Climate and Energy Crises from the Perspective of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Trade-Offs between Systemic Transition and Societal Collapse?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

the paper is well structured, such as the aims and the proposed review.

Following are some minor required revisions : 

section 1: please provide a summarising diagram of the different WG and SSP. The description is clear, but it could be more effective with the support of a figure.

section 2: please explain better the choice of the indicators in Table 1. The author refers to some previous works (lines128-131) but more reasons and considerations about these 6 factors need to be provided.

section 5: can the measures of table 2 be linked among them? or have (in)direct positive effects on each other?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,
I congratulate you on your research and article.
In order to improve the quality of the article, I think it would be good if in the abstract you indicate the aim of the work and the information that is analyzed in the work. I also think that the conclusion should include the limitations of the work and recommendations for future research. The literature is exhaustive and there is no reason to change anything. I did not link exactly why Chapter 2. History as a guide is important.  You need to do a better job of explaining your contribution to the research in the thesis, because it does not show what you researched and what conclusions you came to.

Best regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript deals with a very interesting and timely topic.

The following minor improvements are suggested before publication:

·       Abstract: Abbreviations must be explained the first time they are used.

·       1. Introduction:

o   First of all it should be clarified "The general aim of this work [...]" (from line 117) and then the methods adopted to pursue this objective, which is slightly introduced from line 102 "The main idea is to conduct an analysis [...]".

o   Furthermore, when referring to previous work "[...] being more aligned with Turchin's work [15,16]" (line 104) it would be useful to mention what these works are that the proposed paper aligns with.

·       2. History as a guide

o   “The indicators chosen are key/driving variables in the system 142 evolution which become particularly important near a transition” (lines 142-143): How were these indicators chosen? Were they chosen arbitrarily, on the basis of previous studies (if so, please specify which) or as a result of interactions with external experts?

·      5. Options/strategies

o   Table 2 does not add any more information than what is already described in the text. It is recommended to delete it or to substitute it with a meaningful and beautiful figure.

·       Appendix A

o   It should be cited in the text and linked to the different parts of the manuscript where the sentences of SPM WGIII are quoted.

o   The acronym “SPM” (line 513) should be explained. It is used only at the end of the manuscript.

o   The words “[FOOTNOTE 31]” (line 515) are not linked to any footnotes. Should they be deleted?  

·       References: the double numbering of the list of references should be removed

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

now your article is fine. 

Best regards,