My understanding would be:

• Probabilities: Chance of a certain outcome happening. E.g. Outcome A has a 70% chance B a 20% and C 10%

• Possibilities: what outcome scenarios exist. E.g. there exist 3 (A B C). Those Possibilities might have a probability associated with them

• Plausibility: looks at the degree of truth of a statement. So if it logically makes sense and is the correct answer/is what happened. You might make a judgement of the plausibility of a possibility based on the probability of it happening. Say if something has two outcomes one with a 99% chance and the other 1% then that might be the more plausible one. Or if it has no chance, then it might be implausible

Edit: since someone mentioned the example of a coin toss.

Head and tails have a probability of 50% each (for the sake of simplicity I assume it won’t land standing up)

A coin toss has two possible outcomes (possibilities). Head and tails.

Someone says he flipped a coin and got head 1000 times in a row. That’s not plausible with a fair coin because of the low chance of it actually happening (even if there is a indefinitely small chance). As a result you might assume he is either lying or the coin is weighted for that outcome.

Well part of this is because Europe is in fact heating up faster than the world average

Global mean temperature between 2015 and 2024 was 1.24 to 1.28°C warmer than the pre-industrial level, which makes it the warmest decade on record. European land temperatures have increased even faster over the same period by 2.19 to 2.26°C, depending on the dataset used. European environment agency

For many a trip to the US from Europe is a major event. I’d imagine that many people planned their trips last year before Trump was even reelected and had already invested a lot of money, at which point sunk fallacy plays a role.

I also think that for many it still hasn’t registered that they are now also at risk and it’s not just the classic family guy meme anymore, where it’s based on skin colour.