Compound heatwave and drought hotspots and their trends in Southeast Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Compound extreme natural events cause a significantly larger impact than individual extreme events. Therefore, the urgency of exploring the climatology of compound events is growing. This paper is aimed to identify the current hotspots of compound heatwaves and droughts (CHD) and trends in their occurrence in southeast Australia. In this context, 61 weather stations were selected from the study area, and analyses were carried out over the extended summer season of the time period 1971–2021. The hotspots of CHDs in southeast Australia were identified considering both the total count of CHD days and 90th percentile of CHDs during the study period. The study period was divided into two periods 1971–2000 and 2001–2021, to assess the change in hotspots spatially and temporally. Four different attributes of CHDs based on the number, duration, severity and amplitude of CHDs were also calculated, and Mann–Kendall (MK) test followed by Sen’s slope was adopted to detect the trends in all these four attributes of CHDs. Trends in CHD indices were also calculated for the two periods of 1971–2000 and 2001–2021. For calculating the CHD, excess heat factor (EHF) was used to identify the heatwaves. In the case of drought identification, SPEI and SPI drought indices were adopted with aggregation of 3 and 126 antecedent months, and three different threshold values were selected to consider three levels of dry conditions, e.g. 0, − 0.5 and − 1.0. It has been found that more CHDs occurred on the eastern side of NSW and Queensland states. Furthermore, the total count of CHD days increased notably during the last two decades. The trends in CHD indices were found to be significant in the recent period (2001–2021), and there was no trend in the earlier period (1971–2000). The findings of this study will help to plan heat and drought-related emergency management in the study area.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".