Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
One team. In Maryland. Three years’ ago. Can’t you do better?
This is from Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9 …, so if anything Matt is underplaying the point But here is another from 2020, showing "Overall, the global area of forest increases significantly (p = 0.0000) from 1982 to 2015." https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1217/2020/ … How's that? :)pic.twitter.com/90qDcWUqf0
When a tree in a forest dies it will be replaced by another tree So that makes no sense The methane argument is also wrong. Methane is good because it is temporary but can give us early warning of what is coming
Hi, is this increase in tree cover commercial monoculture pine/similar plantations?
Apologies. I’m not disputing the possibility described, but you’ll appreciate that, even with a list of authors, the data and interpretation cannot be accepted unless peer reviewed. The ESSD paper *is* peer reviewed. Matt should have cited that. A bit sloppy.
Ah yes, the changing argument approach. Nice.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
