Add images to avalanche likelihood article

docs/avalanche-likelihood-definition.md

@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 ---
 bibliography: [Forecasting.bib]
+#pandoc_args: ["--filter=pandoc-crossref", "--filter pandoc-citeproc" ]
 ---
 
 # Avalanche Likelihood Definition
@@ -19,11 +20,19 @@ The definition as provided by CMAH has several shortcomings which can cause conf
 * It does not define what "specific location" is. Is it any possible location within the forecast area? Or any possible location that is avalanche terrain? Or is it any possible location within the elevation bands and aspects that the problem type is has been found in? There are many possible interpretations.
 * What is the mechanism of release? If it is human triggered, what kind of load is being applied?
 * It attempts to redefine the term "Likelihood" in which is already synomous with "Probability" in the English Language. This is especially problematic from a standpoint of people consuming the forecast for whom English may be their second language or they may be relying on automatic translation.
-* It states that likelihood is independent of scale, and yet by choosing to present likelihood as a graphic in forecasts it has every appearance of possessing a scale as it is most commonly used. The appearance of the graphic impacts how the scale is interpreted. TODO insert figures of graphics.
+* It states that likelihood is independent of scale, and yet by choosing to present likelihood as a graphic in forecasts it has every appearance of possessing a scale as it is most commonly used. The appearance of the graphic impacts how the scale is interpreted. See [Figure 1](#fig:avalanche-ca-chance-1), [Figure 2](#fig:avalanche-ca-chance-2), [Figure 3](#fig:avalanche-nz-likelihood) and [Figure 4](#fig:uac-likelihood).
 * In practice, forecasters map the scale that they calculate in their heads (or with a matrix derived from other scales) to the value terms that are provided ("Possible", "Unlikely", etc), so in effect it can be seen to represent a scale and "Likelihood" by the CMAH definition cannot entirely escape it.
 * The use of language terms for likelihood values could introduce extra ambiguity in translation to other languages, and for those who are reading in their second language. This issue is partially highlighted in ADAM @mullerCOMBININGCONCEPTUALMODEL2016 *"We find the terms used in the EDS and the BM ambiguous and partially redundant. The different languages in Europe pose certain challenges while identifying common terms. A literal translation of one term into another language sometimes is accompanied by a slight change in meaning or common perception of this term. This potential change in perception of one term could lead to a
 different perception in the avalanche danger assessment. A translation should aim at adhering to the definition rather than being literally correct. This will require a careful translation process"*
 
+![Figure 1: Chance - avalanche.ca](avalanche-ca-chance-1.png){#fig:avalanche-ca-chance-1}
+
+![Figure 2: Chance - avalanche.ca](avalanche-ca-chance-2.png){#fig:avalanche-ca-chance-2}
+
+![Figure 3: Likelihood - avalanche.nz](avalanche-nz-likelihood.png){#fig:avalanche-nz-likelihood}
+
+![Figure 4: Likelihood - utahavalanchecenter.org](uac-likelihood.png){#fig:uac-likelihood}
+
 Some of these points and more are discussed in *The Likelihood Scale in Avalanche Forecasting* @LikelihoodScaleAvalanche
 
 There is a struggle here between wanting to provide a value convenient for communication, and poviding a framework which leaves little room for disagreement between those attempting to produce the forecast.