The study exhibits critical flaws that undermine its reliability and potential impact. Key issues include methodological ambiguities in applying Clausius-Clapeyron scaling for evaporation changes without robust validation, limited acknowledgment of CESM1.2 model biases in representing the Tibetan Plateau’s complex topography, and oversimplification of feedback mechanisms such as El Niño-like responses under RCP8.5. The use of outdated volcanic forcing data (Gao et al., 2008) without comparing newer standards like CMIP6 (Toohey & Sigl, 2017) raises concerns about the accuracy of the modeled radiative impacts. Discrepancies between modeled and observed/reconstructed precipitation anomalies suggest inadequate data validation, while reliance on insufficient statistical tests (e.g., Student’s t-tests) weakens the robustness of findings. The omission of intermediate climate scenarios (e.g., RCP4.5) and the oversimplified treatment of monsoon variability further detract from the paper’s conclusions. These shortcomings necessitate further scrutiny, particularly regarding misrepresentation of volcanic forcing and inconsistent alignment with cited datasets.
