{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0141287284144427, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002354788069073783, 'mean_word_length': 5.1298076923076925, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Natural Handling of Uncertainties in Fuzzy Climate Models

The wide range of the IPCC emission scenarios and the corresponding concentrations, forcings and temperature obtained with the use of the Magicc/Scengen Model are substituted by linearly increasing emissions that preserve the ranges of the values for the concentrations forcings and temperatures. In fact IPCC values are comprised within the values of the linear emissions. These allow the identification of simple relationships that are translated to fuzzy rules that in turn conform the fuzzy model. The sources of uncertainty that the model permits to explore are: the uncertainty due to not knowing what the emissions are going to be in the future, the one related to the climate sensitivity of the models (this has to do with different parameterizations of processes used in the models) and the uncertainties in the temperature maps produced by the models. Here we produce maps corresponding to 1, 2, 3, etc., degrees centigrade of temperature increase and discuss the timing of exceeding them. Therefore the argument instead of talking about the uncertainty in temperature at a certain date becomes about the uncertainty in the date certain temperature will be reached. The timing becomes another uncertainty.