We find no convincing evidence ....

[jnug]

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.

OK so you hacked out Chapter 1. NOAA didn't do that. Did not know that.

Still and all you really cannot mix Likelihood with Confidence in the manner provided in my example without suggesting major ambiguity.

My real problem is the limited number of instances where the report uses a Likelihood value attached to a Confidence Score for an Assessment. Other than the two instances a Likelihood value was used very early in the report there appears to be hundreds of Confidence Scores in the report and nary an additional Likelihood value attached to them. I have not read through the full report as yet but I have already seen many more Assessments. IMO they should have just skipped the Likelihood values altogether in spite of the "correctness" or lack thereof in providing a range of Likelihood for Confidence Scoring Assessments. Either use them or don't. Using them so selectively as to provide two Assessments with them and hundreds without still IMO muddles the results for the two and makes me question why they have used them at all without using them consistently.

Further to the point while I am only up to about 300 pages and while the report in total often includes a section the describes "Major Uncertainties" for the Assessments included in that section it does not quantify them in any way. A section will either say there are "No Major Uncertainties" or will define the "Major Uncertainties" without quantifying them. Either quantify the Assessments via a Likelihood value or don't. But don't use them as selectively as they appear to have used them or I will "likely" question why.

Anyway I will try to provide a better answer when I have taken the time to get deeper into the full report. At some point I will have seen enough Assessments to have a better understanding for how often they have in fact quantified them with a Likelihood value.

 

[Xelor]

OK so you hacked out Chapter 1. NOAA didn't do that. Did not know that.

Still and all you really cannot mix Likelihood with Confidence in the manner provided in my example without suggesting major ambiguity.

My real problem is the limited number of instances where the report uses a Likelihood value attached to a Confidence Score for an Assessment. Other than the two instances a Likelihood value was used very early in the report there appears to be hundreds of Confidence Scores in the report and nary an additional Likelihood value attached to them. ...

Further to the point while I am only up to about 300 pages and while the report in total often includes a section the describes "Major Uncertainties" for the Assessments included in that section it does not quantify them in any way. ....

Anyway I will try to provide a better answer when I have taken the time to get deeper into the full report. At some point I will have seen enough Assessments to have a better understanding for how often they have in fact quantified them with a Likelihood value.

Are all your objections with the report compositional in nature, or have you got objections with the the math, the methodologies, and/or substantive assertions?


It would be helpful, since you're referring to specific elements, if you'd cite passages (or page numbers and paragraph -- "p. 236, para 13") that illustrate the phenomena of which you write/complain. It is a 400+ page document, after all, and now that I know you're reading the full document rather than just Ch. 1, what you'r talking about could come from any chapter within the first 300 pages.

Blue:
I didn't "hack out" Chapter 1. Click the OP's link to the document and look at the web address. You'll see that is a government web address. The NOAA program office that played the role of editor (no different from editors of any anthology/compilation text), U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), makes the chapters, the executive summary and other major sections individually available. As I indicated before, I linked to Chapter 1 because it's the chapter I'd read.

....[Chapter 1] 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.
-- Xelor

Side Note:​

• 
  [*=1]I will say to you the same thing I say to others: Please refrain from inferring things from my prose that isn't indicated by it.
  
  It is sound/cogent to infer NOAA "hacked" Chapter 1 from the complete document because NOAA is its publisher. Though it's plausible and possible that I have the ability to "hack" Chapter 1 from the full document -- and my passive voice construction makes it okay to surmise I may've done -- it's not sound/cogent to assume I did and positively assert so. (Asking, "Oh, so did you hack Ch. 1 from the doc?" is, given my use of the passive voice, a fair question the answer to which eliminates the uncertainty about the actor who performed the culling.)
  
  I realize that your having assumed I "hacked" Chapter 1 from the full report is immaterial; however, I'm availing myself of the opportunity to reinforce the importance of carefully reading the "stuff" I write. I'm not giving you any real "grief;" I'm merely illustrating the importance of careful consumption of others' remarks.

Red:

• That variability strikes me as a fair criticism of the compositional nature of the documents.
• As a substantive criticism of the content itself, however, that inconsistency is immaterial because the report references clearly underlying research, data and documents that give rise to qualitative ratings of which we speak and that are surrogates for numerically presented confidence intervals and confidence levels. If one really wants to know what the confidence level/interval is, it's there to be seen.

Pink:
I have one idea of why that may be, but I'd need to look at some specific instances of it to know whether my idea is accurate.


Tan:
That's as it should be. One, scientists, researchers cannot credibly quantify the nature of that about which they are uncertain.

• Scientists assert and quantify what they are certain about, which, basically means that which they've observed and/or figured out (experimentally, inductively and/or deductively).
• Scientists, in the interest of completeness, qualify that about which they are uncertain.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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.

Now you are putting words in his mouth.

That is your ignorance and arrogance caused by your confirmation bias.

 

[jnug]

Are all your objections with the report compositional in nature, or have you got objections with the the math, the methodologies, and/or substantive assertions?


It would be helpful, since you're referring to specific elements, if you'd cite passages (or page numbers and paragraph -- "p. 236, para 13") that illustrate the phenomena of which you write/complain. It is a 400+ page document, after all, and now that I know you're reading the full document rather than just Ch. 1, what you'r talking about could come from any chapter within the first 300 pages.

So NOAA did in fact publish the condensed version. Well that is OK too I guess. Though a report of that import that does not include the underlying Assessments and Data Points does not do much for me. I can see why NOAA would do it .....sort of. But I don't like it and have no particular use for the condensed version. No wonder it seemed like an Overview of a Report as opposed to a Report or something hacked off at the knees.....because its hacked off at the knees. I suppose its possible that NOAA saw value in producing a condensed document given the highly politicized nature of the topic and maybe a desire to produce something "digestible".

I have no choice at this point but to plow through enough of the full report to get a better sense for how the report was constructed. I am left having to at least plow through enough pages to try to get a better sense for why they have used the Likelihood values so sparingly having dropped two of them into the shortened document NOAA published separately. There ARE Medium and even Low Confidence Assessments deeper into the full report. None appeared in the shorter document published by NOAA. So there is that. As I said above, I would have encouraged NOAA to include the Assessment and Likelihood tables even in the shorter document they produced. Its a page for heaven sake.

Nobody read our industry reports but people in our industry. This is and was an industry with a US business component entirely based on the Nash Equilibrium for example. That is how far off into the weeds we were in that industry. "Yes the Nash Equilibrium.....Perfect for our purposes!" Actually it was and it was perfectly logical in our industry that we would choose it. But at the time most wondered aloud what was wrong with us.

Nobody that actually had Overview authority for our Industry had any earthly idea what we were doing. Our industry representatives would go to the Hill and utter "Gobble, gobble, gobble" and Senators and Congressman would simply intone something stupid like "looks like a Turkey to me. Lets let him get back to his farm". Even our Regulatory Agency had no earthly idea what we were doing. They more often than not sounded like Señor Wences....."Is OK"...."Yes OK"....."OK".Reports would give you raw numbers +/-X on an Assessment and the raw number immediately meant something to you as you were trying to digest the material. But I digress.

Obviously if there are "No Major Uncertainties" for a group of Assessments then there is nothing upon which to provide a value. But for the Assessments that do have "Major Uncertainties" I struggle with why they have not at least so far stuck with using their Likelihood values. Either use them or don't. But 300 pages is not enough for me to provide a better answer and I might not even feel comfortable trying to provide one at 500 or 600 pages and at that point might just finish it. I guess I will know when I get there.

 

[Xelor]

So NOAA did in fact publish the condensed version. Well that is OK too I guess. Though a report of that import that does not include the underlying Assessments and Data Points does not do much for me. ....

I have no choice at this point but to plow through enough of the full report to get a better sense for how the report was constructed. I am left having to at least plow through enough pages to try to get a better sense for why they have used the Likelihood values so sparingly having dropped two of them into the shortened document NOAA published separately. There ARE Medium and even Low Confidence Assessments deeper into the full report. None appeared in the shorter document published by NOAA. So there is that. As I said above, I would have encouraged NOAA to include the Assessment and Likelihood tables even in the shorter document they produced. Its a page for heaven sake.

...But I digress.

....I guess I will know when I get there.

Red:
What are you talking about? You wrote this:

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. [~9:00 a.m. yesterday]

...I am only up to about 300 pages. [~6:30 p.m. yesterday]

Did you just stop reading the thing? Did you indeed read the first 300 pages at all?

• NOAA is full report's publisher; the USGCRP is merely a program administered by NOAA. That is obvious from the info at the very top of the reports "home page." (see image below)
• NOAA simply made the chapters in the full report available as individual documents. That's solely for readers' convenience.
• The only "condensed version," if that's what you want to call it, is the Executive Summary, which is not the document to which I linked; however, it is part of the full report and it's available, as are the chapters, individually.
• How Constructed --> NOAA tell readers exactly how the report is constructed, what it is and is not, etc., and they do so beginning on page 1 (not page i) of the full report, of which you indicated you've read the first 300 pages. How did you miss pages 1-11?
  • Do you have a comprehensive understanding of what meta-analysis is? Again, NOAA don't use that term in explaining the nature of their report, but for non-researchers, that term is of little-to-no value, and probably is just confusing; and for researchers (or non-researchers who are well versed in scientific methods), saying so adds no value as we recognize it when we see it, regardless of whether an author "spells it out."
• "Sparing" likelihoods --> How could you have read the first 300 pages and have missed the statement? "All Key Findings include a description of confidence. Where it is considered scientifically justified to report the likelihood of particular impacts within the range of possible outcomes, Key Findings also include a likelihood designation."
• "It's a page" --> NOAA has provided several pages of explanations pertaining to likelihood and confidence and what they mean. That information is in the guide to the report, which is part of the first 11 pages.
• Underlying data and assessments --> Did you not review or look at the table of contents? The data aren't literally included in the report; however, readers are pointed to where they can obtain them.
  • What, in your mind, are "underlying assessments?"
    • When I bother to read the documents noted in the various chapter endnotes I see plenty of underlying assessments. Those documents are where you'll find the analysis supporting specific statements, namely those giving rise to an endnoted declaration.
    • When I read the TOC, I see "model weighting strategy" and the "detection and attribution methodologies overview" appendices.
      • These two appendices provide what I think you want, unless you're looking for the level of detail found in the endnoted documents.

Pink:
I think you'd be better served by going back to the beginning and reading the document from there forward rather than "diving straight in" as it seems, given the compositional/organizational nature of your gripes, you've done. Rather than fussing that NOAA have composed the report differently than you'd have done or differently from what you're used to, just read the thing and go with how they've structured it.

 

[JMR]

Now you are putting words in his mouth.

That is your ignorance and arrogance caused by your confirmation bias.

Those were the words out of his own mouth. That is due to his ignorance and arrogance, not mine. Perhaps your ignorance and arrogance causes you to defend such statements.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Those were the words out of his own mouth. That is due to his ignorance and arrogance, not mine. Perhaps your ignorance and arrogance causes you to defend such statements.

LOL...

The AGW dogma runs deep in you. So deep the truth is clouded.

Please show me where he ever said that. Your paraphrase,, like always, is wrong.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

I have to admit, our Stable Genius President has convinced me I was wrong about AGW:

‘"One of the problems that a lot of people like myself -- we have very high levels of intelligence, but we're not necessarily such believers. You look at our air and our water, and it's right now at a record clean. And when you're talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over. It just flows right down the Pacific, it flows, and we say where does this come from. And it takes many people to start off with. If you go back and if you look at articles, they talked about global freezing, they talked about at some point the planets could have freeze to death, then it's going to die of heat exhaustion."

I mean,who can argue with that level of erudition and eloquence?? :lamo

 

[jnug]

Red:
What are you talking about? You wrote this:

​

Did you just stop reading the thing? Did you indeed read the first 300 pages at all?

• NOAA is full report's publisher; the USGCRP is merely a program administered by NOAA. That is obvious from the info at the very top of the reports "home page." (see image below)
• NOAA simply made the chapters in the full report available as individual documents. That's solely for readers' convenience.
• The only "condensed version," if that's what you want to call it, is the Executive Summary, which is not the document to which I linked; however, it is part of the full report and it's available, as are the chapters, individually.
• How Constructed --> NOAA tell readers exactly how the report is constructed, what it is and is not, etc., and they do so beginning on page 1 (not page i) of the full report, of which you indicated you've read the first 300 pages. How did you miss pages 1-11?
  • Do you have a comprehensive understanding of what meta-analysis is? Again, NOAA don't use that term in explaining the nature of their report, but for non-researchers, that term is of little-to-no value, and probably is just confusing; and for researchers (or non-researchers who are well versed in scientific methods), saying so adds no value as we recognize it when we see it, regardless of whether an author "spells it out."
• "Sparing" likelihoods --> How could you have read the first 300 pages and have missed the statement? "All Key Findings include a description of confidence. Where it is considered scientifically justified to report the likelihood of particular impacts within the range of possible outcomes, Key Findings also include a likelihood designation."
• "It's a page" --> NOAA has provided several pages of explanations pertaining to likelihood and confidence and what they mean. That information is in the guide to the report, which is part of the first 11 pages.
• Underlying data and assessments --> Did you not review or look at the table of contents? The data aren't literally included in the report; however, readers are pointed to where they can obtain them.
  • What, in your mind, are "underlying assessments?"
    • When I bother to read the documents noted in the various chapter endnotes I see plenty of underlying assessments. Those documents are where you'll find the analysis supporting specific statements, namely those giving rise to an endnoted declaration.
    • When I read the TOC, I see "model weighting strategy" and the "detection and attribution methodologies overview" appendices.
      • These two appendices provide what I think you want, unless you're looking for the level of detail found in the endnoted documents.

Pink:
I think you'd be better served by going back to the beginning and reading the document from there forward rather than "diving straight in" as it seems, given the compositional/organizational nature of your gripes, you've done. Rather than fussing that NOAA have composed the report differently than you'd have done or differently from what you're used to, just read the thing and go with how they've structured it.

I had already read that...and I guess I will know what I think about it when I get through enough of the report to have an opinion. I had chosen not to comment on that because I have chosen to read deeper into the FULL REPORT. For clarity I am completely ignoring at this point whatever those 60 odd pages represent whether called an Executive Summary or not. Personally, I have never preferred nor even liked executive summaries, condensed versions WHATEVER, particularly those that don't even provide a key for the the rating standards they are using in the summary. IMO they were off to a bad start right from jump street.

As for the full report, they have used a "plain language" approach to expressing Likelihood OBVIOUSLY and I don't know what I think about that either and won't know until I have gone through more of the full report. Generally speaking I don't like a plain language approach because it allows for some fairly broad ranges for Likelihood. i have already commented that I simply prefer a different method of expressing Likelihood if it is going to be used. Is their "plain language expression of Likelihood liberally spread throughout the Report or not? I just don't know yet. I was not going to comment on that either UNTIL I FELT that I had something more to say worth saying. But since you pressed me on the point...there you go. So if you don't mind I will be back with something I feel is worth adding when I feel like I have something to add.

 

[JMR]

LOL...

The AGW dogma runs deep in you. So deep the truth is clouded.

Please show me where he ever said that. Your paraphrase,, like always, is wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rding-to-donald-trump/?utm_term=.66d206a29cc9

16) ISIS

"I know more about ISIS [the Islamic State militant group] than the generals do. Believe me." — November 2015

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-i-think-i-know-more-about-nato-than-mattis-does

More to your liking perhaps.

I'm "sure" you will admit your mistake here. lol.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I have to admit, our Stable Genius President has convinced me I was wrong about AGW:

‘"One of the problems that a lot of people like myself -- we have very high levels of intelligence, but we're not necessarily such believers. You look at our air and our water, and it's right now at a record clean. And when you're talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over. It just flows right down the Pacific, it flows, and we say where does this come from. And it takes many people to start off with. If you go back and if you look at articles, they talked about global freezing, they talked about at some point the planets could have freeze to death, then it's going to die of heat exhaustion."

I mean,who can argue with that level of erudition and eloquence?? :lamo

Have the complete transcript by chance, so we can see that in context?

You indoctrinated lefties love your sound bites and incomplete quotes.

Maybe you should watch the video in your source material:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...85fd44449f5_story.html?utm_term=.948bedaefdc7

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Have the complete transcript by chance, so we can see that in context?

You indoctrinated lefties love your sound bites and incomplete quotes.

Maybe you should watch the video in your source material:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...85fd44449f5_story.html?utm_term=.948bedaefdc7

Um,so post it...so we can laugh some more...
:lamo

 

[Lord of Planar]

The context sure does look different when you look at the whole exchange.

DAWSEY: You said yesterday when you were leaving that you were skeptical of a climate change report that the government had done. Can you just explain why you're skeptical of that report?

TRUMP: One of the problems that a lot of people like myself — we have very high levels of intelligence, but we’re not necessarily such believers. You look at our air and our water, and it’s right now at a record clean. But when you look at China and you look at parts of Asia and when you look at South America, and when you look at many other places in this world, including Russia, including — just many other places — the air is incredibly dirty. And when you’re talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over. I mean, we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down the Pacific, it flows, and we say where does this come from. And it takes many people to start off with.

TRUMP: Number two, if you go back and if you look at articles, they talked about global freezing, they talked about at some point the planets could have freeze to death, then it’s going to die of heat exhaustion. There is movement in the atmosphere. There’s no question. As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it — not nearly like it is. Do we want clean water? Absolutely. Do we want clean air to breathe? Absolutely. The fire in California, where I was, if you looked at the floor, the floor of the fire, they have trees that were fallen, they did no forest management, no forest maintenance, and you can light — you can take a match like this and light a tree trunk when that thing is laying there for more than 14 or 15 months. And it’s a massive problem in California.
​

They commented that it was given four Pinocchios, but... funny how officials later in California agreed their forest management was substandard...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.006364d2e9fd

 

[Lord of Planar]

Um,so post it...so we can laugh some more...
:lamo

Yes, I did. And your quote was edited.

Shame on you.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Yes, I did. And your quote was edited.

Shame on you.

One of the problems that a lot of people like myself — we have very high levels of intelligence, but we’re not necessarily such believers. You look at our air and our water, and it’s right now at a record clean. But when you look at China and you look at parts of Asia and when you look at South America, and when you look at many other places in this world, including Russia, including — just many other places — the air is incredibly dirty. And when you’re talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over. I mean, we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down the Pacific, it flows, and we say where does this come from. And it takes many people to start off with.

LMAO. Yeah that's sooooo much better.He sounds like a 3rd grader who hasn't done his homework.:lamo

 

[Lord of Planar]

One of the problems that a lot of people like myself — we have very high levels of intelligence, but we’re not necessarily such believers. You look at our air and our water, and it’s right now at a record clean. But when you look at China and you look at parts of Asia and when you look at South America, and when you look at many other places in this world, including Russia, including — just many other places — the air is incredibly dirty. And when you’re talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over. I mean, we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down the Pacific, it flows, and we say where does this come from. And it takes many people to start off with.

LMAO. Yeah that's sooooo much better.He sounds like a 3rd grader who hasn't done his homework.:lamo

Your quote left out part of it. The video was important too.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Your quote left out part of it. The video was important too.

Oh really?So where is the erudite and eloquent part of this interview? Please post relevant quotes

*chuckle*

 

[Xelor]

TRUMP: ... when you’re talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over. I mean, we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down the Pacific, it flows, and we say where does this come from. And it takes many people to start off with.

TRUMP: ... [nonsense about inept forest management]
​

They commented that it was given four Pinocchios, but... funny how officials later in California agreed their forest management was substandard...

Interview

Red:
Anything Trump says/thinks about the environment's status or its sage stewardship and that has this assertion, in part or entirely, as a predicate is unfounded, illogical, unsound, uncogent, wrong, incorrect, inaccurate, ill-considered, ignorant, and absurd....all at once.

• When well informed individuals discuss the nature and status of the atmosphere, the oceans aren't part of what they're talking about.
  
  
  
• Well informed people discuss the ocean-atmosphere system, where the ocean and the atmosphere are two different things that interact.
  • The Ocean-Atmosphere System
• Even if one were to inaccurately include the oceans as part of the atmosphere, only someone who's immensely ignorant would describe the oceans as being a "very small" part of it. In the ocean-atmosphere system, the oceans for the overwhelming majority of it.
  • The troposphere contains ~90% of the atmosphere' mass.
  • Water comprises about 71% of the Earth's surface....96.5% of Earth's water is in the oceans
  • The total mass of the oceans is 1.35 x 10[SUP]18[/SUP] metric tonnes.
    In contrast, the atmosphere's mass is ~5 x 10[SUP]18[/SUP] kilograms.

Blue:
It's so that Asian nations provide the overwhelming majority of trash in the oceans, but it's not true that those nations are wherefrom come the trash on US beaches.

• The beaches onto which Asia trash washes are Asian.
  • Southeast Asian nations grapple with worsening plastic trash crisis
  • What Happens to the Plastic We Throw Out
  • Plastic Pollution Facts and Figures

I have yet to find one credible research paper that so much as intimates Asian trash forms a material share of US beach trash. If you know of any, please share. Trump certainly hasn't cited any. Quite a few papers address the matter of Asian trash fouling Asian beaches and forming mid-ocean "trash islands."


Pink:
Regarding "RAGA" (rake America great again) and forest management, Trump referred to Finland's experiences:

• Raking: "Finnish President Niinistö [said] the subject of raking [wasn't part of] his conversations with Trump. He said ...he told Trump 'we take care of our forests.'
  
  "The Finnish President told the newspaper that he intended to convey that although Finland is covered by forests, the nation has a good monitoring system which has helped to prevent catastrophic wildfires. He added that he only sees raking in his own yard, and surmised that raking perhaps came to Trump's mind after he saw firefighters raking some of the burned areas in California." (Source)
• Forest (mis) management:
  • Firefighters immediately pointed out errors in Trump's assertions:
    • The Woolsey Fire started not in a forest but on a hillside near Simi Valley before spreading to suburban communities.
    • The Camp Fire is burning in an area thinned by fire 10 years ago. Forest mismanagement didn't cause these blazes.
  • Key reasons why California is the perfect tinderbox:
    • Growing number of people living in or near fire-prone areas
    • Climate change exacerbating the aridness of California's naturally dry climate
    • Trump's disregard for climate policies
    • Legacy of America's old fire suppression strategy -- "suppress at all costs" -- resulted in the buildup of excess flammable brush.
  • The US' is well ranked as goes environmental management policies and procedures.
  • California uses prescribed fires, not raking, to curtain the risk of wildfire.

 

[Xelor]

Oh really?So where is the erudite and eloquent part of this interview? Please post relevant quotes

*chuckle*

LOL...Thank you.

It wouldn't bother me too much were there not much eloquence but erudition is essential, and that too is lacking.

That said, Trump, given all his braggadocio about being a genius and having the best words and whatnot, should exhibit eloquence outstripping Kennedy, King, and Angelou, and myriad writers, pastors and poets.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Red:
Anything Trump says/thinks about the environment's status or its sage stewardship and that has this assertion, in part or entirely, as a predicate is unfounded, illogical, unsound, uncogent, wrong, incorrect, inaccurate, ill-considered, ignorant, and absurd....all at once.

You sure went through a lot of wasted time.

If you look at the whole in context, it appears he is saying the pollution in the oceans are small compared to the atmosphere. He speaks of how dirty other nations make the atmosphere, but points out the garbage in the ocean makes it our way.

Scientifically, if you look at contaminates in the ocean in ppm or ppb (parts per million or billion) the contamination is vary small vs. the atmosphere. Now I don't know with certainty if this is what he meant, but it does fit the context in whole.

Context is important.

 

[Xelor]

You sure went through a lot of wasted time.

If you look at the whole in context, it appears he is saying the pollution in the oceans are small compared to the atmosphere. He speaks of how dirty other nations make the atmosphere, but points out the garbage in the ocean makes it our way.

Scientifically, if you look at contaminates in the ocean in ppm or ppb (parts per million or billion) the contamination is vary small vs. the atmosphere. Now I don't know with certainty if this is what he meant, but it does fit the context in whole.

Context is important.

Red:

• While you may be willing to effectively put words in Trump's mouth, insofar as he's attested to having the best words, being so well educated, being a genius, etc., I won't because people who would have us think those things of themselves say exactly what they mean and don't leave subject to misinterpretation their remarks about existentialities. The reason they don't is because they know the subject matter very well and thus have no need to do so. It's folks who don't know what they're talking about (or who are trying to obfuscate and duplicitously mislead others) who make "loosey-goosey" remarks they can later, if challenged, "spin."
  • It's worth noting too that most rubes, proles and prats know well the miniscularity of their cognition and knowledge and have therefore the sense to keep mum on matters transcending their knowledge. Trump doesn't do that; he routinely makes himself the "poster boy" for the axiom "better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
• That so much of what Trump says and argues for or against is vague, ambiguous, incoherent and/or factually inaccurate. That his remarks about "whatever," most especially the environment and climate change, so often have one or more of those qualities is why he's not credible.
• I don't care what context one has in mind, verisimility is immutable and irrefutable.
  • If Trump meant something having to do with the relativity of contamination in the atmosphere vs. that in the oceans, just as you had the presence of mind to write that, his "genius" mind most certainly should have thought to do so, most especially in an interview setting wherein, unlike a tweet, he's got more than enough time and space to be particularly clear and precise.

 

[BrainNebula]

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.)

I don't deny global warming is happening. The question is what to do about it. That's where Climate Scientists go wrong. And also, their modeling, which isn't science, has led to wrong prediction after wrong prediction. But in terms of what to do about it, we should not be panicking and wasting hundreds of trillions of dollars radically changing our economy and scrubbing the atmosphere. Scientists have no proof that this is necessary. And again, this is outside of the realm of science, so it's no surprise that scientists go way wrong when they get outside of their field. And that's what the NOAA report concluded as well:

Key remaining uncertainties relate to the precise magnitude and nature of changes at global, and particularly regional, scales, and especially for extreme events and our ability to simulate and attribute such changes using climate models. Innovative new approaches to climate data analysis, continued improvements in climate modeling, and instigation and maintenance of reference quality observation networks such as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (Page or Resource Not Found (404 Error) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)) all have the potential to reduce uncertainties.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't deny global warming is happening. The question is what to do about it. That's where Climate Scientists go wrong. And also, their modeling, which isn't science, has led to wrong prediction after wrong prediction. But in terms of what to do about it, we should not be panicking and wasting hundreds of trillions of dollars radically changing our economy and scrubbing the atmosphere. Scientists have no proof that this is necessary. And again, this is outside of the realm of science, so it's no surprise that scientists go way wrong when they get outside of their field. And that's what the NOAA report concluded as well:

Don't forget. They cant find evidence they are purposely not looking for.

 

[Xelor]

I had already read that...and I guess I will know what I think about it when I get through enough of the report to have an opinion. I had chosen not to comment on that because I have chosen to read deeper into the FULL REPORT. For clarity I am completely ignoring at this point whatever those 60 odd pages represent whether called an Executive Summary or not. Personally, I have never preferred nor even liked executive summaries, condensed versions WHATEVER, particularly those that don't even provide a key for the the rating standards they are using in the summary. IMO they were off to a bad start right from jump street.

As for the full report, they have used a "plain language" approach to expressing Likelihood OBVIOUSLY and I don't know what I think about that either and won't know until I have gone through more of the full report. Generally speaking I don't like a plain language approach because it allows for some fairly broad ranges for Likelihood. i have already commented that I simply prefer a different method of expressing Likelihood if it is going to be used. Is their "plain language expression of Likelihood liberally spread throughout the Report or not? I just don't know yet. I was not going to comment on that either UNTIL I FELT that I had something more to say worth saying. But since you pressed me on the point...there you go. So if you don't mind I will be back with something I feel is worth adding when I feel like I have something to add.

Pasting this here for the benefit of readers more indolent than I only because in reading the NOAA report, I keep encountering endnotes that refer me to IPCC content and one of my tracings of that content led me to the information below.

Language Adopted by the IPCC to Describe Confidence About Facts or the Likelihood of an Outcome

Very high confidence	At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
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
Virtually certain	More than 99 chances out of 100
Extremely likely	More than 95 chances out of 100
Very likely	More than 90 chances out of 100
Likely	More than 65 chances out of 100
More likely than not	More than 50 chances out of 100
About as likely as not	Between 33 and 66 chances out of 100
Unlikely	Less than 33 chances out of 100
Very unlikely	Less than 10 chances out of 100
Extremely unlikely	Less than 5 chances out of 100
Exceptionally unlikely	Less than 1 chance out of 100

[TD="colspan: 2"] Terminology for Describing Confidence About Facts [/TD]

[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 2"] Terminology for Describing Likelihood of an Outcome [/TD]

​

​

 

[Lord of Planar]

Pasting this here for the benefit of readers more indolent than I only because in reading the NOAA report, I keep encountering endnotes that refer me to IPCC content and one of my tracings of that content led me to the information below.

Language Adopted by the IPCC to Describe Confidence About Facts or the Likelihood of an Outcome

Very high confidence	At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
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
Virtually certain	More than 99 chances out of 100
Extremely likely	More than 95 chances out of 100
Very likely	More than 90 chances out of 100
Likely	More than 65 chances out of 100
More likely than not	More than 50 chances out of 100
About as likely as not	Between 33 and 66 chances out of 100
Unlikely	Less than 33 chances out of 100
Very unlikely	Less than 10 chances out of 100
Extremely unlikely	Less than 5 chances out of 100
Exceptionally unlikely	Less than 1 chance out of 100

[TD="colspan: 2"] Terminology for Describing Confidence About Facts [/TD]

[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 2"] Terminology for Describing Likelihood of an Outcome [/TD]

​

​

I really hate that.

Almost all assesments by other organizations have a majority of footnotes, endnotes, etc. that are from the IPCC, which is agenda driven.

I cannot trust any of them when they refer to the IPCC, instead of the sources the IPCC traws their lies from.