Extreme significant wave height of tropical  cyclone waves in the South China Sea

Shao, Zhuxiao; Liang, Bingchen; Li, Huajun; Li, Ping; Lee, Dongyoung

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2067-2019

Articles | Volume 19, issue 10

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2067-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2067-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 10

Research article

|

01 Oct 2019

Research article |

| 01 Oct 2019

Extreme significant wave height of tropical cyclone waves in the South China Sea

Zhuxiao Shao, Bingchen Liang, Huajun Li, Ping Li, and Dongyoung Lee

Download

Final revised paper (published on 01 Oct 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 09 Jan 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'review', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Mar 2019
- AC3: 'Extreme significant wave height of tropical cyclone waves in the South China Sea', Zhuxiao Shao, 04 Jun 2019
RC2: 'Review of "Study of the threshold for the POT method…"', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 May 2019
- AC2: 'Extreme significant wave height of tropical cyclone waves in the South China Sea', Zhuxiao Shao, 04 Jun 2019
RC3: 'Review of nhess-2018-349', Anonymous Referee #3, 06 May 2019
- AC1: 'Extreme significant wave height of tropical cyclone waves in the South China Sea', Zhuxiao Shao, 04 Jun 2019

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (11 Jun 2019) by Piero Lionello

AR by Zhuxiao Shao on behalf of the Authors (12 Jun 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (12 Jun 2019) by Piero Lionello

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (19 Jun 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (20 Jun 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #4 (10 Jul 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The manuscript improved a lot, and now the content of the study, and what the authors did, is much clearer. There are still issues with the English, and I would again suggest the manuscript to be proof read by a motherlanguage. Below a list of minor comments.
pag 1, line 15: substitute excesses with exceedances
pag 3, line 6-7: this method makes the mosto of the samples ...., this sentence is unclear
pag 4, line 1: substitute everywhere maximal with maximum
pag 4, line 3: substutute "some unselected maximale swh" with "some unselected peaks of swh"
pag 4, line 7: substitute everywhere minimal with minimum
pag 4, line 18: substitute "(the acronym is ATSME)" with "(ATSME)"
pag 5, line 8: maximal -> maximum
pag 6, line 3: maximal -> maximum
pag 6, line 15: substitute excess with exceedance
pag 6, line 13: "return significant wave height for the i-year" is very unclear, substitute with "i-year return level of significant wave height", or "i-year return significant wave height".
pag 7, line 6: the first sentence in not entirely clear. Are u1..um the tested thresholds?
pag 7, line 7: substitute "return significant wave height for the i-year" with "i-years return level of significant wave height".
pag 8, line 12: I would suggest to reformulated paragraph 2.2, starting with and explanation of what ATSME is in plain language, and then write in detail the algorithmic processes.
pag 9, line 9: Is it the ERA-INTERIM reanalysis? Then write it and cite the references.
pag 9, line 9: After European Centre for ... add (ECMWF)
pag 9, line 16: the number is 247 to 403, from what do these different numbers come?
pag 11, line 16: the lower bound of the range is constant. Is it meaningful to select a threshold valid for all the return periods?
pag 12, 13, 14: maximal -> maximum
section 5: I understand that the bimodal distribution of Hs is a consequence of the sampling: the values beyond the separation will be, generally, the TC within 300km from the point, the ones below the TC beyond 300km selected for another point (correct?) So, I guess, a correct threshold should be higher than the separation between the 2 modes.
Wouldn't it be simpler to select for a given location just the TC within 300km from that point? Would this remove the bimodal shape and/or have impact on the performance of ATSME?
section 5: In my opinion there is still room for improvement in this section. It should be stated more explicitly, that the bimodal shape of the distribution is a result of the sampling technique, that a correct threshold should be beyond the separation, and that (if) the upper boundary of the ATSME range satisfies this requirement.
pag 18: I would include location 1 in table 2.
pag 18: in table 2 I would also indicate the value of the separation

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (28 Jul 2019) by Piero Lionello

AR by Zhuxiao Shao on behalf of the Authors (02 Aug 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (20 Aug 2019) by Piero Lionello

AR by Zhuxiao Shao on behalf of the Authors (21 Aug 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (23 Aug 2019) by Piero Lionello

AR by Zhuxiao Shao on behalf of the Authors (23 Aug 2019)