The Range of Projected Change in Vapour Pressure Deficit Through 2100: A Seasonal and Regional Analysis of the CMIP6 Ensemble
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have carefully read the manuscript titled “What is the range of projected change in vapour pressure deficit? A regional and seasonal analysis of the CMIP6 ensemble,” which represents an attempt to apply CMIP6 climate models to identify variations in vapour pressure deficit (VPD) at the global level for the periods 1850–2014 and 2015–2100.
In my opinion, the English used in the manuscript is generally good.
However, the title should be reformulated to more clearly reflect the content of the study and to include the time periods analyzed.
The manuscript structure requires revision, and a Conclusion section, which is currently missing, should be added.
I strongly advise the authors to carefully consider all comments provided below and to respond to each with due diligence. All changes in the revised manuscript should be highlighted using a different color.
I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication only after the necessary and substantial revisions are made.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComment 1: Novelty: The manuscript claims a novel contribution by characterizing the spread in projected VPD change across CMIP6 models, but this novelty is somewhat overstated. Previous studies (e.g., Fang et al. 2022; Li et al. 2023) have assessed global VPD trends using CMIP data. The key contribution here is the focus on seasonal and regional spread, which needs to be more explicitly framed.
Fang, Z., Zhang, W., Brandt, M., Abdi, A. M., & Fensholt, R. (2022). Globally increasing atmospheric aridity over the 21st century. Earth's future, 10(10), e2022EF003019.
Li, S., Wang, G., Chai, Y., Miao, L., Hagan, D. F. T., Sun, S., ... & Guan, Z. (2023). Increasing vapor pressure deficit accelerates land drying. Journal of Hydrology, 625, 130062.
Comment 2: Scenario Justification: The choice of SSP370 is poorly justified. While the authors note that SSP370 is intermediate, the rationale for excluding higher and lower scenarios (SSP126, SSP585) lacks depth. The authors should discuss the implications of this choice on generalizability and policy relevance.
Comment 3: Using broad IPCC regions may mask important intra-regional variation (e.g., North vs. South Africa). The authors acknowledge this but do not quantify potential biases. Sensitivity analysis using sub-regional units (if feasible) is recommended.
Comment 4: In the abstract, the authors mentioned that "guide the selection of models." Is this the goal of this study? Model independence, performance weighting, or observational constraints are not discussed. This undermines the credibility of the ensemble spread. Including models with known high ECS (e.g., CanESM5) without a sensitivity test inflates upper bounds of VPD projections. Consider more transparency on selection logic and limitations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have thoroughly read the revised version of the manuscript, now titled "The Range of Projected Change in Vapour Pressure Deficit to 2100: A Seasonal and Regional Analysis of the CMIP6 Ensemble." The authors have addressed the majority of my comments on the original version, with the exception of a few points where they provided a reasoned disagreement, for which I am grateful. I believe that my initial comments highlighted certain shortcomings in the original manuscript and have contributed to an overall improvement in the revised version. After reviewing the authors’ responses and the updated manuscript, I have no further suggestions. I am pleased to recommend to the Editor-in-Chief that the manuscript be accepted for publication in accordance with the journal’s standards.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
