|The authors answered and took into account most of my comments. However, there are still remaining questions/corrections.|
A/ Role of neglected processes?
Regarding the seasonal sea level close to 0 for Gloria I suggest the authors to provide this information in the manuscript.
Regarding the tide, tidal range of several tens of centimeters is not negligible when focusing on the flood itself. What was the tidal range for the Gloria event? I can understand one neglect the tide when focusing on nearshore water levels, but I still disagree with the authors when they say that tide is neglected because it is a micro-tidal environment. Indeed, water level changes of more than 10 cm can have a non-negligible effect on the coastal flood, depending on the study site (topography). Even if I understand the argument that the model results are in accordance (qualitative) with the observations for the Ebro Delta flood, I strongly recommend to take into account the tide for the Ebro Delta simulations, or at least to discuss the potential tide contribution to the Ebro Delta flood in the discussion.
B/ Model resolution for the wave setup quantification
Regarding the model resolution of the wave set-up, the authors provide a convincing answer. However, no modification has been done in the manuscript. I think that saying in few words what the authors have explained in their answer would reinforce the confidence in the modeling results. I recommend the authors to do this minor correction.
C/ Regarding my initial comment on the comparison of flood results of the Ebro Delta, the authors did not completely answer to my remark which whose the first part was : “Line 204-214: the comments on the validation/comparison of the model results in terms of flood are not really clear to me. Indeed, when I compare the Copernicus map and the model results, the model seems to provide a larger flooded surface, but predict no flood in one of the N-E area, while there was flood. This this is not clear to me why the authors seem to think that the model underestimates the flood.“ That is why also, initially, I suggested to show the Copernicus map in the manuscript.
D/ In the revised manuscript, the authors introduced SWASH as a non-hydrostatic model. This is true that it is a non-hydrostatic model. However, not all non-hydrostatic models are resolving the individual waves, as is doing SWASH. I suggest referring to SWASH as a phase resolving wave model (in comparison with spectral wave model).