Global warming can be remedied by the reorganization of industry into localized techno-apprenticeships this way we could maintain production without producing large scale industrial pollution that is driving climate change.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Neil deGrasse Tyson?

I would say yes.

Most scientists are so caught up in scientific jargon that laymen rarely understand that they speak over our heads.

That's a cultural stereotype that I suspect is a manifestation of our nation's deep seated anti-intellectualism.

How many people other than scientists, engineers, and mathematicians can do partial differential equations? The best that one can hope for is for people to translate the language of science into more normal prose. As a general rule non-scientists establish social policy. To be sure it is best that political leaders can be informed by science so that they don't make fools of themselves like claiming that women can't get impregnated by unwelcome sex. Most scientists would make bad politicians because the mix of talents of the usual scientist badly match those of politics. Scientists, accountants, engineers, physicians, veterinarians, and dentists may be smart -- but I would not guarantee their competence as politicians.

Agreed.

I misspoke. I do not try to deceive here. I can be wrong for relying upon obsolete or partial information. I can excuse many pols for falling for the claims of the GW Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program. I cannot excuse those who promoted a falsehood offered in knowledge of its untruth or in reckless disregard for contradictory evidence.

So let's clarify: The problem is that we just don't fully know the consequences. We can't simply say "Increase motor-fuel consumption by 10% and temperatures will rise 5C" or give a precise timetable on the rising of the seas. Our attempted predictions, even if based on quantitative data, can give only qualitative results.

Is an imprecise prediction qualitative or quantitative?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

... Oh, the Michael Mann who is currently the director of the Earth Science Center at Penn State, where he is designated a distinguished professor? Elected fellow of the American Geophysical Union in 2012. Elected a fellow of the American Meteorological Society in 2013 as well as winning the National Conservation Achievement Award for Science from the National Wildlife Federation. Tell me again about how he has been purged?

Will the purging change the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide?

Mann took an undeserved beating from our then Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, during his previous hiatus as a distinguished professor at the University of Virginia. He was hounded and sued even after he departed for Penn State, having been perfectly correct in his science, but a bit inept in the political realm.

No fault of his (Cuccinelli was and still is an asshole), but he still took the beating.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 …

You should spend some time looking around. There are hundreds and hundreds of working scientists who post in blogs or engage in forums. Instead of the lone star, the niche has been filled by dozens of minor celebs. If you really need a scientist communicator from the Sagan mold then the likeliest candidate would be Neil Degrasse Tyson.

It’s hard to argue with your choice of Tyson. On a lesser scale, but equally at ease with people, is Andy Revkin. Since this was about AGW, I tought a climate scientists should make an appearance.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 …

So? Of what use is a conversation about global warming involving people who don't really understand what they are saying?

Do you know how you learn to speak the tongue? It isn't by avoiding exposure to your mistakes and misconceptions.

Well, most of those fools don’t matter a tinkers damn, but the ones with access to money, do. Most science these days is highly expensive. The public-facing researchers tend to have a lot of people skills. Why else would both research teams at the LHC have been led by physicists who just happened to also have been professional musicians in their earlier lives?

For that matter, so was and is Revkin.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Is an imprecise prediction qualitative or quantitative?

I guess that depends on your definition of "imprecise."

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

That

Originally Posted by me

Most scientists are so caught up in scientific jargon that laymen rarely understand that they speak over our heads.

(is) a cultural stereotype that I suspect is a manifestation of our nation's deep seated anti-intellectualism.

Most scientists don't do PR on behalf of science. They do science. On occasion one finds a scientist like Albert Einstein who can talk competently outside his field with pithy statements that contain no scientific talk. Maybe if one considers Freud a scientist he creates his own scientific language for some useful concepts that have no other possible expression. Such a term as "projection" (the bank-robber who excuses himself by claiming that "bankers are the biggest crooks of all") is far more precise and unambiguous than any alternative.

Science relies on its record to show its usefulness. It uses methods that can generally be accepted as reliable despite being outside the usual abilities of the layman. Science allows engineers the ability to create useful objects that would otherwise not exist without those abilities. Consider the engines of motor vehicles and aircraft: without the arcane equations of heat exchange we would not have reliable engines because engines would themselves break down. Jet aircraft would be but missiles, steam-powered ships would explode, and automobiles would still be so unreliable that anyone contemplating a long journey would have to rely upon a low-temperature 'engine' like a bicycle, horse, or dogsled or upon wind-powered sailing ships. Effective design of gasoline engines, steam engines, and jet engines relies heavily upon expert (scientists and engineers) mastery of the equations of heat exchange.

If you don't believe me -- we have few existing examples of paddle-wheel steamboats from the 19th century. The first ones were built before engineers knew anything about the equations of heat, and the boilers frequently exploded with horrible results. Steam trains are largely museum pieces because diesel fuel and electricity were more reliable as fuel sources -- but their boilers were far-better designed than those of paddle-wheel steamships.

... re anti-intellectualism -- intellectuals are far less reliable than scientists in getting practical results of undeniable utility. Intellectuals are as capable as any of justifying or even creating the worst in human behavior. Just think of Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, and Josef Goebbels. An intellectual with a predilection for sexual abuse of children might create his own sophisticated rationale for his horrible behavior.

Intellectuals are no better than the rest of us, as they are capable of the same descent into the moral gutter as the rest of us. They are potentially as corrupt as any people, and perhaps even more dangerous when they go corrupt. An evil genius like Goebbels can shape the minds of unsophisticated brutes who "select" the immediate victims of the gas chambers. That some contemporary thinker like John Dewey or Bertrand Russell can find such appalling and can make his abomination of such unambiguous and convincing does not matter if someone like Goebbels has power over the 'morals' of a nation. As Paul Johnson tells us, we must watch the sophisticated intellectual closely and not get snowed.

Science at least polices itself. Peer review and double-blind testing take much of the fun and wonder out of science, but they either ensure trustworthy results or force a new effort -- and keep the cranks from polluting science as they pollute much other intellectual effort.

So let's clarify: The problem is that we just don't fully know the consequences. We can't simply say "Increase motor-fuel consumption by 10% and temperatures will rise 5C" or give a precise timetable on the rising of the seas. Our attempted predictions, even if based on quantitative data, can give only qualitative results.

Is an imprecise prediction qualitative or quantitative?

Scientists have created even quantitative means of measuring uncertainty. A physics text that I used in college (in the 1970s) once stated that the inverse-square relationship between gravitation and distance was true to the level of one billionth in accordance with experimental measurements. That is eight nine's following a one or eight zeroes following a two at the least for the exponent.

Of course climate models are not as precise as those involving gravitation or electrical charge from a distance. Weather allows no such precision except as an immediate result.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Mann took an undeserved beating from our then Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, during his previous hiatus as a distinguished professor at the University of Virginia. He was hounded and sued even after he departed for Penn State, having been perfectly correct in his science, but a bit inept in the political realm.

No fault of his (Cuccinelli was and still is an asshole), but he still took the beating.

I read your statement to say the scientific field can be purged. Despite the political theater from Cuccinelli, Mann is still a climatologist doing climate research.

It’s hard to argue with your choice of Tyson. On a lesser scale, but equally at ease with people, is Andy Revkin. Since this was about AGW, I tought a climate scientists should make an appearance.

Sagan spoke publicly at length about evolution, despite not being a biologist. Besides, I argue that the rock star science spokesman model is fractured today. Instead there is a virtual army of science communicators (both working scientists and non-scientists). For a good example on the climat front check out Tamino at Open Mind.

Well, most of those fools don’t matter a tinkers damn, but the ones with access to money, do. Most science these days is highly expensive. The public-facing researchers tend to have a lot of people skills. Why else would both research teams at the LHC have been led by physicists who just happened to also have been professional musicians in their earlier lives?

For that matter, so was and is Revkin.

No doubt scientific groups choose their spokespeople carefully.

Originally Posted by TnT

I guess that depends on your definition of "imprecise."

No, it doesn't.

If intellectuals are like vandal, give me anti-intellectualism anytime

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Most scientists don't do PR on behalf of science. They do science. On occasion one finds a scientist like Albert Einstein who can talk competently outside his field with pithy statements that contain no scientific talk. Maybe if one considers Freud a scientist he creates his own scientific language for some useful concepts that have no other possible expression. Such a term as "projection" (the bank-robber who excuses himself by claiming that "bankers are the biggest crooks of all") is far more precise and unambiguous than any alternative.

Science relies on its record to show its usefulness. It uses methods that can generally be accepted as reliable despite being outside the usual abilities of the layman. Science allows engineers the ability to create useful objects that would otherwise not exist without those abilities. Consider the engines of motor vehicles and aircraft: without the arcane equations of heat exchange we would not have reliable engines because engines would themselves break down. Jet aircraft would be but missiles, steam-powered ships would explode, and automobiles would still be so unreliable that anyone contemplating a long journey would have to rely upon a low-temperature 'engine' like a bicycle, horse, or dogsled or upon wind-powered sailing ships. Effective design of gasoline engines, steam engines, and jet engines relies heavily upon expert (scientists and engineers) mastery of the equations of heat exchange.

If you don't believe me -- we have few existing examples of paddle-wheel steamboats from the 19th century. The first ones were built before engineers knew anything about the equations of heat, and the boilers frequently exploded with horrible results. Steam trains are largely museum pieces because diesel fuel and electricity were more reliable as fuel sources -- but their boilers were far-better designed than those of paddle-wheel steamships.

No argument here.

... re anti-intellectualism -- intellectuals are far less reliable than scientists in getting practical results of undeniable utility. Intellectuals are as capable as any of justifying or even creating the worst in human behavior. Just think of Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, and Josef Goebbels. An intellectual with a predilection for sexual abuse of children might create his own sophisticated rationale for his horrible behavior.

Intellectuals are no better than the rest of us, as they are capable of the same descent into the moral gutter as the rest of us. They are potentially as corrupt as any people, and perhaps even more dangerous when they go corrupt. An evil genius like Goebbels can shape the minds of unsophisticated brutes who "select" the immediate victims of the gas chambers. That some contemporary thinker like John Dewey or Bertrand Russell can find such appalling and can make his abomination of such unambiguous and convincing does not matter if someone like Goebbels has power over the 'morals' of a nation. As Paul Johnson tells us, we must watch the sophisticated intellectual closely and not get snowed.

Science at least polices itself. Peer review and double-blind testing take much of the fun and wonder out of science, but they either ensure trustworthy results or force a new effort -- and keep the cranks from polluting science as they pollute much other intellectual effort.

The American strain of anti-intellectualism doesn't differentiate between scientists and non-science intellectuals. You may see a difference, but the stereotype was built but those who don't.

Scientists have created even quantitative means of measuring uncertainty.

See, I think you really don't understand what the term quantitative means. All measurements by definition must be quantitative! We don't have to create a quantitative way of measuring uncertainty because there is no way of measuring anything in a non-quantitative manner.

A prediction with a small margin of error (high precision) is quantitative because it is expressed numerically. A prediction with a large margin of error (low precision) is still quantitative because it is also expressed numerically. Qualitative does not mean uncertain. Qualitative means data or descriptions that are not expressible in numerical terms.

A physics text that I used in college (in the 1970s) once stated that the inverse-square relationship between gravitation and distance was true to the level of one billionth in accordance with experimental measurements. That is eight nine's following a one or eight zeroes following a two at the least for the exponent.

You can dispense with the basic science lesson. I teach basic physics.

Of course climate models are not as precise as those involving gravitation or electrical charge from a distance. Weather allows no such precision except as an immediate result.

You didn't answer the question. Is an imprecise prediction from a climate model quantitative?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If intellectuals are like vandal, give me anti-intellectualism anytime

I suspect you were already a paragon of anti-intellectualism long before we "met".

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You didn't answer the question. Is an imprecise prediction from a climate model quantitative?

I wouldn't go that route. Try restating the original observations of nature and/or what you think you can learn from climate models using plain layman's english while avoiding the words which have specific technical meanings in the idiom of science. Try pulling the conversation back to global warming, and away from technical linguistics.

There was a note a page or three back comparing science and religion. I might nitpick it some, but I'll just observed that while the Catholic Priests in my youth might have talked to God and each other in Latin, they addressed the congregation in English.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

But you absolutely, positively can NOT state any particular storm is a result of warming. You just can't. Anybody.

That's not strictly true. For the storm in question it is. But not for all storms. The Phillipines storm was a big storm like others in the past, as Copperfield showed. But suppose sometime in the future there is a storm that is not like others in the past when compared on the metrics Copperfield showed. Suppose such a storm was 4 standard deviations above the average level of historical storms? It would be hard to make the claim that the outlier storm was part of normal weather variability and not the result of a special cause. This statistical anomaly combined with the very plausible idea that higher temperatures are capable of powering stronger storms would make a strong case for causation by warming.

You cannot prove it absolutely, but you can get it to beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard of certainty used for civil cases. And that is good enough for policy purposes.

I deal with this kind of issue every time there is a process upset. If something happens in the manufacturing process (e.g. operator mistake, equipment failure) a potential exists that this event could have caused a change in product quality. The product is assayed for potency and impurity levels and the results compared to the historical ranges (mean +/- 3 stdev). If one or more of measurements in the suspect lot are outside of the ranges then the lot is reprocessed and subjected to baseline analysis again.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

He very specifically decried computer models as useful because they only give qualitative predictions.

This statement makes no sense to me. I read it as "He denounced computer models as useful because they only give qualitative predictions". To me this statement says that the speaker does not like climate models because of their the utility in providing qualitative output (presumably because such output is easier to understand for ordinary people). It would seem then that the speaker is a warming denialist.

But I believe I know that the speaker is not a denialist so your statement is confusing. I think your choice of the word decry was a mistake. Did you perhaps mean "denied that"?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

A prediction with a small margin of error (high precision) is quantitative because it is expressed numerically. A prediction with a large margin of error (low precision) is still quantitative because it is also expressed numerically.

This is not exactly right. Quantative data is numerical, but the reverse is not necessarily true. Just because something is expressed as a number does not mean it's quantitative.

It comes down to units of measure. If the units associated with the number are something that can be objectively measured then the number is quantitative. If the units describe a subjective assessment then the number is qualitative. If the output from a climate model is simply numerical it is neither quantitative nor qualitative. It only becomes one or the other when the appropriate units are assigned to the numerical results.

This describes the scientific understanding of quantitative versus qualitative. But there is a connotation in general discourse of numerical information being more accurate or reliable than the nonnumerical information simply because it is expressed numerically. Since many (even Vandal) confuse numerical with quantitative, one can see why some here have expressed some overlap between precision and notions of quantitative.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

No, it doesn't.

During my years in the trenches, "precision" was a big deal. If we couldn't talk about the precision of one of our blood tests, we really didn't know much about what we were doing.

And ... in blood testing laboratories, we had both "qualitative" and "quantitative" tests. These two have overlapping features. "Precision" was often one of the features that discriminates between the two.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

The American strain of anti-intellectualism doesn't differentiate between scientists and non-science intellectuals. You may see a difference, but the stereotype was built but those who don't.

American anti-intellectualism has morphed into an assault upon the intelligentsia. Maybe we as a people distrust anything above our easy relevance. We trust engineering because it gets economic results and surgery because it might save lives. OK. Prosperity and lifesaving are desirable. Other mental activity other than perhaps the comfort of religious orthodoxy (for one's culture) often seems like gobbledygook. For many Americans, intellectual activity of any kind seems to be a black art, especially if it challenges beliefs dear to one.

If a critic like Paul Johnson in Intellectuals sees intellectual elites no more reliable than shamans of primitive communities, he at least recognizes the desirability of basic learning necessary for a functioning economy -- and of course the ability to read books and understand their content. But such necessity implies a large intelligentsia that encompasses literate people such as teachers, accountants, physicians, engineers, accountants, and research scientists who rarely if ever get the opportunity to challenge the philosophical basis of reality as do intellectuals. Such people need some economic independence if they are not to become stooges or serfs who obey rigid orders without critical judgment. But most of the intelligentsia can't get away with the eccentricity and even madness of intellectuals at their worst.

The intelligentsia is educated even if the education (a BA in education?) isn't so impressive. It is politically active, and one offends it at great risk to one's political career.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This statement makes no sense to me. I read it as "He denounced computer models as useful because they only give qualitative predictions". To me this statement says that the speaker does not like climate models because of their the utility in providing qualitative output (presumably because such output is easier to understand for ordinary people). It would seem then that the speaker is a warming denialist.

If anything I must interpret a mass of quantitative data on a map into qualitative interpretation so that I can express a competent and coherent explanation. If I see that rainfall disappears from the Mediterranean basin while it gets hotter I can say that the climate of the Mediterranean basin becomes like that of the Persian Gulf. If I see greater rainfall in tropical locations that already get high rainfall I can only interpret that as the idea that such areas get more frequent and severe tropical storms.

As a rule people not having scientific tools at their ready disposal can only translate quantitative data into qualitative explanations. Maybe I have some questions about the model, particularly on whether the wind patterns change in a warmed world. Should the westerlies stay put, then the Mediterranean Basin gets warmer and rainfall increases enough to offset increased evaporation, and subtropical locations such as Seville and San Diego become more tropical in character.

There is no suitable model for a model of the Earth with significantly-warmer conditions that the more alarming predictions of global warming offer. Global warming could conceivably give warmer temperatures than the Earth has experienced in 34 million years, which is the time in which the Drake Passage separated South America from Antarctica and allowed Antarctica to be isolated and become glaciated. Computer models are of course no better than their assumptions. If anything I err on the side of caution, and rapid global warming just isn't worth the risks.

All in all it is wisest to see rapid global warming as a severe risk causing severe dislocations that could weaken the thin connections between a large human population and its food resources and cause extreme instabilities that lead to catastrophic wars. There is just so much that we do not know, and rapid global warming is to be prevented lest we sow a whirlwind not exclusively meteorological.

But I believe I know that the speaker is not a denialist so your statement is confusing. I think your choice of the word decry was a mistake. Did you perhaps mean "denied that"?

I am not a denier of global warming. I am willing to hedge some, and I recognize that some assumptions about wind patterns are suspect. A rise in the sea level is one of the results with greater strength of certainty than specific changes in rainfall and temperatures, and I recognize that some of the places likely to get inundated are places of large agricultural production and large population. So where do 200 million people living in the northeastern part of the Indian Subcontinent, including the entirety of Bangladesh, go?

Originally Posted by B Butler

I wouldn't go that route.

Of course you wouldn't. That route requires actual knowledge of the science and not just pretending.

Try restating the original observations of nature and/or what you think you can learn from climate models using plain layman's english while avoiding the words which have specific technical meanings in the idiom of science. Try pulling the conversation back to global warming, and away from technical linguistics.

One more time for the reading impaired: quantitative versus qualitative is not "technical linguistics". It is a very, very basic concept for all of science.

There was a note a page or three back comparing science and religion. I might nitpick it some, but I'll just observed that while the Catholic Priests in my youth might have talked to God and each other in Latin, they addressed the congregation in English.

Did they just pretend to know what the Gospels said?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This statement makes no sense to me. I read it as "He denounced computer models as useful because they only give qualitative predictions". To me this statement says that the speaker does not like climate models because of their the utility in providing qualitative output (presumably because such output is easier to understand for ordinary people). It would seem then that the speaker is a warming denialist.

But I believe I know that the speaker is not a denialist so your statement is confusing. I think your choice of the word decry was a mistake. Did you perhaps mean "denied that"?

Here is the quote in question, in context: The problem is that we just don't fully know the consequences. We can't simply say "Increase motor-fuel consumption by 10% and temperatures will rise 5C" or give a precise timetable on the rising of the seas. Our attempted predictions, even if based on quantitative data, can give only qualitative results.

You tell me what he said.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This is not exactly right. Quantative data is numerical, but the reverse is not necessarily true. Just because something is expressed as a number does not mean it's quantitative.

That's nice. Now address what I actually wrote.

BTW: Did you even read what your link actually said?

Quantitative research, scientific investigation of quantitative properties
Quantitative verse, a metrical system in poetry
Statistics, also known as quantitative analysis
Numerical data, also known as quantitative data

It comes down to units of measure. If the units associated with the number are something that can be objectively measured then the number is quantitative. If the units describe a subjective assessment then the number is qualitative.

Not true. Nominal scales are still quantitative data.

If the output from a climate model is simply numerical it is neither quantitative nor qualitative. It only becomes one or the other when the appropriate units are assigned to the numerical results.

Nope.

Edited to add: Efficiency ratios do not have any units, are they not quantitative data?

This describes the scientific understanding of quantitative versus qualitative. But there is a connotation in general discourse of numerical information being more accurate or reliable than the nonnumerical information simply because it is expressed numerically.

Not once did I make that claim, but you go ahead and just keep that vicious strawman at bay.

Since many (even Vandal) confuse numerical with quantitative, one can see why some here have expressed some overlap between precision and notions of quantitative.

You might want to go inform all those statisticians out there that they don't have a clue what they are doing.

Originally Posted by TnT

During my years in the trenches, "precision" was a big deal. If we couldn't talk about the precision of one of our blood tests, we really didn't know much about what we were doing.

And ... in blood testing laboratories, we had both "qualitative" and "quantitative" tests. These two have overlapping features. "Precision" was often one of the features that discriminates between the two.

Precision dealt with the quantitative tests, right?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

American anti-intellectualism has morphed into an assault upon the intelligentsia. Maybe we as a people distrust anything above our easy relevance. We trust engineering because it gets economic results and surgery because it might save lives. OK. Prosperity and lifesaving are desirable. Other mental activity other than perhaps the comfort of religious orthodoxy (for one's culture) often seems like gobbledygook. For many Americans, intellectual activity of any kind seems to be a black art, especially if it challenges beliefs dear to one.

If a critic like Paul Johnson in Intellectuals sees intellectual elites no more reliable than shamans of primitive communities, he at least recognizes the desirability of basic learning necessary for a functioning economy -- and of course the ability to read books and understand their content. But such necessity implies a large intelligentsia that encompasses literate people such as teachers, accountants, physicians, engineers, accountants, and research scientists who rarely if ever get the opportunity to challenge the philosophical basis of reality as do intellectuals. Such people need some economic independence if they are not to become stooges or serfs who obey rigid orders without critical judgment. But most of the intelligentsia can't get away with the eccentricity and even madness of intellectuals at their worst.

The intelligentsia is educated even if the education (a BA in education?) isn't so impressive.

So now it's to be ad hominem? Too bad your barb is poorly aimed. BS in Zoology, minor in chemistry. Secondary education certifications in biology, physics, earth science, chemistry and anthropology. Seven years experience as a research technician in natural resource management and eleven as an educator. But, you keep on believing whatever you want.

It is politically active, and one offends it at great risk to one's political career.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

That's not strictly true. For the storm in question it is. But not for all storms. The Phillipines storm was a big storm like others in the past, as Copperfield showed. But suppose sometime in the future there is a storm that is not like others in the past when compared on the metrics Copperfield showed. Suppose such a storm was 4 standard deviations above the average level of historical storms? It would be hard to make the claim that the outlier storm was part of normal weather variability and not the result of a special cause.

Four standard deviations within which metric? Shall we continue to argue ad absurdium all night? If so, then let's follow it all the way out. Does four standard deviations within a normally distributed population equate to 100%?

This statistical anomaly combined with the very plausible idea that higher temperatures are capable of powering stronger storms would make a strong case for causation by warming.

"Strong case" = certainty? Since when?

You cannot prove it absolutely, but you can get it to beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard of certainty used for civil cases. And that is good enough for policy purposes.

Civil cases and policy purposes are now how we express scientific knowledge? When was that shift announced and why wasn't I CC'd?

I deal with this kind of issue every time there is a process upset. If something happens in the manufacturing process (e.g. operator mistake, equipment failure) a potential exists that this event could have caused a change in product quality. The product is assayed for potency and impurity levels and the results compared to the historical ranges (mean +/- 3 stdev). If one or more of measurements in the suspect lot are outside of the ranges then the lot is reprocessed and subjected to baseline analysis again.

Sure. Reasonable policy to employ. Doesn't mean that you have any sort of thing like certainty, which is exactly what Eric claimed that he had.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If anything I must interpret a mass of quantitative data on a map into qualitative interpretation so that I can express a competent and coherent explanation.

Yes. But the results from the model were quantitative not qualitative. You said models can only give us qualitative results.

If I see that rainfall disappears from the Mediterranean basin while it gets hotter I can say that the climate of the Mediterranean basin becomes like that of the Persian Gulf. If I see greater rainfall in tropical locations that already get high rainfall I can only interpret that as the idea that such areas get more frequent and severe tropical storms.

Once again, that is what you are saying, not the model.

As a rule people not having scientific tools at their ready disposal can only translate quantitative data into qualitative explanations. Maybe I have some questions about the model, particularly on whether the wind patterns change in a warmed world. Should the westerlies stay put, then the Mediterranean Basin gets warmer and rainfall increases enough to offset increased evaporation, and subtropical locations such as Seville and San Diego become more tropical in character.

For the third time, your qualitative interpretation of what was actually quantitative results.

There is no suitable model for a model of the Earth with significantly-warmer conditions that the more alarming predictions of global warming offer. Global warming could conceivably give warmer temperatures than the Earth has experienced in 34 million years, which is the time in which the Drake Passage separated South America from Antarctica and allowed Antarctica to be isolated and become glaciated. Computer models are of course no better than their assumptions. If anything I err on the side of caution, and rapid global warming just isn't worth the risks.

All in all it is wisest to see rapid global warming as a severe risk causing severe dislocations that could weaken the thin connections between a large human population and its food resources and cause extreme instabilities that lead to catastrophic wars. There is just so much that we do not know, and rapid global warming is to be prevented lest we sow a whirlwind not exclusively meteorological.

All nice, and as usual in this thread, irrelevant to my critique.

I am not a denier of global warming.

I never, for one second, thought you were. Neither is Eric, but I don't let his pseudo-scientific nonsense pass unremarked.

I am willing to hedge some, and I recognize that some assumptions about wind patterns are suspect. A rise in the sea level is one of the results with greater strength of certainty than specific changes in rainfall and temperatures, and I recognize that some of the places likely to get inundated are places of large agricultural production and large population. So where do 200 million people living in the northeastern part of the Indian Subcontinent, including the entirety of Bangladesh, go?

Irrelevant to the point I wanted to discuss.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Of course you wouldn't. That route requires actual knowledge of the science and not just pretending.

I am more concerned with communicating ideas than precise use of words in a technical sense when the individuals attempting to communicate aren't professionals. Among professionals familiar with technical linguistics, clarity is improved by technical language. Attempts to impose proper technical language on those not intimate to the field does not always result in clarity. How many years did it take for you to acquire a professional vocabulary? Do you think you can force feed it in an internet forum?

The understanding of when technical language is important doesn't seem to have a place in your values system. This is not the first time a threat has been filibustered to death when you go into word obsession. I don't know that I can fix bad habits, but you should at least be aware of them.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

One more time for the reading impaired: quantitative versus qualitative is not "technical linguistics". It is a very, very basic concept for all of science.

Is it? OK. I'm an engineer, rather than a scientist, but I haven't seen the distinction become important. Even now, it seems important only in the sense of 'winning' an internet flame spat rather than illuminating the nature of climate science.

***

You did make a comment that we all don't jump on Eric when he says something outlandish. For example, from time to time he will predict election results based on astrology. Then again, JPT will make values judgements based on Bible quotes, you obsess around word meanings, and most everyone has a particular perspective which provides unusual insights at the cost of losing one's audience the further the writer's world view conflicts with the audience's.

If I wrote a disclaimer that I don't acknowledge astrology as a means for learning objective truth each time Eric evokes astrology, if I confronted JPT each time he quotes the Bible, etc... I'd be very busy. There are too many people who look at things from too many angles. I've bumped heads with Eric once upon a time. I think we each picked up a few illuminating tidbits from each other, but we didn't shift each other's core world views significantly. Not surprised. Humans work that way.

Are you trying to improve our understanding of the role of computer models in climate science? Are you trying to change our basic world views? Are you concerned that we use a few specific words in the proper technical sense? Is it emotional thing, that your status has been questioned and that you must 'win' the flame war or your status will be decreased?

What is your goal here?