After a rather heated debate last night about climate models, betting on the model runs and trying to analyse the data from these massive collections of model runs (ensembles) I have a few thought provoking questions for people:
Is the mean meaningless or useful?
What would you do if the mean is consistently wrong?
Would you bet on the mean of an ensemble?
How do you cater for the variability shown by the forecasts, especially if they encompass extreme that can feasibly happen?
Do you feel its responsible to give a policy-maker or decision-maker the mean without a proper feeling for the envelope of possibilities? Could policy-makers design policies that used that variability? Would these be more robust than the current solutions?