The article was posted to arxiv in April. Believe it or not, >99% of the time I see a paper from my field on HN I've read it months before it's posted, and some

The article was posted to arxiv in April. Believe it or not, >99% of the time I see a paper from my field on HN I've read it months before it's posted, and sometimes been aware of the research for up to a year before it's posted. Also, the criticism is primarily a comment on methods (stats vs physical models) which can be based on lots of consideration and experience outside the context of any particular paper. E.g. I can tell you that you've probably used the wrong optimization algorithm for particular task without spending much more than an hour glancing through your problem formulation and results. Doing that without the benefit of decades of experience would require weeks or months, but with experience I can make that determination quite quickly given a detailed write-up. (FWIW: I think dynamical physics-based models are probably over-emphasized in climate science consensus, but I'm admittedly a complete novice whose opinion you shouldn't trust.)