why is the transactional model of communication more satisfying than the linear or interactional model?

Answer 1

with transactional communication, it is understood that what i say to you influences how you respond to me, and that in turn has bearing on my next response, this, overtime, sets up how we respond /interact with each other, do we feel open to communication or worried about issues such as each others response/will we be understood etc, its accepted that environmental factors also play a role,
with linear, its felt a message is sent then received
with interactional, a message is sent, decoded, interpreted, then encoded and a response is given
while the second two types occur, i think the transactional one describes most communication in a fuller way, and its also important to recognize that peoples response to us has impact on our future communication with them and others, this is especially important in children (who are learning communication skills)
so a positive transactional exchange would be satisfying,

Answer 2

What is the relevance of you asking us how limited is our confidence in climate models? I really do not understand your point in asking this question. Here is how the science works. Models are based on information available. When the models are ran they will give projected results. Those that have studied the science then assign their degree of confidence in as to how likely these predicted results will come to be. Examples: Should the climate models predict that over the next 50 years there will be a 300 foot sea level rise, then those that have studied the science would most assuredly assign a low percentage point (<10%) that this will be the case. This would illustrate a very low degree of confidence, by the scientist, that this would actually happen. Should the climate models predict that over the next 50 years there will be a 3mm sea level rise, then those that have studied the science would most assuredly assign a high percentage point (>90%) that this will be the case. This would illustrate a very high degree of confidence, by the scientist, that this would actually happen. Do either of these model runs show that in 50 years there will be exactly a 300 foot sea level rise or exactly a 3mm sea level rise? NO! They only show probabilities and then the scientist have to assign a degree of confidence in these probabilities. Models do not predict absolutes. They never have and they never will. Models show probabilities based on the information given. These probabilities must then be evaluated, by someone that actually knows what they are doing, and assigned a degree of confidence in these probabilities. Either you do not how models were intended to work, you do not how scientist assign their degree of confidence in model predictions/projections or you intentionally try to create confusion here. Which is it? I am leaning towards, "All of the above"! Are you able to narrow this down a bit from here?