Share this comment
I found the use of statistics disappointing.
At the begining of the article they suggest a 90% or 10% definition for an extreme event. This conceptual framework is then dropped and the rest of the article provides little by way of measurement. There are no R^2 or p-values given in support of conclusions about trends. There is no supportin…
I found the use of statistics disappointing.
At the begining of the article they suggest a 90% or 10% definition for an extreme event.
This conceptual framework is then dropped and the rest of the article provides little by way of measurement. There are no R^2 or p-values given in support of conclusions about trends.
There is no supporting dataset or R or python code, if someone wants to replicate they have to go back to the underlying sources.
The analysis is not - in my opinion - particularly deep either.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, the heatwave analysis is threadbare.
The NOAA's web page on hurricanes and climate change (https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/) is, in my opinion much more through and considers a greater range of extremes and underlying papers than Alimonti et al., and that's just a website rather than a paper. For example NOAA also consider the speed of intensification, precipitation and propagation speed. Alimonti et al. graphics and analysis appear to be a subset of what's on that webpage.
Similarly for rainfall, Alimonti, G., Mariani, L., Prodi, F. et al., focus on daily max and thus would miss important events like 2-3 consecutive days of heavy rain. Their focus on the count of stations ignores the extent of increase in those stations where an increase was found.
However should the paper be withdrawn - no way!
None of the above are evidence of misconduct or egregious error. It's obvious why they have been singled out. Political censorship has no place in science.
Thank you! Thoughtful stuff.