We find no convincing evidence ....

[What if...?]

So, when you said "cannot be any more unequivocal than that" there IS the possibility of equivocation? Meaning that there ARE possible explanations outside of what they stated.

Yes, but like kavanaugh, no convincing evidence.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard​

Though Rothbard's remark pertains to economics, the principle of it is fully applicable to any discipline availed of rigorous research.

Just because one sucks at the math part of the science does not mean that they "know nothing". 99.9999% of the world doesn't know squat about climate change models. And I'd bet that 100% of the politicians don't know squat also. Yet they are expected to make laws and regulations based on it. Here you are hollering at me yet trusting politicians to make "the right choice"? Funny that.

In any case there is more to climate change than just math. Basic physics, biology, and chemistry for instance is also a part of it. And in those I was actually very good. I'm going to give you an example of WHY I doubt how they arrived at some of their conclusions.

One of the ways that they have come to their conclusions is by examining the CO2 content of the ice in the Arctic. They test it measuring CO2 content, and one of the tests uses carbon dating to measure the years back to determine how much CO2 was in the atmosphere back millions of years ago. All well and dandy. However the problem with that is that its an incomplete picture. They can tell fairly accurately for layers which are there. But they cannot tell or account for layers that are no longer there. The layers that disappeared because of, for lack of a better term atm, a "big melt". A "big melt" that melted away layers that had formed, perhaps even slightly melted and/or reformed themselves. By doing so possibly thousands upon thousands of years worth of data was erased. That is NOT a small chunk of time. A chunk of time that very well could mess up their figures today.

Another problem that I have also involves incomplete data, in another way. No model, no matter how good, (with our current understanding of how this all works..which face it...is still in its infancy) can take into account every single little thing that affects our climate. There is simply too much data to make a truly accurate prediction. Which is exactly why their models are ALWAYS changing. They once said that by 2012 it would be too late to save the planet. Now that date has been pushed back to 2040. That's a horrible prediction model wouldn't you say? By "they" I'm talking about Rajendra Pachauri who at the time of that 2012 prediction was head of the UN's Climate Change panel. They've had to walk back so many of their claims that it would make any reasonable person doubt how they have arrived at their current predictions.

Yeah, I may not be an expert...but I'm no fool either. I know that their predictions are based on incomplete models due to a lack of knowledge. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Over all they are correct about climate change. But that doesn't mean that they know everything that is needed to be known either. As time goes on they will no doubt figure it out. But they need to be consistent before I fully trust their predictions.

 

[JMR]

You are the one who is misleading.

Your paraphrased quote is not an accurate reflection of his words.

Do you like being intellectually dishonest, or was it confirmation bias and ignorance?

I don't believe there was any dishonesty. Trump believes he has a natural understanding of science, due to the education of a relative.

Why would any rational being ever make such a silly statement? Perhaps you should be more concerned about the President's sanity, than my slightly misstated quote.

 

[jnug]

So, when you said "cannot be any more unequivocal than that" there IS the possibility of equivocation? Meaning that there ARE possible explanations outside of what they stated.

This post was not directed at me but I am sorry I missed it and I should have responded to it.

Equivocation is a noun.
equivocation noun
equiv·​o·​ca·​tion | \i-ˌkwi-və-ˈkā-shən \
plural equivocations
Definition of equivocation
: deliberate evasiveness in wording : the use of ambiguous or equivocal language

What you are looking for is a way to thread the needle but you should not be looking at equivocation. The people that put the Assessment together did not equivocate. They wrote with conviction and honesty IMO.

The hole you are looking for is in the Confidence based assessment scoring system used by all government government agencies. An assessment assigned VERY HIGH CONFIDENCE is as good as it gets with any Federal Government Agency. Just to review, the four ratings are Very High, High, Medium and Low Confidence. Seven of the assessments in the assessments section were given with Very High Confidence and the other 3 were rated at High Confidence.

I spent decades pouring over government documents and assessments primarily to do with wireless telecom industry specs, deployments, projected coverage and capacity as it related to user density on and on and on. You folks that are on the Smartphone end of wireless just have no idea the stuff we had to pour through. Since retired, I just pour through it for fun now (FUN.....clearly I am suffering from some illness or another...post telecom industry stress syndrome or something).

While no Federal Government agency uses CERTAINTY BASED SCORING, they are very protective of the highest rating, that being Very High Confidence. In other words, when they assign a rating of Very High Confidence, they are basically telling those on the receiving end of the assessments that they can try to find a way to thread the needle to some other place than their assessment would lead you but you will likely poke for that hole till hell freezes over without much success. High Confidence however leaves much more room to thread the needle you are trying to thread and three of the assessments were with High Confidence only. A dead giveaway for how far their Confidence falls between Very High Confidence and High Confidence is that one of the Assessments provided with High Confidence also includes the term "Very Likely". I don't like seeing Very Likely in a High Confidence Assessment and you can probably understand why. They are layering another layer of attribution in that one instance on what is already a High as opposed to Very High Confidence Assessment. Medium Confidence implies an assessment you can drive a Mack Truck through and Low Confidence implies that some assumptions were made that are absolutely Trumpian for their lack of credible scientific or analytical function.....maybe you can suggest them as guesses at best. There are no medium or low confidence assessments in the assessments section of the study or anywhere else in the document.

The Key Findings section of the document includes another 10 Very High Confidence Assessments and 6 more High Confidence Assessments and the term "Virtual Certainty" is used once. I don't know what they are trying to imply with that as there is no Virtual Certainty rating in a Certainty Based scoring system. There is Low, Medium and High and that is about it. I have to assume they are not using "Virtual Certainty" as a term of use or part of any rating system I know about and are simply trying to make a statement about something aside from the actual Assessment scoring system.

Don't feel bad if after reading though such documents you are ready for a good game of Russian Roulette. You won't be ready to hit the Bourbon as you would have hit the Bourbon about one third through any of these things.....if you can get that far.

All the rating categories within the Confidence Based Scoring system are things you can find. They are all defined terms. Here in this post I am providing you something of a fuller understanding based on pouring over these things for decades.

 

[LowDown]

What sophistry will Donald Trump and Trumpkins conjure to refute the findings of the Trump administration's own researchers and political leaders at the NOAA have concluded, with "very high confidence," as follows?

• 
  [*=1]We find no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of global warming observed over the industrial era.
  
  [*=1]For the period extending over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence.
  
  [*=1]Solar output changes and internal variability can only contribute marginally to the observed changes in climate over the last century, and we find no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate.

Statements of findings about current and future behavior and their multifarious etiologies, both endogenous and exogenous, cannot be any more unequivocal than that. (Would that Trump or any other public figure make such resoundingly unambiguous remarks.)

Of course they can't find evidence or alternative explanations. They never looked for any. They haven't spent a penny to study the alternatives. Scientists who want to study such things are persona non grata, can't get published, and can't keep a position at the Universities.

 

[LowDown]

I don't believe there was any dishonesty. Trump believes he has a natural understanding of science, due to the education of a relative.

Why would any rational being ever make such a silly statement? Perhaps you should be more concerned about the President's sanity, than my slightly misstated quote.

You guys have got to stop imagining that you can read Trump's mind.

 

[JMR]

You guys have got to stop imagining that you can read Trump's mind.

I'm not reading his mind. I quoted his actual statement in an interview with the AP:

"My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years. Dr. John Trump. And I didn’t talk to him about this particular subject, but I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture," the president said.

In addition to claiming a natural aptitude for science Trump told AP that he is "truly an environmentalist."

"I know some people might not think of me as that, but I’m an environmentalist," he said. "Everything I want and everything I have is clean. Clean is very important – water, air.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

??? If you dont know and dont care how we 'get there' then what point is there in caring about anything you say on the matter?

Because AGW is real

 

[Xelor]

Just because one sucks at the math part of the science does not mean that they "know nothing". 99.9999% of the world doesn't know squat about climate change models. And I'd bet that 100% of the politicians don't know squat also. Yet they are expected to make laws and regulations based on it. Here you are hollering at me yet trusting politicians to make "the right choice"?

Red:
....Then that percentage of the world has no business refuting, deriding and denying the legitimacy, predictive merits/demerits, accuracy and representational faithfulness of climate change models and the outcomes portended by them.

My objection isn't that folks/one doesn't know squat about "such and such." My objection and rancor goes to folks/ones who don't know squat about "such and such" and yet opine, proselytize, and remark upon "such and such."


Blue:
When they embark on a "journey" that will culminate in their having to legislate on "such and such" -- we in this line we're on are using climate change as the operative rubric, though fiscal policy, taxation, healthcare, environmental impacts of XYZ, etc. are interchangeable with it for yours and my current discursive theme -- it's very possible they know not squat about it.

Legislators, unlike most individuals, have cadres of extremely credible resources at their disposal, and those resources make it possible for pols, if they're willing to exercise intellectual integrity and rigor, to become in a matter of weeks become very well informed about a specific matter. The resources at their disposal include the myriad subject matter experts they call to hearings, their legislative and staff assistants who can review myriad scholarly research reports, the CBO (pecuniary matters), CRS (general research), industry leaders, and constituents.

As goes the specific matter of climate change and its rate and impacts as given by modelling, experimentation, and quantitative/empirical analysis, the so-called conversation about the fundamental truths of it -- it's extant, the nature and extent of it we today observe is etiologically anthropogenic and that absent material behavioral changes, it'll reach an unmitigatable point -- have long been understood and irrefutable. No politician who's doing his/her job should be so ignorant as to construe otherwise.


Pink:
The burden of a politician is not to make the "right" choice but rather to make the most logically sound, cogent and coherent choices given the body of sound/cogent information available to humanity.

I'm not a mathematician. If I recall correctly I've told you before that I'm horrible at economics, math is a part of that reason. I can do basic math. But I started flunking math when algebra entered the picture.

Basic physics, biology, and chemistry for instance is also a part of it. And in those I was actually very good.

How "basic" was it? Something on this order?

​

I suppose there are some natural science classes one can take that don't require one to be any good at math; however, the coursework needed to imbue one with the skills and abilities needed to perform rigorous climate change analysis, research and methodological evaluations of others' work in that discipline vastly suprasses algebra, which is the math you marked the start of your failing math classes.

Moreover, it strains credulity that you were any good at all with "real" physics, as opposed to "physics for laymen (non natural scientists)" or children. To wit:

• Calculus required:
  • Physics for Biologists
    • Even high school physics calls for one to be adept with Algebra.
  • The first chemistry class one takes, Fundamentals of General Chemistry, requires calculus.

To the extent you took chemistry, biology and physics, I'm fine with accepting that you were good at it. But insofar as you were not and are not proficient in algebraic and higher math, whatever natural science coursework you completed did not imbue you with the skills and abilities needed to credibly critique the findings of climate scientists.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't believe there was any dishonesty. Trump believes he has a natural understanding of science, due to the education of a relative.

Why would any rational being ever make such a silly statement? Perhaps you should be more concerned about the President's sanity, than my slightly misstated quote.

Your claim was he claimed to know more than scientists, was it not?

Where is that in his words?

Trump has stated he knows more than the scientists

Trump said he has "a natural instinct for science" during an interview with The Associated Press in which he expressed uncertainty about scientists' climate change concerns.

Trump told AP that there are "scientists on both sides of the issue" when asked about researchers' warning that climate change may already be nearing the stage of becoming irreversible.

Is one quote reflective of the other, or not?

 

[Xelor]

I don't believe there was any dishonesty. Trump believes he has a natural understanding of science, due to the education of a relative.

Why would any rational being ever make such a silly statement? Perhaps you should be more concerned about the President's sanity, than my slightly misstated quote.

Your claim was he claimed to know more than scientists, was it not?

Where is that in his words?

Is one quote reflective of the other, or not?

You want Trump's exact words? There they are below along with the link to the source article....

Responding to an AP reporter about climate change remarks he made to Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes, Trump said:​

And you have scientists on both sides of the issue. And I agree the climate changes, but it goes back and forth, back and forth. So we'll see.
-- Donald Trump​

When the AP brought up the consensus of scientists, however, the president responded by saying that other scientists agreed with him.​

No, no. Some say that and some say differently. I mean, you have scientists on both sides of it. My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years, Dr. John Trump. And I didn't talk to him about this particular subject, but I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture.
-- Donald Trump​

Look at the emboldened text....It is unadulterated incoherent BS!​

• 
  [*=1]Trump's Uncle John was an MIT scientist....but the guy was in electrical engineering, not environmental studies.
  [*=1]Trump had an uncle who was at MIT, but...Trump didn't talk to him about climate change.....So his having had an uncle teaching at MIT is irrelevant insofar as whatever his uncle might have been able to share about climate change, he didn't because he and Donald didn't discuss climate change.
  [*=1]But Trump has an instinct for science, and thus we are to -- against literally thousands of trained scientists, their combined hundreds of thousands of hours of training and hundreds of thousands of hours of research and findings about the "forest and trees" of the workings of the environment -- trust Trump's instinct. Oh, Hell No!

Despite the president's protestations, there is little dispute among climate scientists around the world, who warn that climate change could be nearing a point where trends cannot be reversed. Earlier this month, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a major report warning that the planet would face catastrophe in the near future if the phenomenon is not addressed. Even within his own Administration, NASA agrees with the 97% of climate scientists.


Note:​

• 
  [*=1]The NOAA report linked to in this thread's OP was released after the above remarks which I posted about a month ago.

 

[Xelor]

Yes, there are many magical, right-wing, anti-intellectual explanations. That doesn't make them the equal of scientific explanations.

Frankly, I think it's too late to stop what has begun, so we would be better served to start planning how to deal with the consequences rather than mitigating them. Our opportunity to change our ways has been long overshadowed by our desire to pretend there's no need to do anything at all. We allowed propaganda and political partisanship to corrupt the truth and we will pay a dear price.

Red:
You are free to think that. I disagree.

I think it's always precocious to commit to curtail commenting upon, chronicling, conferring credence to and condoning uncondign, incoherent and incompetent codswallop. Neither need it be dilatory or difficult to do.

​

It’s never too late to do the right thing.
-- Nicholas Sparks, Safe Haven​

 

[Xelor]

...

The Key Findings section of the document includes another 10 Very High Confidence Assessments and 6 more High Confidence Assessments and the term "Virtual Certainty" is used once. I don't know what they are trying to imply with that as there is no Virtual Certainty rating in a Certainty Based scoring system. There is Low, Medium and High and that is about it. I have to assume they are not using "Virtual Certainty" as a term of use or part of any rating system I know about and are simply trying to make a statement about something aside from the actual Assessment scoring system.

I hazard that "virtual certainty" is used in the same idiomatically pellucid way everyone uses that phrase:

• "All but certain"
• "There is more probability that hell will freeze over than there is that 'such and such' is not so."
• "The only reason we've written "virtual certainty" rather than "with certainty" is because the latter implies a guarantee and we recognize that there's an infinitesimal chance that we're mistaken, but one'd have to be an utter idiot to place any hope in that chance coming to fruition."

Even the government applies standard English definitions of words and phrases it hasn't otherwise given an idiosyncratic meaning.

 

[jnug]

I hazard that "virtual certainty" is used in the same idiomatically pellucid way everyone uses that phrase:

• "All but certain"
• "There is more probability that hell will freeze over than there is that 'such and such' is not so."
• "The only reason we've written "virtual certainty" rather than "with certainty" is because the latter implies a guarantee and we recognize that there's an infinitesimal chance that we're mistaken, but one'd have to be an utter idiot to place any hope in that chance coming to fruition."

Even the government applies standard English definitions of words and phrases it hasn't otherwise given an idiosyncratic meaning.

I actually only commented on its use because its use might have implied to some that a Federal Government agency was in some way integrating Certainty Based scoring into their assessments which they were not. Frankly if I were them, I would have avoided italicizing the term "Virtual Certainty" as all of their Confidence based scores on assessments were also italicized. Italicizing "Virtual Certainty" was IMO a mistake on their part. If they wanted to do what you suggest above in bold then they should not have italicized it.

They also italicized the term "Very likely" which also is not part of any scoring system. It is just an attribution overlaid onto an Assessment's score. Should not have been italicized.

 

[Xelor]

I actually only commented on its use because its use might have implied to some that a Federal Government agency was in some way integrating Certainty Based scoring into their assessments which they were not. Frankly if I were them, I would have avoided italicizing the term "Virtual Certainty" as all of their Confidence based scores on assessments were also italicized. Italicizing "Virtual Certainty" was IMO a mistake on their part. If they wanted to do what you suggest above in bold then they should not have italicized it.

They also italicized the term "Very likely" which also is not part of any scoring system. It is just an attribution overlaid onto an Assessment's score. Should not have been italicized.

Very well....

 

[Xelor]

 

[Lord of Planar]

Do you really think those charlatans can predict he future?

How well does congress predict budgets...

 

[jnug]

Very well....

So just for clarity, I started plowing through the actual report, "Fourth National Climate Assessment" early this morning as opposed to the condensed NOAA piece. You really will likely end up wanting to kill yourself halfway through taking this one on. However the full report has its own table of Terms and Scoring Standards and at least there they define with specificity how they apply a "Likelihood" attribution. That was missing from the NOAA piece where no such Table or set of Tables and Terms could be found. I still do not like it when Likelihood attributions are overlaid on Confidence Based Assessments as IMO they just muddy the water and muddle the impact in certain instances. Likelihood is Likelihood and Confidence Scoring is Confidence Scoring. They can be used in the same report but one should not be overlaid on the other for obvious reasons. This thing is a real beast of a Government Assessment. The NOAA piece is a mere tidbit. As it turns out "Virtual Certainty" is neither a comment or part of a mixed Certainty Based Scoring System. It is the highest Likelihood attribution offered in the Likelihood Attributions list in the section on defined terms and Scoring Standards.

It is valid to use "Likelihood" attributions in a report like this especially if you define them with specificity. However it is still not valid to overly a Likelihood attribution ONTO a Confidence Assessment and if I find a Likelihood attribution laid onto a Very High Confidence Assessment Score in this monster, the top of my head will come off. Don't care how many pages it is, shouldn't happen and an editor should catch it and throw it back at the Researcher handling that part of the Report for rewording.

 

[jnug]

Worth mentioning that proponents from both sides of the aisle of costing carbon emissions to the market are taking another shot at trying to gain some momentum. Of course this is the best solution and it has always been the best solution. As usual the best solution gets shot to pieces and that has left proponents of attempting to do something about carbon emissions with regulation. Then when they are no longer in power, the regulations are tossed and we are right back were we started, actually worse.

Costing carbon emissions to the market rears its head about once a decade and has to this point been knocked right back down again by the Whack-a-Mole Crazy fossil fuel industry advocates. It is without question the best, cleanest and most effective means to deal with carbon emissions which is why it is so hated and fought so vigorously by fossil fuel industry advocates. They figure they can get around or eventually eliminate certain regulations and of course they are right. Once and if ever costing carbon emissions to the market really takes hold, a number of their tools go out the window. Again, it is without question the best and most effective means for dealing with carbon emissions.

 

[Xelor]

So just for clarity, I started plowing through the actual report, "Fourth National Climate Assessment" early this morning as opposed to the condensed NOAA piece. You really will likely end up wanting to kill yourself halfway through taking this one on. ...

I still do not like it when Likelihood attributions are overlaid on Confidence Based Assessments as IMO they just muddy the water and muddle the impact in certain instances. Likelihood is Likelihood and Confidence Scoring is Confidence Scoring. They can be used in the same report but one should not be overlaid on the other for obvious reasons. This thing is a real beast of a Government Assessment. The NOAA piece is a mere tidbit. As it turns out "Virtual Certainty" is neither a comment or part of a mixed Certainty Based Scoring System. It is the highest Likelihood attribution offered in the Likelihood Attributions list in the section on defined terms and Scoring Standards.

It is valid to use "Likelihood" attributions in a report like this especially if you define them with specificity. However it is still not valid to overly a Likelihood attribution ONTO a Confidence Assessment ...

Red:
I presume you mean the document upon which some -- particularly some having but mean math skills, as well as insubstantial adroitness at general analysis, all the while thinking themselves "good" with biology, physics and chemistry -- comment and with sincere and conscientious fatuity proffer ad ignorantiam lines of challenge and refutation? If so, I think you have in mind this document: Climate Science Special Report (CSSR)?


Blue:
That's figuratively possible for reading high quality natural science papers is, for me, a better sleep aid than Ambien or opiates. That doesn't dissuade me from reading them; it just means it takes longer to do so.


Pink:
??? -- I'm not sure I know what you mean by "overlay." Would you identify a specific passage whereafter the two are "overlaid."
??? -- You realize the CSSR serves simultaneously several rhetorical purposes:

• Summary-level peer-review findings regarding the work of myriad researchers.
• Didactically present to the American people a host of things that, frankly insofar as there's no alternative planet to which we can immigrate, our elected representatives and every news outlet should have been dispassionately, not politically, presenting weekly since the 1980s:
  • The nature and extent of the "scientific basis for climate change"
  • An "overview of the processes used in the detection and attribution of climate change and associated studies using those techniques,"
  • The "scenarios for greenhouse gases and particles and the modeling tools used to study future projections" regarding those gasses/particles,"
  • "Key issues connected with sea level rise and ocean changes, including ocean acidification, and their potential effects on the United States"
  • "How mitigation activities could affect future changes in climate and provide perspectives on what surprises could be in store for the changing climate beyond the analyses already covered in the rest of the assessment,"
  • ...and more

In short, the document is an "authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States, to serve as the foundation for efforts to assess climate-related risks and inform decision-making about responses."

The CSSR's "confidence" and "likelihood" classifications summarize different dimensions of the information discussed in the report.

• Confidence in the validity of a finding based on the type, amount, quality, strength, and consistency of evidence (such as mechanistic understanding, theory, data, models, and expert judgment); the skill, range, and consistency of model projections; and the degree of agreement within the body of literature.
• Likelihood, or probability of an effect or impact occurring, is based on measures of uncertainty expressed probabilistically (based on the degree of understanding or knowledge, e.g., resulting from evaluating statistical analyses of observations or model results or on expert judgment).

The first, "confidence is a qualitative depiction and the second is a quantitative one, albeit expressed in words, and they pertain, as noted, to completely different aspects of the research discussed. Using both "labels" is, for obvious reasons, apt.

 

[jnug]

Red:
I presume you mean the document upon which some -- particularly some having but mean math skills, as well as insubstantial adroitness at general analysis, all the while thinking themselves "good" with biology, physics and chemistry -- comment and with sincere and conscientious fatuity proffer ad ignorantiam lines of challenge and refutation? If so, I think you have in mind this document: Climate Science Special Report (CSSR)?


Blue:
That's figuratively possible for reading high quality natural science papers is, for me, a better sleep aid than Ambien or opiates. That doesn't dissuade me from reading them; it just means it takes longer to do so.


Pink:
??? -- I'm not sure I know what you mean by "overlay." Would you identify a specific passage whereafter the two are "overlaid."
??? -- You realize the CSSR serves simultaneously several rhetorical purposes:

• Summary-level peer-review findings regarding the work of myriad researchers.
• Didactically present to the American people a host of things that, frankly insofar as there's no alternative planet to which we can immigrate, our elected representatives and every news outlet should have been dispassionately, not politically, presenting weekly since the 1980s:
  • The nature and extent of the "scientific basis for climate change"
  • An "overview of the processes used in the detection and attribution of climate change and associated studies using those techniques,"
  • The "scenarios for greenhouse gases and particles and the modeling tools used to study future projections" regarding those gasses/particles,"
  • "Key issues connected with sea level rise and ocean changes, including ocean acidification, and their potential effects on the United States"
  • "How mitigation activities could affect future changes in climate and provide perspectives on what surprises could be in store for the changing climate beyond the analyses already covered in the rest of the assessment,"
  • ...and more

In short, the document is an "authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States, to serve as the foundation for efforts to assess climate-related risks and inform decision-making about responses."

The CSSR's "confidence" and "likelihood" classifications summarize different dimensions of the information discussed in the report.

• Confidence in the validity of a finding based on the type, amount, quality, strength, and consistency of evidence (such as mechanistic understanding, theory, data, models, and expert judgment); the skill, range, and consistency of model projections; and the degree of agreement within the body of literature.
• Likelihood, or probability of an effect or impact occurring, is based on measures of uncertainty expressed probabilistically (based on the degree of understanding or knowledge, e.g., resulting from evaluating statistical analyses of observations or model results or on expert judgment).

The first, "confidence is a qualitative depiction and the second is a quantitative one, albeit expressed in words, and they pertain, as noted, to completely different aspects of the research discussed. Using both "labels" is, for obvious reasons, apt.

Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to in- crease in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world (high confidence)

See immediately above for the example....a Likelihood attribution should not be overlaid onto a Confidence Assessment.

The Assessment should have read "Extreme participation events will continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world. (high confidence)

Also acceptable though less impactful IMO "Extreme participation events will very likely increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world."

It is entirely acceptable to use both Likelihood attributions and Confidence Scoring in a report of this kind as long as the authors:
a) provide tables for the Terms and Scoring Standards they are using
b) don't mix the two as you end up with one measuring stick defining another measuring stick with no reference point for how to measure them in combination. Sort of like saying "this rod is a foot long if you remove some unspecified length from it".

In the example I provided above the Confidence Assessment was not further clarified by the addition of the Likelihood attribution. In fact it had exactly the opposite effect. It muddled the Confidence Assessment unnecessarily and to the detriment of the Confidence Assessment itself.

 

[Xelor]

Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world (high confidence)

See immediately above for the example....a Likelihood attribution should not be overlaid onto a Confidence Assessment.

The Assessment should have read "Extreme participation events will continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world. (high confidence)

Also acceptable though less impactful IMO "Extreme participation events will very likely increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world."

It is entirely acceptable to use both Likelihood attributions and Confidence Scoring in a report of this kind as long as the authors:
a) provide tables for the Terms and Scoring Standards they are using
b) don't mix the two as you end up with one measuring stick defining another measuring stick with no reference point for how to measure them in combination. Sort of like saying "this rod is a foot long if you remove some unspecified length from it".

In the example I provided above the Confidence Assessment was not further clarified by the addition of the Likelihood attribution. In fact it had exactly the opposite effect. It muddled the Confidence Assessment unnecessarily and to the detriment of the Confidence Assessment itself.

Red:
TY

Blue:
Yes, that diction -- "will continue to" -- obviates the need for a probability definition because it's absolute. Using the future tense indicative mood construction "will continue" -- as opposed to subjunctive mood (any tense) construction --be it by conjugation or syntax ("may," "might," "will probably," or some other explicit diction that indicates an existential measure of uncertainty from the author's POV -- asserts that the only outcome that in the future be observed is "XYZ" continuing to "increase in frequency." "Will continue to increase in frequency" leaves zero room for error, whereas "very likely to continue to increase in frequency" leaves some, but not much, room for error.

What the two categories -- "confidence" and "likelihood" -- refer to are, in statistics/quantitative analysis (SQA), referred to as "confidence intervals" and "confidence levels."

• The "likelihood" term corresponds to to the confidence interval, or what many folks think a margin of error represents. It's how sure one is about predicted outcome coming to fruition. A key difference being that MoEs represent half of a total confidence interval, hence the "+/- some digit" form of margins of error expressions.
• The "confidence level" term is merely a qualitative/narrative depiction of confidence levels, hence why NOAA has used that term.
  
  

Both terms -- "confidence" and "likelihood" -- reflect NOAA's attempting to present a SQA concept using non-SQA parance. In SQA terms, one would write something like "We are 95% certain (confidence level), with a +/- 5% margin of error (10% confidence interval), that extreme precipitation events will continue to increase in frequency...." NOAA has, for good reason, endeavored to say that in "plain language" that most folks will understand. To wit, NOAA's well aware that most Americans are clueless about SQA, so to reach and be comprehended by NOAA's target audience, the report needs to be written in as "layman-friendly" language as possible. Readers who want to see the "fancy" SQA diction can read the individual studies referenced; it's there.

NOTE:

It's important to be observant of the temporal and dynamic qualities of assertions found in SQA reports. Everything NOAA's assertions pertain to is dynamic in nature, which, because what's being measured and predicted is fluid behavior, the math (concepts) used is stats + multivariable calculus​

Pink:
Such tables are included in the report (see below).

I think you may have confused the fact of my having included in the OP only Chapter 1 from the complete document with Chapter 1 being intended as a stand-alone document. It's isn't, but it is available as a PDF file distinct from the entire report. I only included Chapter 1 because it's the part of the report I'd read.


Tan:
I assure you that I've not conflated the two.

 

[rickc]

well the verdict is in. Trump doesn't believe it. that means half of America doesn't believe it.

like i have said before you are on your own. Be prepared!

 

[JMR]

Your claim was he claimed to know more than scientists, was it not?

Where is that in his words?



Is one quote reflective of the other, or not?

Actually I think it is quite reflective. He claims due to his Natural Instinct for science he is able to dispute the scientists. His Natural Instinct beats their years of study and education.

Though I will concede that his actual quote that he "knows more than" referred to his generals, when he stated he knows more about ISIS than his generals. He later stated that he knows more about NATO than his Defense Secretary. The list could go on all day. Trump thinks he knows more than anybody about anything, accept maybe Putin, who he defers to at all times.

 

[JMR]

But Trump has an instinct for science, and thus we are to -- against literally thousands of trained scientists, their combined hundreds of thousands of hours of training and hundreds of thousands of hours of research and findings about the "forest and trees" of the workings of the environment -- trust Trump's instinct. Oh, Hell No!

It seems there are many who find that easy to do. He has the best instinct, the most fantastic instinct. :lol: