Assessment of coastal flooding and associated hydrodynamic processes on the south-eastern coast of Mexico, during Central American cold surge events

Rey, Wilmer; Salles, Paulo; Mendoza, E. Tonatiuh; Torres-Freyermuth, Alec; Appendini, Christian M.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-1681-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-1681-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-1681-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 6

Research article

|

20 Jun 2018

Research article |

| 20 Jun 2018

Assessment of coastal flooding and associated hydrodynamic processes on the south-eastern coast of Mexico, during Central American cold surge events

Wilmer Rey, Paulo Salles, E. Tonatiuh Mendoza, Alec Torres-Freyermuth, and Christian M. Appendini

Download

Final revised paper (published on 20 Jun 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 22 Mar 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of "The role of tidal modulation in coastal flooding..."', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 May 2017
- AC1: 'First reply to Referee 1', Paulo Salles, 19 May 2017
- RC2: 'Review of "The role of tidal modulation in coastal flooding on a micro-tidal coast during Central American Cold Surge events"', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Aug 2017
  - AC2: 'Reply to Anonymous Referee #2', Paulo Salles, 25 Aug 2017
  - AC4: 'Detailed response and comments to referee 2', Paulo Salles, 15 Sep 2017
- AC3: 'Detailed response and comments to referee 1', Paulo Salles, 12 Sep 2017
EC1: 'The role of tidal modulation in coastal flooding on a micro-tidal coast during Central American Cold Surge events', Paolo Tarolli, 31 Aug 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (18 Sep 2017) by Paolo Tarolli

AR by Paulo Salles on behalf of the Authors (24 Nov 2017) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (30 Nov 2017) by Paolo Tarolli

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (19 Dec 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The manuscript has been significantly improved by the Authors. I have few minor points concerning the presentation and some editorial suggestions, as detailed in the following.

Minor points

1) In sect. 3.2.1, the boundary conditions prescribed to the hydrodynamic models should be better described.

i) Please clarify the meaning of a “mean profile of the Yucatan current” at pag. 5, lines 33-ff. Is this a time-varying boundary condition? What is the “current variability” mentioned at line 34?

ii) A sea level equal to zero at the Campeche boundary seems to me a quite “strong” boundary condition, as the western boundary is not so far from Progreso. Did the Authors check for the sensibility of water levels in Progreso to this boundary condition? (e.g., by extending the model domain westward.)

2) Which are the three CACS events used to calibrate the model (p.6, l.36)? How does the model perform in simulating the events used for calibration? Are these events different from those use to validate the model?

3) The tide scenarios simulated within the Case 4 should be better described and explained. The bullet points (p.8, l.21-24) is unacceptably confusing. Please describe the three additional scenarios referring only to phase shift and, only after that, explain why these phase shifts were chosen.

Editorial suggestions

-p.2 l.28: change “flux velocity” to “flow velocity”.

-p.2 l.: change “this problem” to “this lack of data”.

-p.4, eq. (1), (2), (3). S is given in s^-1 (not in m³s^-1) for unit consistency. Please describe correctly this term at lines 16-17.

-p.4, l.26: “and only mass fluxes are considered.”

-p.5: eq (4) is not correct as parentheses are missing. It should read N(σ, θ) = 1/ σ E(σ, θ). Furthermore, E is not defined in the text (add at line 3 “where the energy density spectrum, E, is related to”).

-p.5, l.11-12: Add a reference to support the sentence “The decoupled parametric formulation … are not important” or, alternatively, delete this sentence.

-p.5, eq (5): replace the period after the differential operator with a central dot.

-p.5, l.17: the variable S has already been used to denote the source term in the basic equations of the hydrodynamic model. Another symbol must be used here.

-p.5, l.32: “uncoupled”

-p.6, l.1: “…along the boundary; values were extracted from…”

-p.6, l.11-12: “When using this these data product, it has to be kept in mind that only the 00:00, 06:00, 12:00, and 18:00 UTC fields…”

-p.6, l.19: “… CFSR data are superior” (the term “data” is plural). “… then above NCEP reanalysis regarding due to…”

-p.6, l.25-26: awkward sentence…

-p.6, l.28: “…while ensuring numerical stability”

-p.7, l.19-20: “the largest residual tide that, being the less predictable tidal component, is relevant to flood hazard prediction”

-p.7, l.25-26: please identify the two CACS events reporting the dates/time periods.

-p.8, l.6: Delete the first and the third part of the sentence. “the hydrodynamic model was forced by wind, tides, and mesoscale currents.”

-p.9, l.12: maybe “annual” in place of “yearly”

-p.9, l.31: “as it is the case for Progreso”; remove the following comma.

-p.11, l.32-35: This paragraph should be moved within Section 5.1.

-p.12, l.27: I do not understand the meaning of “at the battery”

-p.14, Conclusion: please mention the location of the study (Progreso, Chelem Lagoon) befor speaking of the “inlet” (l. 26).

-p.14, l.26-27: consider deleting “of arrival”.

-p15, l.1-5: use present tenses, as you are speaking of hypothetic scenarios, as well as real, scenarios. Alternatively, at line 1, say “…are tidally averaged: in the simulated scenarios, the maximum…”.

-p.25, l.5: delete “(a) after “correspond to”.

-Figure 7: enlarge “A” and “B” within the figure.

-Figure 8, 9, and 10: please indicate the plotted variable (e.g., “storm surge”, “wave set-up”, etc.) within each panel of the figure in order to improve the readability.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (02 Feb 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of : “Assessment of coastal flooding and associated hydrodynamic processes on the Yucatan coast during Central American Cold Surge events” by Wilmer Rey et al. NHESS-2017-64

The manuscript provides an interesting study on surge, tide and wave interactions on the Yucatan Pensinsula.I haven’t read the first manuscript, but based on the comments of the previous reviewers, I think that the readability of the manuscript has improved significantly. In the study many thing are covered, which makes the manuscript at some locations a bit scattered, for instance is the GEV study really needed for the main aim of the study. Nevertheless, the study has a clear aim, which is addressed in the manuscript. Most of my comments (but not all) are text related issues; Before final publication, I would therefore recommend minor revisions.

Major comments:
#1 Overall the text is well readable. Some sentence are still a bit of or strangely formulated, especially in the beginning of the manuscript. Once started with a series (on one hand) this should be finished. The same holds for contradictions as “larger”(larger than what) and the use of “but”. I’ve numbers some of the cases below, but I’m not a language editor, so this should also be check
#2 For many term abbreviations are used. The readability would be increased is the use of abbreviations is limited to the essential and commonly used terms, and/ or is a list with abbreviations is included.
#3 There are a lot of side studies in the manuscript, is Section 3.1, the GEV analysis and Section 4.4 essential for you analysis? Some of those side studies make the manuscript a bit broad, and it lead away from the main focus of the document. This is unfortunate, since the results are interesting.

Minor comments
1. Title: I suggest to make clear in the title that the Yucantan coast is located in Mexico. Maybe change Yucantan coast to the Southeast coast of Mexico
2. pag 1 ln 20: Mention that the Yucantan Peninsula is located in Mexico (our on the south east coast of Mexico), add this also to line 4 on pag 3.
3. pag 1 ln 20: see #1 “On one hand”, these words suggest that an “on the other hand” I present as well. I miss this in the text
4. pag 1 ln 27: see #1“less frequent” it is not state opposed to what it is less frequent.
5. pag 1 ln 29: (0.15 events/year) 2 events is too little for statistics
6. pag 1 ln 30: see #1 “more frequent” compared to what?
7. pag 1 ln 33: “Given the above” this is a bit a a radom not here, above there is a list of rates of occurrence, in my view it is not resulting in the aim of the study. Maybe adding a sentence that states that CACS events are occurring more frequent than hurricans and that therefore the focus is on CACS-events. On pag2 line 25 the aim is state clearly
8. pag 2 ln 21: “smallness”  the limited wave set-up
9. pag 2 ln 29: the sea level rising speed  the speed of sea level rise
10. pag 2 ln 29-32: see #1 this sentence is a bit of. Check this sentence.
11. pag 2 ln 40-pag3 line 1: aim is clear
12. pag 3: ln 9-10: Although it is probably true. It is a bit weird that the two numbers don’t add up to 100%
13. pag 3 ln 19: wind wave  wind-wave
14. pag 3 ln 20: and  while or remore “on the other hand”
15. pag 3 ln 21: Is GoM a common abbreviation? For readability Golf of Mexico could also be used (same with continental shelf)
16. pag 3 ln 26: remove or replace “on the other hand”
17. pag 4 section 3.1: If this is a summary of the DHI-models, this can be moved to the supplementary material, or after a short summary reference can be made to existing literature. Is there anything new that the authors added to the mathematical formulation?
18. pag 5 ln 29-31: Shorten argumentation. To reduce computational time or for computational efficiency will do. Furthermore, I think that 2 week computational time is duable, if the number of simulations is limited, but even with more simulations, the simulations could be run parallel on multiple computer (or a super-computer).
19. pag 6 ln 14: accepts?
20. pag 6 ln 35: This is not visible in the figure.
21. pag 7 ln 24: To what extend is this related to the fact that tropical cyclones are not well represented (ln 18-19)?
22. pag 7 ln 23: presented?
23. pag 7 ln 35: remove “on the other hand”
24. pag 7 ln 38: azimuth?
25. pag 8 ln 25: Mention at one location that TS scenarios are combined with Case 1 and Case 4.
26. pag 8 ln 25: Maybe a Table could help to given an overview on the executed simulations.
27. pag 8 ln 36: In the beginning MIKE21 seems a bit underestimating the water levels, is your model spin-up time sufficient?
28. pag 9 ln 18: also define H and x
29. pag 9 ln 22-27: rephrase, the content should be first, supported by the Figure.
30. pag 9 ln 29-30: This is a good, and well known, point.
31. pag 9 ln 30: Remove “below”
32. pag 10 ln 18: Please clarify the change in longshore current from northwest to southeast , how is this related to the drive of water from north, northwest?
33. pag 10 ln 34-35: “than for” check sentence
34. pag 10 ln 39:Could this also be related to 1) a limited tidal range in the lagoon, or 2) the limited waterdepth of the lagoon, which makes the storm surge level are strongly correlated with wind speeds?
35. pag 11 ln 2: change “,” to “.”
36. pag 11 ln 1-6: Would it also be possible to refer to flooded m2 of km2 instead of number of flooded grid boxes. Or maybe something else is mentioned with the “blocks” in this case, please explain
37. pag 11: Section 4.4 is a rather technical sections. State in the Figure 11 (caption) what is the x-axis is representing. This would really help understanding the explanation in Section 4.4. It now state distance, distance relative to what point?
38. pag 11 ln 17: What do you mean with breaking point? (point before waves start to break?)
39. pag 11 ln 27: use of breaking point?
40. pag 12 ln 2: remove “remembering that”
41. pag 12 ln 30: Just as a not, it is not only the phase of the tide, but at some locations it is on top of that strongly related to the present of spring or neap tide.
42. pag 13 ln 23: What is “longer” morphology
43. Figure 1: If possible add counties to the map.
44. Figure 2: Maybe show the bathymetry of the small nested area in a different subplot. The topo-bathymetry is invisable with the grid plotted on top of it. Remove abbreviation from the caption. The caption should be readable on its own.
45. Figure 4: What do the abbreviations mean?
46. Figure 7: The marks of A and B in the figure should be better visible
47. Figure 8: the labels of the color bar are difficult to read.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (28 Apr 2018) by Paolo Tarolli

AR by Paulo Salles on behalf of the Authors (15 May 2018)

ED: Publish as is (28 May 2018) by Paolo Tarolli

AR by Paulo Salles on behalf of the Authors (01 Jun 2018) Manuscript

Short summary

Storms are common in tropical coasts and can cause dangerous flooding. To assess coastal flood hazards and the mechanisms controlling water levels, this study uses numerical modelling, applied to the north-western Yucatán Peninsula. Results suggest that (a) wave set-up is tidally modulated and can be an important process (up to 14 % of the extreme water levels), and (b) the tidal phase (low, high, rising, receding) and its occurrence probability have to be taken into account for risk assessment.