Exactly. And as skin is rather less thermally conductive than water, the temperature difference would be rather larger.RegGuheert wrote:That's exactly right. And since heat is flowing from your body to the surface, you would measure a HIGHER temperature at the surface of your skin with the coat on versus without. This higher temperature would also tell you that the flow of heat from inside the body to the surface had slowed.WetEV wrote:Exactly the way that a coat does not transfer heat to you. But the coat still keeps you warm.
Go outside on a cold day carrying your coat. Starting to get cold, eh? Now put the coat on. The coat is heated by your body, and doesn't heat your body, but you get warmer, right?
I challenged you to provide a working counterexample(s) to mainstream climate physics. Any time you are ready:RegGuheert wrote:The fallacy that you have been lead to believe ...
So what is your moral case to reject well-substantiated climate science? (and hardly new, as this was old stuff when I was born, and I'm almost as old as dirt)F. A. Hayek wrote:Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called "mechanistic" explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.
Your belief that cloud cover evens out is a statement of faith with absolutely NO experimental evidence to back it up. Correlation of rising CO2 concentrations with (previously) rising temperatures does not imply causation. Frankly, the belief that the water cycle must represent a net positive feedback mechanism in terms of rising temperatures is ridiculous. The Earth would have burned up long ago if that were the case. The water cycle clearly provides a negative feedback mechanism. (Anyone who does not believe that is encouraged to move to any desert at the same latitude in order to cool off.)golfcart wrote:... but over the course of thousands of nights over the entire globe the variability of cloud cover evens out while the co2 rises day after day and year after year ( at least it has been since we began measuring about 60 years ago).
You might be interested to look carefully at the references upthread in which significant problem with this simple model have been identified and corrected by an expert modeller.golfcart wrote:The general relationship between co2 (and other ghg's) and the radiative balance of the planet is pretty well understood and has been for a while. Here is a simple model
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... mple-model
No argument with all of that. Our knowledge of the clouds is very primitive at this point. We have only recently established a physical link between cosmic rays and cloud formation (one of many influences on clouds). This link provides a *real* mechanism for the Sun's activity to have impacts on our climate. As we enter a new era of lower solar activity and therefore higher cosmic rays, we should expect that cooling should follow:golfcart wrote:Now to be fair, the net impact of clouds is probably the largest source of uncertainty in climate science and the scientists will admit that. The community really doesn't know with certainty how clouds will change in response to other changes in the climate. Simple things like the type of cloud, optical depth, reflectivity, cloud height, and even droplet size can impact whether or not a cloud has a net warming or cooling impact overall. The latest IPCC report discusses these various feedbacks in depth. Here is a link to a relevant FAQ and the ability to browse the rest of the report...
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_da ... q-2-1.html
I will agree that the science community does a poor job of admitting and explaining these uncertainties. And I will also agree that an alarmist media oversells what we can conclusively link to anthropogenic warming. And ill also agree that self righteous "activists" that fly all over the world telling everyone else that they need to cut back are annoying as f#ck.
Unfortunately, the scientific community finds itself with models which cannot predict, nor even hindcast, what is happening. As usual, the scientific consensus is almost certainly wrong in this case.golfcart wrote:That said, the accepted consensus of the science community is that the amount of long-lived ghg's we are adding to the system will be the dominant driver of changes in climate over the next few hundred years even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow.
I'm not arguing that we know clouds even out for sure, it is impossible to make that statement given that we only have a short record of cloud data to study. What I am saying is the following:RegGuheert wrote:Your belief that cloud cover evens out is a statement of faith with absolutely NO experimental evidence to back it up. Correlation of rising CO2 concentrations with (previously) rising temperatures does not imply causation.
What are you talking about?RegGuheert wrote:Since the measurements clearly do not support your claim that CO2 is like a "coat" over the Earth's oceans,, let's refer to it as the "The Emperor's New Coat". You have faith in something which the measurements show simply isn't so.
I notice again that you are ignoring problems in your case, and again claiming victory.RegGuheert wrote:Since the measurements clearly do not support your claim that CO2 is like a "coat" over the Earth's oceans, let's refer to it as the "The Emperor's New Coat". You have faith in something which the measurements show simply isn't so.
Amusing. Anyone that thinks that water cycle provides a negative feedback is challenged to provide a weather model that has negative feedback from water, unlike current weather models, that reproduces weather better than weather current models.RegGuheert wrote:Frankly, the belief that the water cycle must represent a net positive feedback mechanism in terms of rising temperatures is ridiculous. The Earth would have burned up long ago if that were the case. The water cycle clearly provides a negative feedback mechanism. (Anyone who does not believe that is encouraged to move to any desert at the same latitude in order to cool off.)