The Evolution of Communicating the Uncertainty of Climate Change to Policymakers: A Study of IPCC Synthesis Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a nice contribution explaining shifts in how the climate change knowledge is communicated to the top policy-makers. I appreciate this paper and think it can be accepted after certain modifications.

• The paper is brief and the study is simple. This is NOT a sign of weakness, but it is better to label this paper as 'Communication', not 'Article'.
• Introduction: please, avoid the sub-section 1.1. First, the section is not lengthy. Second, if you divide any section into sub-sections, there should be two sub-sections, at least, and these should embrace the entire text.
• This paper needs section 'Discussion'. There, please, propose the general interpretation (conceptualization) of your findings. For this purpose, you need to consider and to cite more literature on climate changes and policy-makers (please, prefer articles published in top international journals in the past 3 years). Particularly, this source may help: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494419307376
• In 'Discussion', you also need to provide the practical recommendations to the both policy-makers and the IPCC report writers.
• Who are policy-makers you address? Mighty people from the governments, officials of international organizations, top managers of corporations? Note also that these can perceive climate changes and the relevant reports very differently, and their education background also matters. Moreover, there may be differences between the countries. Please, discuss these and may be some additional issues. Look at these sources and the works cited there:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901118308001

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/8/4/56

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901119315588

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629620304655

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/272

Author Response

1.- The paper is brief and the study is simple. This is NOT a sign of weakness, but it is better to label this paper as 'Communication', not 'Article'.

OK. We will change the label in the new submission

2.- Introduction: please, avoid the sub-section 1.1. First, the section is not lengthy. Second, if you divide any section into sub-sections, there should be two sub-sections, at least, and these should embrace the entire text.

OK. Yes you are true. We have avoided section 1.1 in the text.

3.-This paper needs section 'Discussion'. There, please, propose the general interpretation (conceptualization) of your findings. For this purpose, you need to consider and to cite more literature on climate changes and policy-makers (please, prefer articles published in top international journals in the past 3 years). Particularly, this source may help: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494419307376

OK. We have changed the position of the label “Discussion” to a whole section 4.

4.-In 'Discussion', you also need to provide the practical recommendations to the both policy-makers and the IPCC report writers. Who are policy-makers you address? Mighty people from the governments, officials of international organizations, top managers of corporations? Note also that these can perceive climate changes and the relevant reports very differently, and their education background also matters. Moreover, there may be differences between the countries. Please, discuss these and may be some additional issues. Look at these sources and the works cited there:

OK. We have added the concept you highlighted in lines 300, with some of the references you suggested, and others from similar literature. I have been a reviewer for the AR5 and AR6, and as I said in the cover letter of the paper, due to my long career I have been involved in several WMO and IPCC discussions on how to improve communication of the IPCC assessments. In fact, this communication is the first paper of my Phd thesis “Communicating Climate Change: Actions and Strategies to Raise Public Awareness”, one of my hypotheses about the relative inaction during the last 30 years was the lack of scientific certainty. At this point we have just tried to find this lack of “call to action” in the first Synthesis Reports , it is our aim to come back with recommendations in the future.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper evaluates a content analysis of the IPCC Summaries for Policymakers considering WG I to WG III, across IPCC1 to IPCC5, which encompass the past 30 years, in order to determine the evolution of uncertainty degree associated with the statements they contain. The results clearly show an increase in the level of certainty in time.

 

 

The main objectives are clearly stated, as well as the justification and added value of the paper.

 

The theory that support the study is well described.

 

The literature review is extensive and recent.

 

The data and the methods are adequately described.

 

The results are presented and are adequately summarized in the conclusions.

 

This paper maybe considered for publication in its present form.

Author Response

The main objectives are clearly stated, as well as the justification and added value of the paper. OK, many thanks

The theory that support the study is well described. OK, many thanks

The literature review is extensive and recent. OK, many thanks

The data and the methods are adequately described. OK, many thanks

The results are presented and are adequately summarized in the conclusions. OK, many thanks

This paper maybe considered for publication in its present form. OK, many thanks

Dear Reviewer, many thanks for your opinions and remarks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf