Articles | Volume 31, issue 1
Research article
27 Feb 2024
Research article |  | 27 Feb 2024

A comparison of two causal methods in the context of climate analyses

David Docquier, Giorgia Di Capua, Reik V. Donner, Carlos A. L. Pires, Amélie Simon, and Stéphane Vannitsem


Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2212', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Nov 2023
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2212', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Dec 2023
  • AC1: 'Reply to both reviewers', David Docquier, 12 Jan 2024

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
AR by David Docquier on behalf of the Authors (12 Jan 2024)  Author's response   Author's tracked changes   Manuscript 
ED: Publish as is (17 Jan 2024) by Stefano Pierini
AR by David Docquier on behalf of the Authors (18 Jan 2024)
Short summary
Identifying causes of specific processes is crucial in order to better understand our climate system. Traditionally, correlation analyses have been used to identify cause–effect relationships in climate studies. However, correlation does not imply causation, which justifies the need to use causal methods. We compare two independent causal methods and show that these are superior to classical correlation analyses. We also find some interesting differences between the two methods.