Ecology and Climate of the Earth—The Same Biogeophysical System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have a problem with that paper - in general I agree with the presented concept however I see no novellty in the discussed idea - I've always been taught that we've got one system, but we look at it from various perspectives.

I am not convinced if that paper brings any added value - it is a nice talk for a conference to enhence the topic and encourage the scientits to look at both sides of the coin, but IMHO nothing more

The authors had the problem with classifying their submission as it is not "communication" sensu description given on the journal's webpage

Considering the guidelines for authors the manuscript is not prepared correctly

figure 5 is redundant, it's a satelite image of Earth, again, nothing more

I suggest rejection not because the paper is bad (except malpreparation), but for I dont feel it in the journal

Author Response

I have a problem with that paper - in general I agree with the presented concept however I see no novelty in the discussed idea - I've always been taught that we've got one system, but we look at it from various perspectives.

I am not convinced if that paper brings any added value - it is a nice talk for a conference to enhance the topic and encourage the scientist to look at both sides of the coin, but IMHO nothing more

We are glad the reviewer recognizes that it is but one integrated Earth system. However, as we document in the paper, unfortunately, this is not generally the case. Thus we feel this is an overlooked issue that is hindering both scientific advances and policy implantation to reduce environmental and societal risk.

 The authors had the problem with classifying their submission as it is not "communication" sense description given on the journal's webpage

 Considering the guidelines for authors the manuscript is not prepared correctly

Hopefully, the classification of our paper is now clarified

figure 5 is redundant, it's a satellite image of Earth, again, nothing more

We have deleted this.

 I suggest rejection not because the paper is bad (except malpreparation), but for I dont feel it in the journal

Hopefully, with the added text, we have satisfied the reviewer’s concern.

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is important, but the way the paper is presented is not acceptable.  I do not recommend this paper to publish.  I suggest reject and possibly resubmission with a thorough revision and restructuring.

1. Abstract is too vague, needs more improvements.
2. In the introduction part, it is important to describe the key emphasis area of the paper. Need to clarify the key purpose of the paper.
3. Section 2 is not clear.Need rephrasing.
4. The discussion part is too shallow, and there is almost no new conclusion

Author Response

The topic is important, but the way the paper is presented is not acceptable.  I do not recommend this paper to publish.  I suggest reject and possibly resubmission with a thorough revision and restructuring.

1. Abstract is too vague, needs more improvements.

We have added clarifying text in the abstract.

1. In the introduction part, it is important to describe the key emphasis area of the paper.

We have added text in the conclusion which summarizes the emphasis of the paper. .

1.  Need to clarify the key purpose of the paper.

Text has been added.

1. Section 2 is not clear.Need rephrasing.

We have added a paragraph to make the text clearer.

1. The discussion part is too shallow, and there is almost no new conclusion

We have added text including questions we recommend be asked plus an example,

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your communication. I am in favor of this type of work, since it helps us readers to focus our attention on the truly important questions and to know what our role is in order to change the situation. However, I would like to make some considerations about your work. Please take my suggestions for what they are: suggestions.  

1. Abstract. I find it a rather short and without defining what is the objective of this communication. It would be advisable to include the objective and the method used to reach your conclusions. 

2. Introduction. It is important to reflect the most relevant aspects of the United Nations global momentum on sustainability and climate action. In your work you refer to the UNFCCC and the working groups that have been generated within the UN. However, I believe they have not sufficiently discussed the impetus of the 2030 Agenda and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, which replace the Millennium Development Goals of 2000. You have made a small reference in the conclusions, in the last paragraph and I think it is not consistent that you do not comment it in the introduction.  As you know, there is a goal dedicated to climate and many others that are related to it: SDG-13: climate action, SDG-7: Affordable and clean energy, SDG-14: Life below water, SDG-15: Life on land.... 

In that last paragraph of conclusions, you point out the possibility that companies will be able to evaluate better efforts towards climate objectives, beyond reducing their emissions (lines 336 - 338). In this sense, I cite some articles that suggest a greater specification of the goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda, in order to make them somewhat more precise:

• Von Stechow, C., Minx, J. C., Riahi, K., Jewell, J., McCollum, D. L., Callaghan, M. W., . . . Baiocchi, G. (2016). 2°C and SDGs: United they stand, divided they fall? Environmental Research Letters, 11(3) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034022
• Leal Filho, W., Tripathi, S. K., Andrade Guerra, J. B. S. O. D., Giné-Garriga, R., Orlovic Lovren, V., & Willats, J. (2019). Using the sustainable development goals towards a better understanding of sustainability challenges. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 26(2), 179-190. doi:10.1080/13504509.2018.1505674
• Mensah, J. (2019). Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1) doi:10.1080/23311886.2019.1653531
• Belmonte-Ureña, L. J., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., Vazquez-Brust, D., & Yakovleva, N. (2021). Circular economy, degrowth and green growth as pathways for research on sustainable development goals: A global analysis and future agenda. Ecological Economics, 185 doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107050

Best wishes for 2022 and good luck with your communication modifications.

Regards, 

Author Response

Dear Authors, 

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your communication. I am in favor of this type of work, since it helps us readers to focus our attention on the truly important questions and to know what our role is in order to change the situation. However, I would like to make some considerations about your work. Please take my suggestions for what they are: suggestions.  

Thank you.

1. I find it a rather short and without defining what is the objective of this communication. It would be advisable to include the objective and the method used to reach your conclusions. 

We have added text.

2. It is important to reflect the most relevant aspects of the United Nations global momentum on sustainability and climate action. In your work you refer to the UNFCCC and the working groups that have been generated within the UN. However, I believe they have not sufficiently discussed the impetus of the 2030 Agenda and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, which replace the Millennium Development Goals of 2000. You have made a small reference in the conclusions, in the last paragraph and I think it is not consistent that you do not comment it in the introduction.  As you know, there is a goal dedicated to climate and many others that are related to it: SDG-13: climate action, SDG-7: Affordable and clean energy, SDG-14: Life below water, SDG-15: Life on land.... 

We have added text.

In that last paragraph of conclusions, you point out the possibility that companies will be able to evaluate better efforts towards climate objectives, beyond reducing their emissions (lines 336 - 338). In this sense, I cite some articles that suggest a greater specification of the goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda, in order to make them somewhat more precise:

• Von Stechow, C., Minx, J. C., Riahi, K., Jewell, J., McCollum, D. L., Callaghan, M. W., . . . Baiocchi, G. (2016). 2°C and SDGs: United they stand, divided they fall? Environmental Research Letters, 11(3) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034022
• Leal Filho, W., Tripathi, S. K., Andrade Guerra, J. B. S. O. D., Giné-Garriga, R., Orlovic Lovren, V., & Willats, J. (2019). Using the sustainable development goals towards a better understanding of sustainability challenges. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 26(2), 179-190. doi:10.1080/13504509.2018.1505674
• Mensah, J. (2019). Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1) doi:10.1080/23311886.2019.1653531
• Belmonte-Ureña, L. J., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., Vazquez-Brust, D., & Yakovleva, N. (2021). Circular economy, degrowth and green growth as pathways for research on sustainable development goals: A global analysis and future agenda. Ecological Economics, 185 doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107050

Best wishes for 2022 and good luck with your communication modifications.

Regards, 

We have added text in the conclusions plus included these cites. Thank you for recommending them.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors did some corrections and and additions, especially in the response to the other reviews

Personally I still do see that paper, but apart from bringing nothing new (at leas for me) it is ok. The only suggestion is to change title of the chapter 5 - conclusions should be concise, this part is quite large and does not sum up the previous but introduces new matters, and that shoud be expressed in the title

Author Response

Thank you.

The last section is now renamed as Conclusion and the Path Forward.

Additionally, some references have been reformatted and minor changes in the sentence structure, spellings has been done.

We hope the revised manuscript is now acceptable for publication. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for implementing the suggestions I put to you in my review. I have proposed that your work be accepted in its current form. 

Congratulations. 

Reviewer

Author Response

Thank you.