The Sherwood reference was only included during the review process, as it was not yet published when we originally came up with the analysis. As you probably know, going from an idea to a published paper can take quite some time and you cannot read and update on all the papers that are published during that time.
I would agree that today the picture looks better as in comparison when we started working on that paper. However, predicted temperatures and mentions in the IPCC still don’t overlap and therefore we still have a research gap, albeit a smaller one.
I don’t see how this makes the paper wrong. 1) You are only referring to impact literature. It’s great if we know what impact climate change will have, but we still have a problem if we do not know how to mitigate it at higher temperatures. 2) Comparing emission scenarios is good, but every scenario has a wide range of possible temperatures. Therefore, it is also important to look at specific temperatures.
I’m not sure I understand point (1) in your last paragraph. ‘Mitigation’ with respect to climate usually refers to reducing CO2 emissions, so I don’t see how there could be a specific problem of ‘mitigating at higher temperatures’. Perhaps you mean adapting to higher temperatures?
I don’t think your point (2) hits home. The impacts literature that I have outlined and pasted above does look at specific temperatures. It looks at the most likely level of warming on RCP8.5.
In your paper you say that warming of >3 degrees is ‘severely neglected’. This is not true, and hasn’t been for years. If you had said >5 degrees that would have been true, but the claim is about >3 degrees.
That’s what I meant, sorry if I phrased this incorrectly.
I did not mean to say that they did not look at specific temperatures at all. I meant that they did not look at it in the amount the probability of the specific warming would make sensible.
Is your critique that we used “severly neglected”, but you would have been ok with “neglected”? Or is your model that the scientific community does the right amount of research for different temperatures, given the likelyhood of reaching these temperatures?
The Sherwood reference was only included during the review process, as it was not yet published when we originally came up with the analysis. As you probably know, going from an idea to a published paper can take quite some time and you cannot read and update on all the papers that are published during that time.
I would agree that today the picture looks better as in comparison when we started working on that paper. However, predicted temperatures and mentions in the IPCC still don’t overlap and therefore we still have a research gap, albeit a smaller one.
I don’t see how this makes the paper wrong. 1) You are only referring to impact literature. It’s great if we know what impact climate change will have, but we still have a problem if we do not know how to mitigate it at higher temperatures. 2) Comparing emission scenarios is good, but every scenario has a wide range of possible temperatures. Therefore, it is also important to look at specific temperatures.
Ok, that makes sense on the Sherwood thing.
I’m not sure I understand point (1) in your last paragraph. ‘Mitigation’ with respect to climate usually refers to reducing CO2 emissions, so I don’t see how there could be a specific problem of ‘mitigating at higher temperatures’. Perhaps you mean adapting to higher temperatures?
I don’t think your point (2) hits home. The impacts literature that I have outlined and pasted above does look at specific temperatures. It looks at the most likely level of warming on RCP8.5.
In your paper you say that warming of >3 degrees is ‘severely neglected’. This is not true, and hasn’t been for years. If you had said >5 degrees that would have been true, but the claim is about >3 degrees.
That’s what I meant, sorry if I phrased this incorrectly.
I did not mean to say that they did not look at specific temperatures at all. I meant that they did not look at it in the amount the probability of the specific warming would make sensible.
Is your critique that we used “severly neglected”, but you would have been ok with “neglected”? Or is your model that the scientific community does the right amount of research for different temperatures, given the likelyhood of reaching these temperatures?