never thought of it that way. I'm beginning to understand exactly how fossil CO2 is responsible for the warming of the planet now.

Now I'd like to find out how much the sun has contributed to the earths warming. Oh, here is a chart. Let's see here is the answer 10%. Wait another one says 40%, oh, **** here is one that says 20%. Ahh, that's right I forgot I'm not a scientist so I don't understand the way science works. I might not understand how climate science works but let's keep these guys away from things that requires accuracy.

psst... chem flunky, "The only perfect analogy for a thing is the thing itself." You do understand that wouldn't be an analogy?

The problem with your analogy is that you only include CO2 as your lid. Peter cleverly included water vapor. In fact their could be numerous lids. There is the CO2 lid, or maybe we should we call it a collander using your analogy. Then you have the water vapor lid which may be more like a pressure cooker lid relative to CO2. You have cloud lids. You have particulate lids (holes). You have other greenhouse gas lids. You have all sorts of lids but you certainly have to remember there is an oven dial which also controls the heat. On my oven, the flame stays pretty constant unless I move it but in real life, the sun actually changes significantly over time. Just because the sun isn't 100 percent of the cause of change doesn't mean it is necessarily CO2.

Note: Hey, anyone notice the sock puppets are missing today. Dook must have taken a day off?

How the hell is there still people saying CO2 changes climate? CO2 was proven to not control climate whenever the global temperatures dropped in the 1950s-1970s while CO2 still went up...

Temperatures - http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b5803597...

CO2 - http://www.wri.org/image/view/10079/_original

this clearly proves any theory of CO2 driven climate wrong, now end this ridiculous debate

That's a fair analogy, I'll say that much.

But where your analogy falls down is the fact that CO2 has ALWAYS been in the air, the lid has ALWAYS been on the pot (it wasn't just recently put on).... and with a little added CO2 such as we have now, the lid just got a little thicker, which does have an impact on the temperature of the water, but one so small that it can't be measured.

Sixty prominent German scientists declare in an open letter that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures and that Global Warming is a “pseudo religion”

http://climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Ano...

Graphs show CO2 is not the driver of Temperature

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correlatio...

NOW, try turning up the burner heat (the Sun) and see what happens.

--------------------------------

Jim Z - I noticed the missing Dooky and missing sock-puppets, but I think it's still to early to declare them gone. However actions have been taken on that problem. We will see later what transpires.

--------------------------------

If WattsUp hasn't mentioned it this week, then the lid must be a hoax by vegans who want to trick people into burning and over-cooking vegetables, and thereby preferring raw vegetables, whose excess carbon taxes their digestive systems, saps their vital bodily fluids and makes them ripe for takeover by solar-powered Reptilians in their hollow moon hideout.

Edit: Not enough science here for JimZ to lie about, so he lies about me instead.