For the morning crowdhttps://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1218146725258506242 …
-
Please don't misuse our data to make an invalid point. The 1997-2016 data is driven by savanna burned area in the north (not just NT). The 2019-2020 red dot is burned area mostly from forests in NSW and Victoria. Here is a more consistent figure but based on emissionspic.twitter.com/nWryMWPM3s
Dear Guido, You don’t get to say ‘your’ data should only be used to show temperate forests burnt more this year Climate models expect almost everything to burn more. And 'your' data shows it didn't. Yours respectfully, bjornpic.twitter.com/RbnIE0gRUr
-
-
Sick bjurn!
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
So pointing someone to an inconsistency in his reasoning and showing consistent data is dishonest? Bjorn still has the graph where he combines two inconsistent datasets online. Please keep him honest.
Keskustelun loppu
-
-
-
Bjorn Savanna burned area is decreasing in many regions, please see our publications (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1356 …) Not related to climate change Fires in several temperate zones are increasing. Many factors play a role, climate change one of them. Just don't merge both fire typespic.twitter.com/8wp7mRXrSL
-
Ideally, one should do all analysis. But climate models predict more burnt area almost everywhere, so merging makes sense. I see you also merged both fire types in your Science article in table 1 How did you get fire data for Feb 2020 in your graphic?
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
ps: everybody is welcome to show anything with our data, ideally in a consistent way. You compared our burned area data for most or all of Australia for 1997-2016 with burned area estimates for a selected number of regions for 2019-2020 That is misleading.
-
Your description is incorrect I compared burned area data from all of Australia minus Nothern Territory for 1997-2016 from June 1-Dec 31 with burned area data from all of Australia minus Nothern Territory for June 1 2019 - Jan 6 2020 That is entirely consistent
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
You split everybody else's hair, but never touch your own. I get it. Mitigating our carbon blunders is going to be expensive and painful. You seem to take joy in that. Live long, liar.
-
Whether you agree or disagree with the argument, "You split everybody else's hair, but never touch your own." is a damn good turn of phrase.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.