I'm not a climate scientist so take this in the curious vein that it is intended, but do we know that the uncertainty is only around the "edges"? From what I know about weather forecasting, relatively small changes in initial conditions can lead to rather dramatic differences in outcomes. It's my understanding this is how they get to the probabilistic estimates like "40% chance of rain"...they run a bunch of different models with slightly different initial conditions and 40% show rain.
Genuine question: if there is relatively large uncertainty at the small geographic and temporal scales, why wouldn't that also propagate to even larger amounts of uncertainty at larger scale models? (FWIW, I'm not trying to wordsmith around the word "bad" but rather pin down the uncertainty aspect of the claim.)
I'm not a climate scientist so take this in the curious vein that it is intended, but do we know that the uncertainty is only around the "edges"? From what I know about weather forecasting, relatively small changes in initial conditions can lead to rather dramatic differences in outcomes. It's my understanding this is how they get to the probabilistic estimates like "40% chance of rain"...they run a bunch of different models with slightly different initial conditions and 40% show rain.
Genuine question: if there is relatively large uncertainty at the small geographic and temporal scales, why wouldn't that also propagate to even larger amounts of uncertainty at larger scale models? (FWIW, I'm not trying to wordsmith around the word "bad" but rather pin down the uncertainty aspect of the claim.)