Att ange hur säker man är på något eller hur sannolikt det skall inträffa eller inte kan vara knepigt. Några som grunnat mycket på det är författarna till IPCC:s rapporter. Här följer en sammanställning av deras slutsatser och rekommendationer.
Jag har kursiverat och fetmarkerat viss text samt gjort styckindelningar för att öka läsbarheten.
”Uncertainties can be classified in several different ways according to their origin. Two primary types are ‘value uncertainties’ and ‘structural uncertainties’.
Value uncertainties arise from the incomplete determination of particular values or results, for example, when data are inaccurate or not fully representative of the phenomenon of interest.
Structural uncertainties arise from an incomplete understanding of the processes that control particular values or results, for example, when the conceptual framework or model used for analysis does not include all the relevant processes or relationships.
Value uncertainties are generally estimated using statistical techniques and expressed probabilistically. Structural uncertainties are generally described by giving the authors’ collective judgment of their confidence in the correctness of a result. In both cases, estimating uncertainties is intrinsically about describing the limits to knowledge and for this reason involves expert judgment about the state of that knowledge. A different type of uncertainty arises in systems that are either chaotic or not fully deterministic in nature and this also limits our ability to project all aspects of climate change.
The uncertainty guidance provided for the Fourth Assessment Report draws, for the first time, a careful distinction between levels of confidence in scientific understanding and the likelihoods of specific results. This allows authors to express high confidence that an event is extremely unlikely (e.g., rolling a dice twice and getting a six both times), as well as high confidence that an event is about as likely as not (e.g., a tossed coin coming up heads). Confidence and likelihood as used here are distinct concepts but are often linked in practice.
The standard terms used to define levels of confidence in this report are as given in the IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Note, namely:
|Confidence Terminology||Degree of confidence in being correct|
|Very high confidence||At least 9 out of 10 chance|
|High confidence||About 8 out of 10 chance|
|Medium confidence||About 5 out of 10 chance|
|Low confidence||About 2 out of 10 chance|
|Very low confidence||Less than 1 out of 10 chance|
Note that ‘low confidence’ and ‘very low confidence’ are only used for areas of major concern and where a risk-based perspective is justified.
The standard terms used in this report to define the likelihood of an outcome or result where this can be estimated probabilistically are:
|Likelihood Terminology||Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome|
|Virtually certain||> 99% probability|
|Extremely likely||> 95% probability|
|Very likely||> 90% probability|
|Likely||> 66% probability|
|More likely than not||> 50% probability|
|About as likely as not||33 to 66% probability|
|Unlikely||< 33% probability|
|Very unlikely||< 10% probability|
|Extremely unlikely||< 5% probability|
|Exceptionally unlikely||< 1% probability|
The terms ‘extremely likely’, ‘extremely unlikely’ and ‘more likely than not’ as defined above have been added to those given in the IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Note in order to provide a more specific assessment of aspects including attribution and radiative forcing.”
En längre/fullständig text återfinns på ipcc.ch.