Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Using the references provided - see if you can reproduce his graphs. hectares vs km's, NT data included in etc. And - he is simplifying the issue down to area-burnt which fails to look at things like soil moisture, heat-intensity. It's very basic and misleading.
Sure, some data sources are in Mha, and some in km², but I have actually managed to convert the two. Pls show if you get a different result. Of course, there is no one way to show wildfire, but the media constantly pointed out the area burnt, so not unreasonable point
Simplifying it to area burned as if all things are equal in every other regard is deliberately misleading as though it really is as simple as area burned. This isn't good work and seems to be a bad-faith injection of an ignorant position into the public conversation.
exactly the intention here. He makes a living off the confusion.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
