The wikipedia global warming article has this sentence.


My reading is thus:

However, in AR4, this uncertainty was taken into account before the conclusions were published, and the paper describes how the opinions agree on the information pertaining to the reliability.

Not the best translation, to be sure. But I just want to make sure I've understood the sentence correctly. Have I got it right? Specifically, I had to pause over 信頼性に関する情報として意見の一致度等も記載されている[11] before interpreting this part.

Edit: I'm not looking for a definitive translation, nor am I asking for proofreading. I apologise if my poor wording suggested otherwise. I just want to know what the sentence means exactly. (Please let me know if I've duplicated an existing discussion or if I'm breaching the etiquette of this forum. I'll be more careful in future if I have.) The main point I'm struggling with is 情報として意見. It reads like opinion as information. If this is not right, please tell me how it should read.


closed as off-topic by l'électeur, macraf, Dono, Flaw Oct 29 '17 at 8:24

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions asking for translations, transcriptions or proofreading are off-topic unless prior research effort is clearly indicated; we're here to help you learn, not to provide a bulk translation service nor to proofread your translations or transcriptions. See: We don't do translations." – l'électeur, macraf, Dono, Flaw
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • I guess we need more information to determine what the term 信頼性 corresponds with in this sentence. – user25382 Oct 26 '17 at 2:09
  • It refers the reliability of the data and explanations for global warming. The point that seems to be coming across is that the IPCC was conservative in only taking on board data and explanations which were highly reliable and based on agreement from various independent sources. – Robert Oct 26 '17 at 2:14
  • I have been reading the article. I guess it seems confidence rather than reliability. Where uncertainty is assessed more quantitatively using expert judgement of the correctness of underlying data, models or analyses, then the following scale of confidence levels is used to express the assessed chance of a finding being correct: very high confidence at least 9 out of 10; high confidence about 8 out of 10; medium confidence about 5 out of 10; low confidence about 2 out of 10; and very low confidence less than 1 out of 10. – user25382 Oct 26 '17 at 3:21

意見の一致度 means "the level of agreement/concordance of opinions (from various experts/sources)." 度 is degree, level, index, etc. 信頼性に関する情報として ("as information regarding reliability") adverbially modifies 記載されている. A low level of agreement means there are different opinions and the information may be unreliable. 意見の一致度 is often assessed quantitatively using statistical methods (see Inter-rater reliability), but AR4 is treating this idea rather qualitatively. See page 27 of the full report available here:

Treatment of uncertainty
Where uncertainty is assessed qualitatively, it is characterised by providing a relative sense of the amount and quality of evidence (that is, information from theory, observations or models indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) and the degree of agreement (that is, the level of concurrence in the literature on a particular finding). This approach is used by WG III through a series of self-explanatory terms such as: high agreement, much evidence; high agreement, medium evidence; medium agreement, medium evidence; etc.

I think you have correctly understood the remaining part.

  • It might not be necessary to fix though, the term 信頼性 was changed into the term 確信度. ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/… – user25382 Oct 28 '17 at 9:13
  • @kimiTanaka この「信頼性に関する情報として」の「信頼性」は、別に AR4の "confidence" の厳密な訳語として出てきている文脈ではなく、Wikipediaの日本語記事を書いた誰かが何となく選んだ語のようですから、あまり気にしないでいいと思います。上記の degree of agreement の定義を引用した部分にも "confidence" は出てきていませんし。 – naruto Oct 28 '17 at 10:08
  • 分かりました。特にnarutoさんが間違えてると言っている訳ではないです。そのリンクの中のページで用語を見直して信頼性から確信度に変わったと書いているので。確かに文の表現の仕方では信頼性 reliablityでも良いのかも知れませんね。 – user25382 Oct 28 '17 at 10:43

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.