Comment on “Weekly precipitation cycles? Lack of evidence from United States surface stations” by D. M. Schultz et al.
Comment on “Weekly precipitation cycles? Lack of evidence from United States surface stations” by D. M. Schultz et al.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1029/2007gl033046
复制
发表时间：
2008-05
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
T. Bell;D. Rosenfeld
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Bell;D. Rosenfeld
Schultz et al.（2007）（以下简称S07）最近发表了他们在美国雨量计测量中寻找周周期的结果，声称他们的零结果与Bell et al.（2008）（以下简称B08）对卫星和雨量计数据的研究（当时未发表）相矛盾。S07没有注意到1）B08描述的卫星结果是1998年及以后的年份，而他们的数据截止于1992年，以及2）B08对S07研究年份的雨量计数据的分析与他们的结论一致。B08实际上表明，美国东南部降雨的周周期在1990年左右之后变得可检测。我们讨论了S07使用的方法。我们建议，一个更集中的方法，如果物理理论的指导下，可以提取更有用的信息，从数据集比一般的统计搜索，如S07所描述的。
Schultz et al. (2007) (hereinafter referred to as S07) recently published the results of their search for a weekly cycle in U.S. rain‐gauge measurements, claiming that their null results contradict those of a study (unpublished at the time) by Bell et al. (2008) (hereinafter referred to as B08) of satellite and rain‐gauge data. S07 failed to note 1) that the satellite results described by B08 were for the years 1998 and after, whereas their data ended in 1992, and 2) that the analysis by B08 of rain‐gauge data for the years studied by S07 were consistent with their conclusions. B08 in fact show that the weekly cycle in rainfall over the SE U.S. becomes detectable after about 1990. We discuss the methods used by S07. We suggest that a more focused approach—if guided by physical theory—can extract far more useful information from a dataset than generic statistical searches such as described by S07.