Articles | Volume 25, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2007-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
It could have been much worse: spatial counterfactuals of the July 2021 flood in the Ahr Valley, Germany
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 23 Jun 2025)
- Preprint (discussion started on 10 Jun 2024)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-97', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jul 2024
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sergiy Vorogushyn, 31 Oct 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2024-97', Michael Nones, 19 Sep 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sergiy Vorogushyn, 31 Oct 2024
Peer review completion
AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (26 Nov 2024) by Marvin Ravan
AR by Sergiy Vorogushyn on behalf of the Authors (18 Dec 2024)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (20 Dec 2024) by Marvin Ravan
RR by Michael Nones (20 Dec 2024)
RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (11 Mar 2025)
ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (19 Mar 2025) by Marvin Ravan
ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (19 Mar 2025) by Uwe Ulbrich (Executive editor)
AR by Sergiy Vorogushyn on behalf of the Authors (23 Mar 2025)
Author's response
Manuscript
Herein, the authors create a set of 25 counterfactual extreme precipitation events to simulate the catastrophic flooding seen in the Ahr Valley, Germany during July of 2021. Their use of downscaled precipitation data and hydrological modelling showed that small shifts in the trajectory of the storm systems could have resulted in even worse flooding events than what was experienced. This type of analysis shows stakeholders and policy makers how best to be prepared for natural disasters and emerging climate risks.
Overall, I found the paper to be of excellent quality. I had one major comment on the precipitation data used and a few minor comments (see attached). After those are addressed, I am confident this paper will be ready for publication.