the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 05 Aug 2026
The Weather Extremes Archive (WEXA)
Abstract. The Weather Extremes Archive (WEXA) is a global, event-based dataset designed to systematically detect, track, and document persistent weather extremes. In its initial release, WEXA focuses on heat waves and cold spells identified from 2-m air temperature in ERA5 reanalysis data from 1979 to present. Cold and warm extremes are defined using seasonally varying 10th and 90th percentile thresholds derived from a fixed 1991–2020 climatological baseline. Periods of at least three consecutive extreme days are grouped into coherent spatiotemporal heat waves or cold spell events using three-dimensional connected component labelling. WEXA delivers a global catalogue of all detected individual heat wave and cold spell events, providing standardized diagnostics of their timing, duration, spatial extent, and intensity. The archive is openly accessible at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20550615 and https://wexa.jamstec.go.jp, permitting the exploration of event statistics and visualizations through an interactive analysis tool.
- Preprint
(2467 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(40178 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 31 Oct 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-434', Ion Marinică, 26 Sep 2026 reply
Data sets
Weather Extremes Archive Patrick Martineau, Ingo Richter, Ayako Yamamoto, Masami Nonaka, and Hidehiro Fujio https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20550615
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 279 | 96 | 101 | 476 | 98 | 136 | 103 |
- HTML: 279
- PDF: 96
- XML: 101
- Total: 476
- Supplement: 98
- BibTeX: 136
- EndNote: 103
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
September 23, 2026
Dear friends,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper
The Weather Extremes Archive (WEXA)
Patrick Martineau, Hidehiro Fujio, Ingo Richter, Ayako Yamamoto, and Masami Nonaka
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20550615
This is an excellent paper, and its publication is welcome, as it allows the scientific community to gain an overview of what is currently encompassed by the term "extreme weather phenomena."
Regarding this term—"extreme weather phenomena," currently defined as "weather events that far exceed the usual climatic limits of a specific region; they are unusual, severe, and can endanger lives, the environment, or property"—I would like to offer the following comment:
Based on the intensity scale of a specific type of weather phenomenon, there are only two extremes for each type: "the most intense recorded to date in the entire data archive" and "the least intense recorded to date in the entire data archive." For instance, regarding temperature at a specific location on Earth, these would be the highest and lowest temperatures recorded across the entire data archive. Naturally, these limits provide an overview of the variability range of weather phenomena within a specific region or across the globe. Thus, extreme weather events are phenomena that occur infrequently (rare or exceptionally rare events—such as "Noah's Flood," which may not be merely a figment of the imagination or a legend).
Many media outlets speak of "extreme weather events" almost daily, creating the impression that they occur frequently or even on a daily basis. When phenomena occur frequently or daily, they are obviously not extreme weather events but rather ordinary or "normal" weather phenomena for the region in question.
Therefore, we need to reach a consensus on a precise definition for these phenomena—a step essential for a proper understanding of the situation and for eliminating the ambiguity inherent in the current definition (e.g., how severe? how intense? how long did it last? what damage did it cause?).
Instead of analyzing the synoptic, dynamic (and potentially geological or astronomical) causes behind such exceptionally intense phenomena, almost everyone is content with the simple explanation that they are caused by "climate change."
"Climate change" is a term fraught with ambiguity, stemming initially from imprecise expressions such as "night turns into day" (and vice versa), "the cold season gives way to the warm season" (and vice versa), "the seasons change," and so on.
Yet, these are not changes; this is simply how things have always been and how they will always be for as long as the Earth exists.
It is more accurate to classify these processes under "climate variability"—a form of variability characterized by a crucial property: it sustains life on Earth and operates within broad yet finite limits.
Many people (including scientists) fail to distinguish between two fundamentally different yet seemingly similar processes: "variability" and "change."
To clarify certain long-standing ambiguities in climate science, I must point out that Earth's climate involves no processes of "change," but rather only... variability.
Processes of change are characteristic of ephemeral entities: humans, living beings, plants, etc.
Childhood, youth, maturity, and old age are stages of processes of change.
The clearest example of change is death.
Any entity that evolves through change disappears; it is, therefore, ephemeral.
Variability signifies an evolution within certain limits—maintaining specific conditions within a broad range—and is characteristic of eternal entities.
For example, Earth's climate maintains the conditions necessary for life within a broad range, even if not everywhere.
If processes of change had occurred in Earth's climate, life would have vanished long ago, and not even a single virus would exist today.
The existence of life on Earth is clear proof that there are no processes of change.
I have published the mathematical proof demonstrating that "there are no processes of change in the climate of Earth, nor in that of any planet or star in the Universe."
Fig. 1. The distinction between variability (top) and change (bottom). (Marinică et al., 2024)
At the same time, I recall that the principle of variability (not necessarily climatic) is "what is, has been before and will be again"—first formulated by Ecclesiastes (about 2,400 years ago)—whereas the principle of change is "what is, has never been before and will never be again." The principle of change is the logical negation of the principle of variability, and vice versa. They cannot coexist within the same entity. There is no third possibility. It is a mistake for some to claim that a single entity can exhibit both variability and change. Defining "change" merely as a specific, statistically significant value of meteorological parameters constitutes a misuse of statistics. By this same logic—and through such statistical misuse—one could "prove" the existence of extraterrestrials among us, and so forth.
I have no wish to offend or contradict anyone. However, it is absolutely essential that we develop precise, unambiguous terminology to guide future research—research that must rectify the vast array of errors accumulated to date, not only in "climate science" but in other disciplines as well. These fields often rush to blame humanity for all the ills on Earth, thereby providing ill-intentioned individuals with a pretext to argue for the "necessity of reducing the human population."
I commend your work and wish you great success in all your endeavors; may integrity light your path.
With deep respect and high regard,
Ion Marinică