This might be a bit long winded, but its how a look at things from a mental model frame and assigning certain weights to things. People love to preach climitaology, and it is great for some aspects, I just feel the time frame used and backwards looking nature of it combine to produce errors that are equivlent to an issue that is a major theme in risk management, econocmics, etc; that is thinking everything falls under a perfect bell curve and not being able to weight properly, low chance events, that might have a large impact. For example before the 1960's nothing in the 100 years of recorded weather history in this area would have predicted what occurred, or if did it would have been so unlikely as to disregard. The same thing happened in the last 25 years with large snow storms in this area. The average snow each year straight constant, but the frequency of large storms shot through the roof. So part of the issue is how you treat patterns that have different time periods as frequency and weight each one to see what is likely. On a much smaller scale, I find it out interesting how much people love the global ensambles here, but not a word on the sref plumes. Usually you can get an idea of possible outcomes just by seeing what grouping the plumes fall under and then if you look at the dx/dt you can get an idea of which one the trend is falling towards. I also try to take away the top and bottom 3 to get a more realistic look at the median, mean along with where the different groupings lay and where they start going apart from each other. .