On 10 Dec, 14:46, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message

Temperature is not a measure of the energy in a system.. it is the measure
of one type of energy in a system.
I can easily put energy into a system without changing its temperature.. I
could put an AA battery on a shelf, or a stick of dynamite in there, neither
has increased its temperature but the energy has gone up.
The same with water vapour, it has energy due to its state which can be
converted to heat energy but isn't.
In fact I can lower the temperature of a system by making water vapour out
of water already in that system.

OK you are absolutely right about this and I apologise for the tone of
my previous posting. It was done in a hurry and I didn't engage my
brain.

I was thinking about the specific case that had been under discussion
of an atmosphere and what it means for there to be more storms etc.
In a gas, temperature is essentially equivalent to kinetic energy.

But what are we arguing about anyway?

If we trace it back:

I said that climate change was not likely to be good for anyone
because it leads to more extreme weather. This happens because of an
increase of energy.

You said that the energy isn't increasing unless there is more coming
from the sun.

It was then pointed out that the reason for more energy is that a
greater proportion is retained because of greenhouse gases.

Somehow the argument then got turned on its head and you said:

"There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase
its
temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms. "

Whatever the issue about temperature, isn't this back to what I was
saying in the first place?