Daniel Collins’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Predictions, hypotheses, warnings

  I draw an equivalence between a model prediction coming true (within bounds of uncertainty) and an hypothesis holding up (predictions are hypotheses). If modelers are to have their pay cut for predictions that didn't materialise, so too should all other scientists whose hypotheses are rejected. Boy, would that pour frigid water on the scientific process.

  Some predictions are actually designed to fail. They are meant more as warnings. Predictions of climate models are often interpreted that way.

  Blog: Down to Earth

  On What should be the cost of skepticism? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Not all models are the same

  Based on the NYT article, the authors do make a lot of important points, though I should also add some clarification.

  The point that resonates most with me is that over-reliance on model predictions can leave you worse off than having no predictions at all. This largely stems from a difference in understanding by scientists and non-scientists about what a prediction is. To us scientists, it's not what will happen, just the average of all possible scenarios. It seems that this probabilistic aspect is often dropped outside science, so that the public feels they now know what will happen.

  The clarification that I feel needs to be made is that the modeling I think the authors are largely talking about are models currently en vogue to inform standard management and policy decisions (there are many other models that do not fall into this category, and I'd say climate models are one such subset). The standard management models are certainly fraught with simplifications and assumptions. They are used because they have been vetted and used for some time. But many of them are old models - models being developed by researchers are for more advanced (fewer, if any, "fudge factors").

  Some models are not even used for prediction at all. They are used in scientific circles in order to better understand how things behave. They are imaginary lab experiments that can be used to test how our integrated set of theories work, and to help generate new hypotheses to test in the real world. No policies will be based on these predictions.

  I'm sure this is much more than many wanted, but you got it anyway.

  Blog: Down to Earth

  On A coastal geologist explores the flaws in modeling nature posted 2 years, 8 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Engineering, and a link

  As an engineer, one way I like to see organisms and ecosystems is as design components or ready-built machines.  Suppose I wished to reduce flooding somewhere.  Which would be better: levees, wetlands, upland afforestation, etc? (Of course, there are policy alternatives, too.) Looking at it this way, if wetlands solved the problem better with less $, then wetlands are the way to go.  I don't need to put a price tag on them, I just realise they may be better at solving something than is concrete and riprap.

  As for the link, WorldChanging is running a series on ecosystem services. Well worth hopping over there.

  Blog: Down to Earth

  On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 8 months ago 59 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Antarctica line-up

  Perhaps Coldplay, The Chill, Ice T, and Snow Patrol.

  Blog: Down to Earth

  On Gore launches massive effort to combat climate change posted 2 years, 8 months ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Pre-industrial [CO2]

  Mark, really.  Reference was so obviously to pre-industrial [CO2], not present day.

  Blog: Down to Earth

  On Warming people believe, humans at fault, not so much posted 2 years, 9 months ago 30 Responses