Does temperature explain how much water forests lose after a wildfire?

✓ Numbers check out

0.1495 share explained, the paper

0.1495 share explained, the Lab

Counts as holding up

The code and data produced the same result. That doesn't prove the study's method is right.

The write-up for this result is on its way. The verdict and numbers above are final.

What the paper said: Multiple R-Squared: 0.1495. The author's 2008 output file, line 251, for ET ~ Tavg
What we got: 0.1495
Whose code ran: Authors' own code
What forecasters thought: 50% expected it to hold up when forecasting closed. The forecast price never changes the verdict.
Proof: Read the receipt or see claim 20

What we didn't check

Whether the sample was fair or large enough.
Whether test data leaked into training or tuning.
Whether the result holds on new data.
Whether the study's method was the right one for its question.

Community notes

Notes are people's own words, kept on the blockchain. They never change a verdict, and the Lab's AI never reads them. Posting costs a little NEAR for storage, and what isn't used comes back.