What is the difference between an engineer and a scientist? Answer- nothing if someone is adequately informed on the specific topic.
It seems we have come to a direct statement of your delusions of grandeur. You’re not a scientist, but you think that doesn’t matter. I don’t see any reason I need to add commentary on that, except to say that your comments amply demonstrate that you are not “adequately informed on the specific topic.” So your sad hypothetical does not in any case apply to you, who cannot even tell the difference between predicting the future and recording the past.
Take your cue from Socrates. Learn the power of acknowledging all you don’t know.
Your “experience” at WUWT sounds similar to someone who has had a “bad experience” with someone of a different ethnic background and then generalizes to believe that anyone of that ethnic background must necessarily be inferior.
No matter how many times you play that card, it doesn’t trump reality. Pace 30 Rock, idiots are not a protected category. ![;)]()
I picked the rough 20% figure based on looking at the last 20 years of reliable historical records and then believing that if I were developing a model to predict sea level rise I wouldn’t think it was a very good model if I couldn’t develop one that was better than simply looking at that historical record.
Exactly: you think scientist ought to be able to predict the future with the same accuracy as they observe the past. And you still don’t see why that’s nonsensical? Really?
What I wrote is that ENSO is a part of the systems performance and needs to be understood in order to model the system correctly.
Except as you point out, you know nothing about climate models so you have no idea if that’s true. You’re guessing. And you have no foundation in the subject to even make an intelligent guess. So you are left claiming that if you can’t predict the weather, you can’t predict the climate. If you were a physicist, or a climatologist, or had any background in science at all, you’d know that what you are describing is a classic mistake of thinking that short-term fluctuations determine long-term trends. But you’re not a scientist, so you don’t know that. That’s fine — I’m sure you build nice sewers. I wouldn’t want Michael Mann to build a rocket. The difference is, Mann doesn’t think that knowing how to do his job means he knows how to do yours.
Basically I’ve called your bluff. You did everything you could to try and sound like somebody able to critically evaluate climate science, but pressed on the details you totally fell apart, because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and hope that phrases like “acceptable margin of error for a model is dependent on the specific attribute being modeled” and “20% figure is a notional figure” will fool people into thinking you have a clue.
Since I plowed right through that bluff to the big empty space underneath, I can see why you wouldn’t want to talk to me. I will continue to comment as I feel moved to do so, and you should feel absolutely free not to respond. You don’t have much to say in any case.
