Hey, at least I didn’t use the Spanish version, that would have been even worse! I’ll restate. Restricting analysis within national borders does not make scien

Hey, at least I didn’t use the Spanish version, that would have been even worse! I’ll restate. Restricting analysis within national borders does not make scientific sense in many cases. The arctic/boreal region studied in the link I gave is of prime interest to US/NASA because it contains Alaska, and Alaska is exposed to climate change in compelling ways, but it also includes about half of Canada because the processes there are the same and an integrated analysis makes more sense. Besides adjacency, there are other cases where critical regions (Greenland ice sheets come to mind, https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/nasa-greenland-mission-completes-six-years-of-mapping-unknown-terrain/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/nasa-greenla...) affect the US, even though they aren’t in the US. Ditto for the climate forcing from Saharan dust (https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit). That instrument is interesting bc it was originally put up to observe land composition but it has also been a pathfinder for CH4 detection! Finally,there are analogous biomes overseas that can be studied as what-if cases to see if our models work outside their original domain of application.