The study you are linking is written by four authors, three of which are without any climate science credentials (at least two are nuclear physicists). One of those three has been disowned by a former institute he has worked at because of his unfounded claims regarding climate change (or the supposed lack thereof): https://it-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Franco_Prodi?...
These quotes are from the IPCCC (which represents the consensus of thousands of climate scientists) sixth assessment report from 2021:
"The frequency and intensity of hot extremes (including heatwaves) have increased, and those of cold extremes have decreased on the global scale since 1950 (virtually certain). This also applies at regional scale, with more than 80% of AR6 regions1showing similar changes assessed to be at least likely."
"The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have likely increased at the global scale over a majority of land regions with good observational coverage. Heavy precipitation has likely increased on the continental scale over three continents: North America, Europe, and Asia. Regional increases in the frequency and/or intensity of heavy precipitation have been observed with at least medium confidence for nearly half of AR6 regions, […]"
"More regions are affected by increases in agricultural and ecological droughts with increasing global warming (high confidence)."
"The average and maximum rain rates associated with tropical cyclones (TCs), extratropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers across the globe, and severe convective storms in some regions, increase in a warming world (high confidence)."
This stuff is complex, as is correctly interpreting the available data. But sure, go with the opinion of four random Italian dudes over the consensus of literally thousands of subject matter experts.
I am not a climate scientist so my ability to adjudicate the finer details of climate science is very limited. But I have a decent understanding of how science works in general. If I am confronted with two rivaling interpretations of the data and one side is supported by the consensus of 99% of the subject matter experts from virtually every country in the world, while the other is brought forth by four dudes, at least three of which are not subject matter experts, I know which side I trust.
I'm not sure if you understand how the IPCC reports are put together. There are working groups for each specific subject matter, comprised of subject matter experts. They put together their findings and open up the draft for comment to the entire scientific community. The version that is published in the report is the lowest common denominator that all involved experts in a given field (literally hundreds of people from around the world for each chapter) can agree on.
If I read the 2023 study you cite correctly (I am not an hydrologist and my guess is you are neither), it looks at a very specific set of data and interprets it under a narrow set of questions, bringing up some potentially interesting questions that would need to be studied further. At no point do the authors claim that it fundamentally contradicts established scientific consensus. They argue that their results could help better understand the phenomenon of climate change and its effects, which might well be the case. My guess is that their findings will be considered as we speak by some of the people involved in the IPCCC reports and matched with other studies that have studied aspects of the issues in question.
Global climate change is an incredibly complex subject and I do not claim to understand more than a sliver of it. But having followed this topic intensely for 20+ years, there has never been a scientific subject of this complexity that at the same time was supported by such a broad consensus of the actual subject matter experts. If you say that a fundamental aspect of this consensus is false, that claim is extraordinary and demands extraordinary proof. A couple of random studies one of which you haven't researched the authors for and the other which you probably do not have the required knowledge to understand just won't cut it.
> I have a decent understanding of how science works in general. <consensus>
That's not how science works, that's the opposite of how science works. This is the first reason we cannot get anywhere in this thread.
Science is not some academic claiming everyone agrees with him, some random journalist reporting that as gospel, therefore it's true. That's the pre-scientific approach. Science is a method for arriving at the truth regardless of what people's titles are, and regardless of how popular they are or claim to be. It's about data and theories, not social support, that's why it works. The alternative you're trying to use here is a mishmash of tribal signals combined with strange attempts to do title-based reasoning, like trying to decide whether physicists, hydrologists or climatologists are more "expert" for any given topic. The world doesn't neatly break down that way.
> If you say that a fundamental aspect of this consensus is false, that claim is extraordinary and demands extraordinary proof.
This is the second reason we can't get anywhere. I've already given you proof of all these claims in the form of data. Even data in the form of peer reviewed studies, by scientists, although that isn't actually necessary for it to be proof.
You're rejecting it because you seem to be reasoning purely on the basis of social signals. That's a problem, because for a claim of the form "those people over there are making false claims", no level of proof can ever be accepted if you think that way, no matter how extraordinary. It's a form of circular reasoning: These guys says they're experts and every other expert agrees with them. Those guys says they're also experts and the first group are wrong, but the first guys told me every expert agrees with them, so therefore the others must not be experts, and therefore I must not listen. If you think that way it's just a race to see who can get to you first.
The way out is to recognize that it's not really that complicated. You can engage with the science on its own terms quite easily. If the news says extreme weather is getting more common, and charts of extreme weather events show otherwise, the data should win unless you have some reason to believe it's wrong.
These quotes are from the IPCCC (which represents the consensus of thousands of climate scientists) sixth assessment report from 2021:
"The frequency and intensity of hot extremes (including heatwaves) have increased, and those of cold extremes have decreased on the global scale since 1950 (virtually certain). This also applies at regional scale, with more than 80% of AR6 regions1showing similar changes assessed to be at least likely."
"The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have likely increased at the global scale over a majority of land regions with good observational coverage. Heavy precipitation has likely increased on the continental scale over three continents: North America, Europe, and Asia. Regional increases in the frequency and/or intensity of heavy precipitation have been observed with at least medium confidence for nearly half of AR6 regions, […]"
"More regions are affected by increases in agricultural and ecological droughts with increasing global warming (high confidence)."
"The average and maximum rain rates associated with tropical cyclones (TCs), extratropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers across the globe, and severe convective storms in some regions, increase in a warming world (high confidence)."
All from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/
This stuff is complex, as is correctly interpreting the available data. But sure, go with the opinion of four random Italian dudes over the consensus of literally thousands of subject matter experts.