|The authors made great strides to address my concerns from my review of their original submission to GMDD. My remaining suggestions are largely editorial. I have only one content-related suggestion:|
Page 3 / line 89:
I still feel that the process of interpreting the results by the reader would be improved greatly if two graphics were added to the text of the manuscript... stacked bar or area charts of sectoral GHG emissions for the BAU and GHG-Step scenarios. These graphics would allow the reader to understand how the model is responding to the constraint, which is important since those responses are what drive the emissions changes highlighted later in the manuscript. While the revised text has been modified to refer to where to find such information, and while the supplemental info now includes the GHG-Step plot, I think both these graphics should be explicitly included in the body of the manuscript. I don't think this is a required change, per se, but it would improve the manuscript.
As an aside, the authors suggest that the GHG-Step constraint being implemented at a single future year (as opposed to phased in) does not result in a discontinuity in the model's response. When I look at the GHG-Step graphic, I do see a discontinuity in 2050, so I think the authors' revised text indicating that there is no discontinuity is not correct or is at least too strong.
I feel that the authors' language and choice of words could be tightened. For example, below are some particular items:
Page 1/line 9 "sophisticated programs" - It is unclear what is meant by "programs." Computer programs? Management programs? Whether they are "sophisticated" also seems very subjective. Perhaps "comprehensive" would be a better adjective (although I recognize that this can also be subjective).
Page 1/line 11 "aggressive GHG reduction" - One person's "aggressive" is another person's "moderate," and another person's "lenient." I think these terms are best used when comparing policies (e.g., policy A is more lenient than policy B). I suggest just referring to this as a GHG policy. If you feel it is aggressive, perhaps you could cite a reference to this interpretation?
Page 1/line 13 "necessarily include changes in..." - I think "necessarily" is too strong here. Also, I would add "across economic sectors" at the end.
Page 1/line 23 "manifests most notably through a comparison" - I don't think this use of manifest is correct... This reads as if the act of comparing the results leads to the behavior occurring, which I do not believe is the intent. Perhaps "apparent most notably through a comparison"...
Page 1/line 31 "debating optimal strategies" - "optimal" typically refers to the mathematically least cost option. Policymakers don't generally think in those terms. I suggest "debating alternative strategies", "debating candidate strategies", or "debating cost-effective candidate strategies".
Additional editorial suggestions:
Page 29/ line 689 - "each ... experience" should be "each ... experiences"
Page 33 / line 773 - This refers to having evaluated multiple GHG policies, but you really only evaluated one here.
Page 1/line 21 "with obvious implications" - At least one style guide that I have read suggests avoiding words such as "obvious" and "clearly".
Page 1/line 25- Page 1/line 26 "PM2.5", "PM0.1" should use subscripts
Page 1/line 25 "vs." Spell out "versus"?
Page 1/line 32 "including (among other things)..." - This is redundant since "including" implies you may not be listing all those things.
15/360 - Not necessary to use apostrophe on "CA-TIMES"
- I don't recall ever seeing in-text citations of this format... two authors, followed by "et al" (e.g., Curly, Moe, et al., 2015). Please check the journal requirements. Usually these in-text citations would just be: (e.g., Curly et al., 2015).
- Commas are not used in a consistent manner in the abstract and introduction sections
For Figure 9: I think this is OK, but it is not necessary to include the data under the table. The data could be provided in the Supplemental Information instead.
For Figures 10 through 15: I greatly prefer the formatting of these figures to the versions in the original submission. I have only a minor suggestion. It would be helpful to readers to more explicitly identify the right hand column as depicting deltas. Also, having the units on the graphic itself would be useful. Finally, I think it should be more clear that the column on the right is comparing both results for the year 2050. One possible suggestion would include the following changes:
(i) change the heading over the left column to:
2050 BAU (ug m-2 min-1)
(ii) and the right column to:
2050 GHG-Step minus 2050 BAU (ug m-2 min-2)
It this is too much text for the right-hand column, perhaps you could put the units under the column name?