Storm surges and storm wind waves in the Caspian Sea in the present and future climate

Pavlova, Anna; Myslenkov, Stanislav; Arkhipkin, Victor; Surkova, Galina

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244

Preprints

02 Sep 2021

| 02 Sep 2021

Status: this discussion paper is a preprint. It has been under review for the journal Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS). The manuscript was not accepted for further review after discussion.

Storm surges and storm wind waves in the Caspian Sea in the present and future climate

Anna Pavlova, Stanislav Myslenkov, Victor Arkhipkin, and Galina Surkova

Abstract. This study is devoted to the analysis of the storm surges and wind waves in the Caspian Sea for the period from 1979 to 2017–2020. The models used are the circulation model ADCIRC and the wave model WAVEWATCH III with wind and pressure forcing from the NCEP/CFSR reanalysis. The modeling is performed on the unstructured grid with spacing to 300–700 m in the coastal zone. Mean and extreme values of surges, wave parameters, and storm activity are provided.

The maximum significant wave height for the whole period amounts to 8.2 m. The average long-term SWH does not exceed 1.1 m. No significant trend in the storm activity was found.

The maximum surges height amounts to 2.7 m. Analysis of the interannual variability of the surges occurrence showed that 7–10 surges with a height of more than 1 meter were obtained per year and the total duration of all these surges was 20–30 days per year.

Assessment of the risk of coastal flooding was carried out by calculating the extreme values of the Sea for different return periods 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 years. The extreme sea level values in the northern part of the Caspian Sea for the return period 100 years is close to 3 m and the areas with big surges are located along the eastern and western coasts.

Based on climatic scenarios of CMIP5, a forecast is made for the recurrence of storm wind waves in the 21st century. A statistically significant increase of storm waves recurrence in the future was found, but it is not dramatically growing.

Received: 25 Aug 2021 – Discussion started: 02 Sep 2021

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Anna Pavlova, Stanislav Myslenkov, Victor Arkhipkin, and Galina Surkova

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on nhess-2021-244', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Oct 2021

I have read the manuscript entitled “Storm surges and storm wind waves in the Caspian Sea in the present and future climate” from Pavlova et al. with interest. The authors use ADCIRC + SWAN to study the interplay between storm surge, flooding and winds at the Caspian Sea between 1979 and 2020, and validate their results against data from a lake level station. With additional statistical analysis, the authors quantify extreme levels and their associated return periods. The authors also study the wave climate of the area using WAVEWATCH III, and with additional statistical analysis the authors determine the trends associated with significant wave heights.

The topic of the manuscript is interesting and of both societal and scientific interest. However, as written the manuscript is hard to follow and it does not make justice to the amount of work that the authors might have devoted to produce the analysis and the results. I recommend this manuscript is rejected and the authors more carefully motivate their work, describe their methods, and discuss the implications and novelty of their approach. Below I include some comments aimed to improve the quality of the manuscript in a future submission:

Line 9: “from 1979 to 2017-2020” is unclear. The time period should be delimited by two dates, not three.

Line 10: Acronyms in this sentence have not been previously defined.

Line 10-11: …with grid size in the range between 300 and 700m… (if I understand correctly)

Line 12: Acronym not defined.

Line 20: Undefined acronym.

Introduction: Overall I am missing a clear motivation of this work in terms of natural hazards. Are there vulnerable communities along the lake shoreline? What is the level of development? Is the rate of erosion along the lake line high? Are there erosion hotspots? The manuscript seems to be missing a significant body of literature tackling these questions.

Line 29: coastal protection strategies?

Line 39-40: What climatic conditions? What anthropogenic factors? References?

Line 41-42: This sentence seems out of place. Perhaps bring it to line 35 in order to define what anemobaric-surges are at front.

Line 45: Unclear what the authors mean by “covered”

Line 57: Undefined acronyms.

Line 60: Undefined acronym.

Line 86-89: This paragraph would benefit from some specific references on the Caspian Sea.

Data and methods: I suggest the authors consider the possibility of including flowcharts to better describe the inputs and outputs of the models used. Perhaps it will also help reduce the number of equations included in this section, which are already extensively discussed in separate publications.

Line 124: grid spacing is 500 m, but in the abstract 300 m?

Line 154-155: These equations seem distorted.

Line 158: I suggest replacing “the authors of the present paper” by “We”.

Line 165: Undefined acronym.

Line 200: 2.3?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Stanislav Myslenkov, 05 Jan 2022
  
  Thank you very much for your comments.
  You can find our answers below:
  "I have read the manuscript entitled “Storm surges and storm wind waves in the Caspian Sea in the present and future climate” from Pavlova et al. with interest. The authors use ADCIRC + SWAN to study the interplay between storm surge, flooding and winds at the Caspian Sea between 1979 and 2020, and validate their results against data from a lake level station. With additional statistical analysis, the authors quantify extreme levels and their associated return periods. The authors also study the wave climate of the area using WAVEWATCH III, and with additional statistical analysis the authors determine the trends associated with significant wave heights.
  The topic of the manuscript is interesting and of both societal and scientific interest. However, as written the manuscript is hard to follow and it does not make justice to the amount of work that the authors might have devoted to produce the analysis and the results. I recommend this manuscript is rejected and the authors more carefully motivate their work, describe their methods, and discuss the implications and novelty of their approach."
  Answer: Since the proposed work is absolutely new for the Caspian Sea, therefore, the motivation for us was to gain new knowledge. We admit our mistake that we did not describe it in more detail and clearly. For the Caspian Sea, long-term surge analysis based on the ADCIRC model has been performed for the first time. The joint experiment ADCIRC + SWAN was performed for the first time for the Caspian Sea. The analysis of the wave parameters was carried out earlier, but new results were obtained in this work. The analysis of the future climate of storms was carried out for the first time using an original method. We will add motivation and novelty to the text in more detail.
  "Below I include some comments aimed to improve the quality of the manuscript in a future submission:"
  Line 9: “from 1979 to 2017-2020” is unclear. The time period should be delimited by two dates, not three.
  Answer: Storm surges were studied from 1979 to 2017, and wind waves from 1979 to 2020. We will change the period description.
  Line 10: Acronyms in this sentence have not been previously defined.
  Answer: We will carefully define all acronyms throughout the article.
  Line 10-11: …with grid size in the range between 300 and 700m… (if I understand correctly)
  Answer: Yes, this is the grid size range.
  Introduction: Overall I am missing a clear motivation of this work in terms of natural hazards. Are there vulnerable communities along the lake shoreline? What is the level of development? Is the rate of erosion along the lake line high? Are there erosion hotspots? The manuscript seems to be missing a significant body of literature tackling these questions.
  Answer: we will add a small paragraph on this topic. The level of the Caspian Sea has historically changed significantly, so communities have suffered for a long time and many have already changed significantly.
  
  Line 29: coastal protection strategies?
  Answer: coastal protection strategies are created under the government
  Line 39-40: What climatic conditions? What anthropogenic factors? References?
  Answer: We will reformulate this part of the text in more detail.
  Line 41-42: This sentence seems out of place. Perhaps bring it to line 35 in order to define what anemobaric-surges are at front.
  Answer: We will correct the text and make it easier to read.
  Line 45: Unclear what the authors mean by “covered”
  Answer: It means that the research is focused not only along the Volga River, but also throughout the entire territory of the Caspian Sea. We will reformulate these sentences.
  Line 86-89: This paragraph would benefit from some specific references on the Caspian Sea.
  Answer: We will add references to the Caspian Sea.
  Data and methods: I suggest the authors consider the possibility of including flowcharts to better describe the inputs and outputs of the models used. Perhaps it will also help reduce the number of equations included in this section, which are already extensively discussed in separate publications.
  Answer: We will create a table for a more accessible understanding of the differences in model parameters.
  Line 124: grid spacing is 500 m, but in the abstract 300 m?
  Answer: Different models use different grid spacing. We will make it clearer.
  Line 154-155: These equations seem distorted.
  
  Line 158: I suggest replacing “the authors of the present paper” by “We”.
  Answer: We will simplify and replace by 'We'.
  Line 200: 2.3?
  Answer: Thanks for the comment. We will correct this in the text.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on nhess-2021-244', Dominik Paprotny, 01 Nov 2021

The paper presents results of hydrodynamic modelling of storm surges and waves in the Caspian Sea. The paper is interesting as it analyses an area that is rarely studied, and as such would be a good contribution. However, the manuscript is rather poorly prepared. I agree with the assessment of the other reviewer, that it doesn’t reflect the valuable work made by the authors. The text feels very disjointed, especially in the introduction and conclusions, like a loose set of paragraphs rather than a continuous text. It is also badly edited, full of typos and the language is often unclear. Also, the authors reuse their previous work (including many figures) mostly without proper attribution. Certain methodological aspects of the modelling work are also missing. Finally, the validation is limited and presented in an obscured way. My more specific comments are below. I look forward to the authors’ revision.

Data and methods: the crucial aspect missing from the text is a description how the various parameters of the models were chosen. Calibration is not mentioned at all, so are they based on previous studies?

L137: input data for years 2018-2020 are not mentioned.

L188: what threshold which parametric distribution was used for POT?

Results: the result section mixes results, methods and discussion. Text related to methods and discussion should be placed in the proper sections.

L261: the paper doesn’t mention earlier than this line that the model’s setup and validation was published before (Pavlova et al. 2020). This needs to be explicitly highlighted already in the introduction and unnecessary overlaps with that paper should be removed (such as description of the ADCIRC). Additionally, validation for two stations is rather little. Further, the validation results are presented here in a biased way. Only by checking the previous paper the reader will know that Fig. 3 contains scatterplots for 2009 and 2015 for one of the stations only simply because in those years the correlation was the highest of all years and stations.

L378: here, it is not even mentioned that the validation is taken from a previous paper (Myslenkov et al. 2018). It is also not clear why only one location is used for validation and why “visually, the simulation quality may be assessed as satisfactory.” (L382)

L385: what does "34990 points" refer to? Spatial or temporal data points? This needs more description.

L401: 13%? Is that correct?

Section 3.3: very little space is given to future changes, with only one Fig. 18, even though this would be the most interesting and valuable part of the paper.

Discussions and Conclusions: this is section largely condenses the results, without much discussion (which was done in the results section). This section should contain some recommendations for future work as well as information how the information produced in the paper could be used in adaptation to coastal hazards and climate change.

Two figures (1 & 3) are identical as in that earlier paper, and Fig. 4 is a slight modification of two figures from that paper, but this is not mentioned in the caption or paper. This has to be properly attributed. Figs. 2 is also taken without attribution from previous paper (Myslenkov et al. 2018).

The figures vary significantly in size and design, which should be homogenized as much as possible. The quality of the graphs (especially Figs. 3, 4, 15, 17) has to be improved.

Fig. 9: measured where? What is the source of the data?

The text and caption mention Figs. 12a and b, but Fig. 12 contains only one panel – apparently 12b is shown separately as Fig. 18.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Stanislav Myslenkov, 05 Jan 2022
  
  Thank you very much for your comments.
  you will find our answers to the comments below:
  "The paper presents results of hydrodynamic modelling of storm surges and waves in the Caspian Sea. The paper is interesting as it analyses an area that is rarely studied, and as such would be a good contribution. However, the manuscript is rather poorly prepared. I agree with the assessment of the other reviewer, that it doesn’t reflect the valuable work made by the authors. The text feels very disjointed, especially in the introduction and conclusions, like a loose set of paragraphs rather than a continuous text. It is also badly edited, full of typos and the language is often unclear. Also, the authors reuse their previous work (including many figures) mostly without proper attribution. Certain methodological aspects of the modelling work are also missing. Finally, the validation is limited and presented in an obscured way. My more specific comments are below. I look forward to the authors’ revision."
  Answer: Since the proposed work is absolutely new for the Caspian Sea, therefore, the motivation for us was to gain new knowledge. We admit our mistake that we did not describe it in more detail and clearly. We will correct the text and make it easier to read.
  Data and methods: the crucial aspect missing from the text is a description how the various parameters of the models were chosen. Calibration is not mentioned at all, so are they based on previous studies?
  Answer: We will create a table for a more accessible understanding of the differences in model parameters.
  L137: input data for years 2018-2020 are not mentioned.
  Answer: Experiments with storm surges were not carried out from 2018 to 2020. We will make it clearer in the introduction.
  L188: what threshold which parametric distribution was used for POT?
  Answer: We use different threshold from 2 to 5 m. This information you can find in manuscript. POT method do not use parametric distribution
  Results: the result section mixes results, methods and discussion. Text related to methods and discussion should be placed in the proper sections.
  Answer: These sections will be reworked, supplemented and divided more carefully.
  L261: the paper doesn’t mention earlier than this line that the model’s setup and validation was published before (Pavlova et al. 2020). This needs to be explicitly highlighted already in the introduction and unnecessary overlaps with that paper should be removed (such as description of the ADCIRC). Additionally, validation for two stations is rather little. Further, the validation results are presented here in a biased way. Only by checking the previous paper the reader will know that Fig. 3 contains scatterplots for 2009 and 2015 for one of the stations only simply because in those years the correlation was the highest of all years and stations.
  Answer: Thanks for the comment. In the introduction, we will describe our previous results from Pavlova (2020). We don’t have data for more stations but we will try to find it.
  L378: here, it is not even mentioned that the validation is taken from a previous paper (Myslenkov et al. 2018). It is also not clear why only one location is used for validation and why “visually, the simulation quality may be assessed as satisfactory.” (L382)
  Answer: We used one point with direct wave measurements, because we have no other dimensions. Then we use AltiKa altimeter data (rads.tudelft.nl). The significant wave height (SWH) at 34 990 points for the period of 2013 to 2016.
  L385: what does "34990 points" refer to? Spatial or temporal data points? This needs more description.
  Answer: this is the total data for the whole sea for the period from 2013 to 2016 . We will clarify it in the text.
  L401: 13%? Is that correct?
  Answer: the SWH (4*Square root(m₀, where m₀ is the zero-order moment of the wave spectrum, approximately SWH is the mean value from 1/3 of the highest waves or approximately 13% probability of exceedance
  Section 3.3: very little space is given to future changes, with only one Fig. 18, even though this would be the most interesting and valuable part of the paper.
  Answer: We will provide a more extensive description of the results for future changes.
  Discussions and Conclusions: this is section largely condenses the results, without much discussion (which was done in the results section). This section should contain some recommendations for future work as well as information how the information produced in the paper could be used in adaptation to coastal hazards and climate change.
  Answer: We will rewrite the Conclusion and Discussion sections more carefully and add some recommendations.
  Two figures (1 & 3) are identical as in that earlier paper, and Fig. 4 is a slight modification of two figures from that paper, but this is not mentioned in the caption or paper. This has to be properly attributed. Figs. 2 is also taken without attribution from previous paper (Myslenkov et al. 2018).
  Answer: We will add the correct links to the figures.
  The figures vary significantly in size and design, which should be homogenized as much as possible. The quality of the graphs (especially Figs. 3, 4, 15, 17) has to be improved.
  Answer: We will homogenize and improve the quality of the graphs.
  Fig. 9: measured where? What is the source of the data?
  Answer:We will provide a link to the data source and the name of the station.
  The text and caption mention Figs. 12a and b, but Fig. 12 contains only one panel – apparently 12b is shown separately as Fig. 18.
  Answer: Figure 12 contains two panels. But we will clarify this point.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244-AC2
RC3:
'Referee comment on nhess-2021-244', Anonymous Referee #3, 17 Nov 2021

Please see the attached file to access the comments

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244-RC3
- AC3:
  'Reply on RC3', Stanislav Myslenkov, 05 Jan 2022
  Thank you very much for your comments.
  you can find our responses to comments below:
  
  "General comments and recommendation:
  This paper aims at investigating storm surges and wind waves in the Caspian Sea over the last decades. It is based on a circulation model (ADCIRC) that can be coupled to a wave model (WAVEWATCH III and potentially another one named SWAN that is only briefly described). This article is scientifically well constructed and well presented. After the introduction, a description of the model and methods is included before the description of the results. More details could be included concerning the observational datasets used for model validation. The results and the discussion are sometimes merged in the same section. It could be clearer to separate the discussion from the results in another section. Interesting results are shown, with a quantification of the storm and wave intensities, their means, extreme values (including return periods) and potential trends. The results are innovative and merit publication. The manuscript should be rewritten with a strong attention to the grammatical form that limits the comprehension of the text. For more clarity, I would also recommend the use of tables to show the numbers directly included in the text, otherwise the text appears loaded with many numbers. The figure captions often lack information. Two other points need to be considered before publication: Figure 1 and 3 appear in a previous paper (Pavlova et al., 2020), with some text directly picked up from this publication. I would suggest summarizing the part common to this article already published. Second, the future prediction of storms based on CMIP5 only consider the storm changes related to changes of weather regimes frequency, in other words the dynamical changes related to atmospheric circulation. What about the thermodynamical changes impact on the storms? In other words, would it be possible to get stronger storms with the same frequency of weather type in a warmer climate? Maybe this question cannot be answered in this article, because it would require the use of a model chain using CMIP model output to force ADCIRC and WAVEWATCH in future projections, a work that has not been performed here if I understand well. Anyway, this should be discussed in the article.
  After considering these general recommendations and the points presented below, a work that corresponds to major revisions, this article could be published in the journal."
  Answer: The data and methods section will be supplemented and revised. Results and discussion will be split more neatly and tables of results will be added. In the introduction, we will describe our previous results from Pavlovа et al. (2020)
  We can say that launching marine models with CMIP5 climate projections is real, and even under different scenarios. The IPCC report from 2013 states that the thermodynamics of seawater with changes in air and water temperature will change (stratification of seawater, vertical mixing, currents, their intensity)
  IPCC (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change / Edited by T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P. M. Midgley. - Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA. 2013.1535 p.
  The same is confirmed in the forthcoming IPCC report for 2022. AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2022
  https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/
  CMIP wind analysis has a 6-hour time step at best, which is not very good for simulating waves and surges, peaks are not captured there by the wind. Therefore, we chose the option with an indirect relationship between the frequency of storms and winds. But we can try direct calculations, perhaps in the future we will try to do this. In terms of thermodynamics, this means climate warming. The water temperature itself does not really affect the waves, only the wind speed. The question is very difficult whether there is a connection between an increase in air temperature and an increase in wind, climatologists believe that the climate will become more extreme with warming, but we have no concrete evidence in this work.
  Point-by point list of comments:
  Abstract:
  12: SWH should be defined, for example in parenthesis after writing the corresponding words.
  
  Answer: We will define all acronyms.
  Introduction:
  33: maximum depth to -> maximum depth of?
  
  Answer: We will correct the mistake.
  38: please reformulate
  
  Answer: We will simplify and reformulate the sentence.
  40 -> overlap other anthropogenic factors, knowing that the change of climate conditions is also attributable to anthropogenic factors.
  
  Answer: That is right.
  49: you could specify that circulation model reefer to ocean circulation model here, and not to atmospheric models.
  
  Answer: Thank you, we will specify this in the text.
  55: The paper (Lopatuhin et al., 2003) -> unusual formulation
  
  Answer:We will reformulate the text.
  65: (Kudryavtseva et al., 2016) -> it is not needed to include this reference that is already used at the beginning of the sentence.
  
  Answer: We will remove duplicates.
  67-68: this sentence should be reformulated.
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  69-77: What is the limitation when using coarse gridded atmospheric data to force ocean and wave models? Is it possible to simulate wave with coarse gridded data, or is a downscaling approach is required beforhand? More discussion about the model resolution would be welcomed.
  
  Answer: Yes, we are doing linear interpolation of the rough wind to more detailed wave simulations and level simulations. To estimate the maximum wind waves - they are observed with the wind to the shore, that is, a rough description of the wind in the open sea is not so important a very detailed wind resolution of 20 km is normal. It's the same for extreme surges. For narrow bays less than 20 km wide with winds from the shore or along the shore, wind downscaling is needed, but this is a separate challenge, WRF must be used.
  81: “The papers (Rusu and Onea, 2013)” could be replaced simply by “Rusu and Onea (2013)”.
  
  Overall, the word «paper» is a bit familiar whereas the use of study or article is more common.
  Answer: We will correct this and use 'article' or 'study'.
  93: «mean and extreme parameters» or «mean and extreme variables used to describe wind waves»?
  
  Answer: Yes, We will correct this
  
  Data and methods:
  104: the use [of] the unstructured grids
  
  Answer: We will correct this
  139: GEN3 and KOMEN configurations with their parameters (cds, stpm, ect..) are not necessarily know by the reader. These should be explained in details, in the manuscript or in the supplement, or the text should be simplified excluding acronyms that cannot be understood by people that are not expert in these models.
  
  Answer: We will simplify and reformulate the sentences.
  158 to169: the acronyms (e.g. ST6, IC0, JONSWAP, etc…) should be detailed or excluded. Another way to describe the model configurations would be to use a Table summarizing parameters, schemes, etc…
  
  Answer:We will define all acronyms.
  208: to investigating -> to investigate
  
  Answer:We will correct this.
  225: For these days sea level pressure -> For these days, the sea level pressure
  
  Answer: We will correct this.
  251 to 257: a table could be used to show the model considered in the study. More information related to these models could be shown, including the resolution for example. Is a spatial interpolation on a common grid is applied before the clustering analysis?
  
  Answer: We will create a table for a more accessible understanding of the differences in models.
  Results and discussion
  Where are the weather stations Tuleniy Island and Makhachkala? their location could be shown on a map or at least their geographical coordinates should be given. The station measurements sampled at these locations should be described.
  
  Answer: We will show the location of the stations on a map and describe the measurement data in more detail.
  Why only the years 2009 and 2015 are considered, and only for one of the station? Why not showing a scatter plots including all the years? The two correlation coefficients shown in Figure 3 are 0.87 and 0.88, so we do not understand were do come from the 0.79 in the text. Scatter plots for the Makhachkala station could be also shown.
  
  Answer: We will show scatter plots for all years at both stations.
  Figure 1 and Figure 3 are already used in a previous publication (Pavlova et al., 2020), so this new article could be shortened with a reference to this previous article. Figure 1 might be reused because it shows the domain, but the evaluation shown in Figure 3 is exactly the same as the previous article, so the authors might consider excluding it from this new publication.
  
  Answer: We will keep Figure 1 and remake Figure 3 for all years.
  How can we explain that the Figure 7 in Pavlova et al. (2020) show a 0.2 shift in the observation of the sea level as compared to those shown in Figure 4 of this new article?
  
  Answer: In this new article, experiments with ADCIRC + SWAN were carried out separately for this case of surge occurrence, thus the average monthly reference level was taken in the experiments. In Pavlova et al. (2020), a conditionally average annual initial reference level was taken in the experiments. Due to the difference in the initial levels and the subsequent processing of the data in the case of annual experiments, a shift occurred.
  283: it could be interesting to highlight the location of the Volga river in Figure 5.
  
  Answer: It's a good idea, we will add the Volga river to the figures.
  L 293: the sentence need to be reformulated.
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  305: please, reformulate the sentence (grammatical construction)
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  302 to 308: the sensivity experiments used to differentiate the contribution of wind and pressure changes to sea level change should be detailed (maybe with a table), including information like the experiment lengths (several years? Full period, one event?) as well as the complete protocol.
  
  Answer: We will revise this part of the text and make it more detailed and visual.
  321: 1 point -> point 1
  
  Answer: We will apply this change in the whole manuscript.
  335: I would replace climate change by climate variability here, since this statement is verified both for long-term changes and variability at higher frequency.
  
  Answer: We will correct this.
  340: from 12 to 41 in the east (Fig.8) -> At point 6, the blue and green curves go below 5, isn‘t it?; « In the north, the values do not exceed 26. In case of surges of more than 1 meter, the maximum number of surges of up to 15 cases per year » -> It is not clear, which point are considered here?
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence and make it more clearly.
  343: the discussion on intra-annual variability should be based on numbers, included in the text or preferably included in a Figure or a Table.
  
  Answer: We will provide a more detailed discussion of the intra-annual variability.
  Page 9: A table describing the mean numbers of surges of different magnitude (>0.5, >1, >2) for the different points, including variability, seasonal contrast and maximum/minimum values would be helpful in this manuscript.
  Answer: We will create a table to describe the results more clearly.
  Page 9: when including the Gumbel law for the distribution, the variable V should be defined as the parameters A and B. Same remark for “T” “m’” and « где N » that need to be explained when giving in the relationship between the period of the frequency and the number of values.
  Answer: We will define all parameters.
  Page 9 and 10: The equations should be numbered as previously.
  The equation considered to build the curves in Figure 10 should be mentioned in the text and maybe in the caption.
  Answer: All equations for building 10 and 11 plots are mentioned. We will number the equations and link to them below in the text.
  372: on the west – 2.6 m -> on the west + 2.6 m, isn’t it?
  
  Answer: This is a dash. We will correct this.
  Figure 11: is the Gumbel law has been also used to build these maps?
  Answer: Both figures 10 and 11 were plotted according to Gumbel law.
  391: please reformulate the sentence.
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  409-410: “In our results, we have a maximum value of SWH 8.2 m, which can be transformed to 10.8 m of 3% probability of exceedance. » -> How is get this result?
  
  Answer: The wave heights of 1% and 3% probability of exceedance were calculated as 1.51 * SWH and 1.32*SWH, respectively. We will add some comments to the manuscript.
  
  L435: « the significant linear trend » -> how is estimated the level of significance?
  Answer: The significance of trends was assessed by the F-test. The F-statistic is the standard significance test of the linear model. We will add some comments to the manuscript.
  454: « Fig.16) » -> (Fig.16)
  
  Answer: We will correct this.
  456-457: This statement is not clear.
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  460: In he present climate -> In the present climate : I suppose that this reefer to 1961-1990? That’s not clear.
  
  Answer: We will correct and clarify the sentence.
  460-462: this statement is not clear.
  
  Answer: We will clarify the sentence.
  Conclusion:
  476-477: please reformulate the sentence.
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  487: “The number of storms with the SWH ≥ 3 m » -> for more clarity, you could write “the annual number of storms…”
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  507: SWH o about 8.9 m -> SWH of about 8.9 m
  
  Answer: We will correct this.
  L 510: overestimates of the SWH.
  Answer: We will correct this.
  Data availability: following the FAIR protocol, the data should be available on an open platform, without the need to contact the authors.
  Answer: At the moment, the data is on a closed server, but in the future we plan to transfer it to an open server.
  References: please homogenise the format of the references
  Answer: We will correct and homogenize all references.
  Figures: all the Figures are well presented, but the figure captions should include more explicit details about the data and the methods used to build the curves and maps.
  Answer: We will add details to the figure captions.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244-AC3

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on nhess-2021-244', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Oct 2021

I have read the manuscript entitled “Storm surges and storm wind waves in the Caspian Sea in the present and future climate” from Pavlova et al. with interest. The authors use ADCIRC + SWAN to study the interplay between storm surge, flooding and winds at the Caspian Sea between 1979 and 2020, and validate their results against data from a lake level station. With additional statistical analysis, the authors quantify extreme levels and their associated return periods. The authors also study the wave climate of the area using WAVEWATCH III, and with additional statistical analysis the authors determine the trends associated with significant wave heights.

The topic of the manuscript is interesting and of both societal and scientific interest. However, as written the manuscript is hard to follow and it does not make justice to the amount of work that the authors might have devoted to produce the analysis and the results. I recommend this manuscript is rejected and the authors more carefully motivate their work, describe their methods, and discuss the implications and novelty of their approach. Below I include some comments aimed to improve the quality of the manuscript in a future submission:

Line 9: “from 1979 to 2017-2020” is unclear. The time period should be delimited by two dates, not three.

Line 10: Acronyms in this sentence have not been previously defined.

Line 10-11: …with grid size in the range between 300 and 700m… (if I understand correctly)

Line 12: Acronym not defined.

Line 20: Undefined acronym.

Introduction: Overall I am missing a clear motivation of this work in terms of natural hazards. Are there vulnerable communities along the lake shoreline? What is the level of development? Is the rate of erosion along the lake line high? Are there erosion hotspots? The manuscript seems to be missing a significant body of literature tackling these questions.

Line 29: coastal protection strategies?

Line 39-40: What climatic conditions? What anthropogenic factors? References?

Line 41-42: This sentence seems out of place. Perhaps bring it to line 35 in order to define what anemobaric-surges are at front.

Line 45: Unclear what the authors mean by “covered”

Line 57: Undefined acronyms.

Line 60: Undefined acronym.

Line 86-89: This paragraph would benefit from some specific references on the Caspian Sea.

Data and methods: I suggest the authors consider the possibility of including flowcharts to better describe the inputs and outputs of the models used. Perhaps it will also help reduce the number of equations included in this section, which are already extensively discussed in separate publications.

Line 124: grid spacing is 500 m, but in the abstract 300 m?

Line 154-155: These equations seem distorted.

Line 158: I suggest replacing “the authors of the present paper” by “We”.

Line 165: Undefined acronym.

Line 200: 2.3?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Stanislav Myslenkov, 05 Jan 2022
  
  Thank you very much for your comments.
  You can find our answers below:
  "I have read the manuscript entitled “Storm surges and storm wind waves in the Caspian Sea in the present and future climate” from Pavlova et al. with interest. The authors use ADCIRC + SWAN to study the interplay between storm surge, flooding and winds at the Caspian Sea between 1979 and 2020, and validate their results against data from a lake level station. With additional statistical analysis, the authors quantify extreme levels and their associated return periods. The authors also study the wave climate of the area using WAVEWATCH III, and with additional statistical analysis the authors determine the trends associated with significant wave heights.
  The topic of the manuscript is interesting and of both societal and scientific interest. However, as written the manuscript is hard to follow and it does not make justice to the amount of work that the authors might have devoted to produce the analysis and the results. I recommend this manuscript is rejected and the authors more carefully motivate their work, describe their methods, and discuss the implications and novelty of their approach."
  Answer: Since the proposed work is absolutely new for the Caspian Sea, therefore, the motivation for us was to gain new knowledge. We admit our mistake that we did not describe it in more detail and clearly. For the Caspian Sea, long-term surge analysis based on the ADCIRC model has been performed for the first time. The joint experiment ADCIRC + SWAN was performed for the first time for the Caspian Sea. The analysis of the wave parameters was carried out earlier, but new results were obtained in this work. The analysis of the future climate of storms was carried out for the first time using an original method. We will add motivation and novelty to the text in more detail.
  "Below I include some comments aimed to improve the quality of the manuscript in a future submission:"
  Line 9: “from 1979 to 2017-2020” is unclear. The time period should be delimited by two dates, not three.
  Answer: Storm surges were studied from 1979 to 2017, and wind waves from 1979 to 2020. We will change the period description.
  Line 10: Acronyms in this sentence have not been previously defined.
  Answer: We will carefully define all acronyms throughout the article.
  Line 10-11: …with grid size in the range between 300 and 700m… (if I understand correctly)
  Answer: Yes, this is the grid size range.
  Introduction: Overall I am missing a clear motivation of this work in terms of natural hazards. Are there vulnerable communities along the lake shoreline? What is the level of development? Is the rate of erosion along the lake line high? Are there erosion hotspots? The manuscript seems to be missing a significant body of literature tackling these questions.
  Answer: we will add a small paragraph on this topic. The level of the Caspian Sea has historically changed significantly, so communities have suffered for a long time and many have already changed significantly.
  
  Line 29: coastal protection strategies?
  Answer: coastal protection strategies are created under the government
  Line 39-40: What climatic conditions? What anthropogenic factors? References?
  Answer: We will reformulate this part of the text in more detail.
  Line 41-42: This sentence seems out of place. Perhaps bring it to line 35 in order to define what anemobaric-surges are at front.
  Answer: We will correct the text and make it easier to read.
  Line 45: Unclear what the authors mean by “covered”
  Answer: It means that the research is focused not only along the Volga River, but also throughout the entire territory of the Caspian Sea. We will reformulate these sentences.
  Line 86-89: This paragraph would benefit from some specific references on the Caspian Sea.
  Answer: We will add references to the Caspian Sea.
  Data and methods: I suggest the authors consider the possibility of including flowcharts to better describe the inputs and outputs of the models used. Perhaps it will also help reduce the number of equations included in this section, which are already extensively discussed in separate publications.
  Answer: We will create a table for a more accessible understanding of the differences in model parameters.
  Line 124: grid spacing is 500 m, but in the abstract 300 m?
  Answer: Different models use different grid spacing. We will make it clearer.
  Line 154-155: These equations seem distorted.
  
  Line 158: I suggest replacing “the authors of the present paper” by “We”.
  Answer: We will simplify and replace by 'We'.
  Line 200: 2.3?
  Answer: Thanks for the comment. We will correct this in the text.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on nhess-2021-244', Dominik Paprotny, 01 Nov 2021

The paper presents results of hydrodynamic modelling of storm surges and waves in the Caspian Sea. The paper is interesting as it analyses an area that is rarely studied, and as such would be a good contribution. However, the manuscript is rather poorly prepared. I agree with the assessment of the other reviewer, that it doesn’t reflect the valuable work made by the authors. The text feels very disjointed, especially in the introduction and conclusions, like a loose set of paragraphs rather than a continuous text. It is also badly edited, full of typos and the language is often unclear. Also, the authors reuse their previous work (including many figures) mostly without proper attribution. Certain methodological aspects of the modelling work are also missing. Finally, the validation is limited and presented in an obscured way. My more specific comments are below. I look forward to the authors’ revision.

Data and methods: the crucial aspect missing from the text is a description how the various parameters of the models were chosen. Calibration is not mentioned at all, so are they based on previous studies?

L137: input data for years 2018-2020 are not mentioned.

L188: what threshold which parametric distribution was used for POT?

Results: the result section mixes results, methods and discussion. Text related to methods and discussion should be placed in the proper sections.

L261: the paper doesn’t mention earlier than this line that the model’s setup and validation was published before (Pavlova et al. 2020). This needs to be explicitly highlighted already in the introduction and unnecessary overlaps with that paper should be removed (such as description of the ADCIRC). Additionally, validation for two stations is rather little. Further, the validation results are presented here in a biased way. Only by checking the previous paper the reader will know that Fig. 3 contains scatterplots for 2009 and 2015 for one of the stations only simply because in those years the correlation was the highest of all years and stations.

L378: here, it is not even mentioned that the validation is taken from a previous paper (Myslenkov et al. 2018). It is also not clear why only one location is used for validation and why “visually, the simulation quality may be assessed as satisfactory.” (L382)

L385: what does "34990 points" refer to? Spatial or temporal data points? This needs more description.

L401: 13%? Is that correct?

Section 3.3: very little space is given to future changes, with only one Fig. 18, even though this would be the most interesting and valuable part of the paper.

Discussions and Conclusions: this is section largely condenses the results, without much discussion (which was done in the results section). This section should contain some recommendations for future work as well as information how the information produced in the paper could be used in adaptation to coastal hazards and climate change.

Two figures (1 & 3) are identical as in that earlier paper, and Fig. 4 is a slight modification of two figures from that paper, but this is not mentioned in the caption or paper. This has to be properly attributed. Figs. 2 is also taken without attribution from previous paper (Myslenkov et al. 2018).

The figures vary significantly in size and design, which should be homogenized as much as possible. The quality of the graphs (especially Figs. 3, 4, 15, 17) has to be improved.

Fig. 9: measured where? What is the source of the data?

The text and caption mention Figs. 12a and b, but Fig. 12 contains only one panel – apparently 12b is shown separately as Fig. 18.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Stanislav Myslenkov, 05 Jan 2022
  
  Thank you very much for your comments.
  you will find our answers to the comments below:
  "The paper presents results of hydrodynamic modelling of storm surges and waves in the Caspian Sea. The paper is interesting as it analyses an area that is rarely studied, and as such would be a good contribution. However, the manuscript is rather poorly prepared. I agree with the assessment of the other reviewer, that it doesn’t reflect the valuable work made by the authors. The text feels very disjointed, especially in the introduction and conclusions, like a loose set of paragraphs rather than a continuous text. It is also badly edited, full of typos and the language is often unclear. Also, the authors reuse their previous work (including many figures) mostly without proper attribution. Certain methodological aspects of the modelling work are also missing. Finally, the validation is limited and presented in an obscured way. My more specific comments are below. I look forward to the authors’ revision."
  Answer: Since the proposed work is absolutely new for the Caspian Sea, therefore, the motivation for us was to gain new knowledge. We admit our mistake that we did not describe it in more detail and clearly. We will correct the text and make it easier to read.
  Data and methods: the crucial aspect missing from the text is a description how the various parameters of the models were chosen. Calibration is not mentioned at all, so are they based on previous studies?
  Answer: We will create a table for a more accessible understanding of the differences in model parameters.
  L137: input data for years 2018-2020 are not mentioned.
  Answer: Experiments with storm surges were not carried out from 2018 to 2020. We will make it clearer in the introduction.
  L188: what threshold which parametric distribution was used for POT?
  Answer: We use different threshold from 2 to 5 m. This information you can find in manuscript. POT method do not use parametric distribution
  Results: the result section mixes results, methods and discussion. Text related to methods and discussion should be placed in the proper sections.
  Answer: These sections will be reworked, supplemented and divided more carefully.
  L261: the paper doesn’t mention earlier than this line that the model’s setup and validation was published before (Pavlova et al. 2020). This needs to be explicitly highlighted already in the introduction and unnecessary overlaps with that paper should be removed (such as description of the ADCIRC). Additionally, validation for two stations is rather little. Further, the validation results are presented here in a biased way. Only by checking the previous paper the reader will know that Fig. 3 contains scatterplots for 2009 and 2015 for one of the stations only simply because in those years the correlation was the highest of all years and stations.
  Answer: Thanks for the comment. In the introduction, we will describe our previous results from Pavlova (2020). We don’t have data for more stations but we will try to find it.
  L378: here, it is not even mentioned that the validation is taken from a previous paper (Myslenkov et al. 2018). It is also not clear why only one location is used for validation and why “visually, the simulation quality may be assessed as satisfactory.” (L382)
  Answer: We used one point with direct wave measurements, because we have no other dimensions. Then we use AltiKa altimeter data (rads.tudelft.nl). The significant wave height (SWH) at 34 990 points for the period of 2013 to 2016.
  L385: what does "34990 points" refer to? Spatial or temporal data points? This needs more description.
  Answer: this is the total data for the whole sea for the period from 2013 to 2016 . We will clarify it in the text.
  L401: 13%? Is that correct?
  Answer: the SWH (4*Square root(m₀, where m₀ is the zero-order moment of the wave spectrum, approximately SWH is the mean value from 1/3 of the highest waves or approximately 13% probability of exceedance
  Section 3.3: very little space is given to future changes, with only one Fig. 18, even though this would be the most interesting and valuable part of the paper.
  Answer: We will provide a more extensive description of the results for future changes.
  Discussions and Conclusions: this is section largely condenses the results, without much discussion (which was done in the results section). This section should contain some recommendations for future work as well as information how the information produced in the paper could be used in adaptation to coastal hazards and climate change.
  Answer: We will rewrite the Conclusion and Discussion sections more carefully and add some recommendations.
  Two figures (1 & 3) are identical as in that earlier paper, and Fig. 4 is a slight modification of two figures from that paper, but this is not mentioned in the caption or paper. This has to be properly attributed. Figs. 2 is also taken without attribution from previous paper (Myslenkov et al. 2018).
  Answer: We will add the correct links to the figures.
  The figures vary significantly in size and design, which should be homogenized as much as possible. The quality of the graphs (especially Figs. 3, 4, 15, 17) has to be improved.
  Answer: We will homogenize and improve the quality of the graphs.
  Fig. 9: measured where? What is the source of the data?
  Answer:We will provide a link to the data source and the name of the station.
  The text and caption mention Figs. 12a and b, but Fig. 12 contains only one panel – apparently 12b is shown separately as Fig. 18.
  Answer: Figure 12 contains two panels. But we will clarify this point.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244-AC2
RC3:
'Referee comment on nhess-2021-244', Anonymous Referee #3, 17 Nov 2021

Please see the attached file to access the comments

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244-RC3
- AC3:
  'Reply on RC3', Stanislav Myslenkov, 05 Jan 2022
  Thank you very much for your comments.
  you can find our responses to comments below:
  
  "General comments and recommendation:
  This paper aims at investigating storm surges and wind waves in the Caspian Sea over the last decades. It is based on a circulation model (ADCIRC) that can be coupled to a wave model (WAVEWATCH III and potentially another one named SWAN that is only briefly described). This article is scientifically well constructed and well presented. After the introduction, a description of the model and methods is included before the description of the results. More details could be included concerning the observational datasets used for model validation. The results and the discussion are sometimes merged in the same section. It could be clearer to separate the discussion from the results in another section. Interesting results are shown, with a quantification of the storm and wave intensities, their means, extreme values (including return periods) and potential trends. The results are innovative and merit publication. The manuscript should be rewritten with a strong attention to the grammatical form that limits the comprehension of the text. For more clarity, I would also recommend the use of tables to show the numbers directly included in the text, otherwise the text appears loaded with many numbers. The figure captions often lack information. Two other points need to be considered before publication: Figure 1 and 3 appear in a previous paper (Pavlova et al., 2020), with some text directly picked up from this publication. I would suggest summarizing the part common to this article already published. Second, the future prediction of storms based on CMIP5 only consider the storm changes related to changes of weather regimes frequency, in other words the dynamical changes related to atmospheric circulation. What about the thermodynamical changes impact on the storms? In other words, would it be possible to get stronger storms with the same frequency of weather type in a warmer climate? Maybe this question cannot be answered in this article, because it would require the use of a model chain using CMIP model output to force ADCIRC and WAVEWATCH in future projections, a work that has not been performed here if I understand well. Anyway, this should be discussed in the article.
  After considering these general recommendations and the points presented below, a work that corresponds to major revisions, this article could be published in the journal."
  Answer: The data and methods section will be supplemented and revised. Results and discussion will be split more neatly and tables of results will be added. In the introduction, we will describe our previous results from Pavlovа et al. (2020)
  We can say that launching marine models with CMIP5 climate projections is real, and even under different scenarios. The IPCC report from 2013 states that the thermodynamics of seawater with changes in air and water temperature will change (stratification of seawater, vertical mixing, currents, their intensity)
  IPCC (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change / Edited by T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P. M. Midgley. - Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA. 2013.1535 p.
  The same is confirmed in the forthcoming IPCC report for 2022. AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2022
  https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/
  CMIP wind analysis has a 6-hour time step at best, which is not very good for simulating waves and surges, peaks are not captured there by the wind. Therefore, we chose the option with an indirect relationship between the frequency of storms and winds. But we can try direct calculations, perhaps in the future we will try to do this. In terms of thermodynamics, this means climate warming. The water temperature itself does not really affect the waves, only the wind speed. The question is very difficult whether there is a connection between an increase in air temperature and an increase in wind, climatologists believe that the climate will become more extreme with warming, but we have no concrete evidence in this work.
  Point-by point list of comments:
  Abstract:
  12: SWH should be defined, for example in parenthesis after writing the corresponding words.
  
  Answer: We will define all acronyms.
  Introduction:
  33: maximum depth to -> maximum depth of?
  
  Answer: We will correct the mistake.
  38: please reformulate
  
  Answer: We will simplify and reformulate the sentence.
  40 -> overlap other anthropogenic factors, knowing that the change of climate conditions is also attributable to anthropogenic factors.
  
  Answer: That is right.
  49: you could specify that circulation model reefer to ocean circulation model here, and not to atmospheric models.
  
  Answer: Thank you, we will specify this in the text.
  55: The paper (Lopatuhin et al., 2003) -> unusual formulation
  
  Answer:We will reformulate the text.
  65: (Kudryavtseva et al., 2016) -> it is not needed to include this reference that is already used at the beginning of the sentence.
  
  Answer: We will remove duplicates.
  67-68: this sentence should be reformulated.
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  69-77: What is the limitation when using coarse gridded atmospheric data to force ocean and wave models? Is it possible to simulate wave with coarse gridded data, or is a downscaling approach is required beforhand? More discussion about the model resolution would be welcomed.
  
  Answer: Yes, we are doing linear interpolation of the rough wind to more detailed wave simulations and level simulations. To estimate the maximum wind waves - they are observed with the wind to the shore, that is, a rough description of the wind in the open sea is not so important a very detailed wind resolution of 20 km is normal. It's the same for extreme surges. For narrow bays less than 20 km wide with winds from the shore or along the shore, wind downscaling is needed, but this is a separate challenge, WRF must be used.
  81: “The papers (Rusu and Onea, 2013)” could be replaced simply by “Rusu and Onea (2013)”.
  
  Overall, the word «paper» is a bit familiar whereas the use of study or article is more common.
  Answer: We will correct this and use 'article' or 'study'.
  93: «mean and extreme parameters» or «mean and extreme variables used to describe wind waves»?
  
  Answer: Yes, We will correct this
  
  Data and methods:
  104: the use [of] the unstructured grids
  
  Answer: We will correct this
  139: GEN3 and KOMEN configurations with their parameters (cds, stpm, ect..) are not necessarily know by the reader. These should be explained in details, in the manuscript or in the supplement, or the text should be simplified excluding acronyms that cannot be understood by people that are not expert in these models.
  
  Answer: We will simplify and reformulate the sentences.
  158 to169: the acronyms (e.g. ST6, IC0, JONSWAP, etc…) should be detailed or excluded. Another way to describe the model configurations would be to use a Table summarizing parameters, schemes, etc…
  
  Answer:We will define all acronyms.
  208: to investigating -> to investigate
  
  Answer:We will correct this.
  225: For these days sea level pressure -> For these days, the sea level pressure
  
  Answer: We will correct this.
  251 to 257: a table could be used to show the model considered in the study. More information related to these models could be shown, including the resolution for example. Is a spatial interpolation on a common grid is applied before the clustering analysis?
  
  Answer: We will create a table for a more accessible understanding of the differences in models.
  Results and discussion
  Where are the weather stations Tuleniy Island and Makhachkala? their location could be shown on a map or at least their geographical coordinates should be given. The station measurements sampled at these locations should be described.
  
  Answer: We will show the location of the stations on a map and describe the measurement data in more detail.
  Why only the years 2009 and 2015 are considered, and only for one of the station? Why not showing a scatter plots including all the years? The two correlation coefficients shown in Figure 3 are 0.87 and 0.88, so we do not understand were do come from the 0.79 in the text. Scatter plots for the Makhachkala station could be also shown.
  
  Answer: We will show scatter plots for all years at both stations.
  Figure 1 and Figure 3 are already used in a previous publication (Pavlova et al., 2020), so this new article could be shortened with a reference to this previous article. Figure 1 might be reused because it shows the domain, but the evaluation shown in Figure 3 is exactly the same as the previous article, so the authors might consider excluding it from this new publication.
  
  Answer: We will keep Figure 1 and remake Figure 3 for all years.
  How can we explain that the Figure 7 in Pavlova et al. (2020) show a 0.2 shift in the observation of the sea level as compared to those shown in Figure 4 of this new article?
  
  Answer: In this new article, experiments with ADCIRC + SWAN were carried out separately for this case of surge occurrence, thus the average monthly reference level was taken in the experiments. In Pavlova et al. (2020), a conditionally average annual initial reference level was taken in the experiments. Due to the difference in the initial levels and the subsequent processing of the data in the case of annual experiments, a shift occurred.
  283: it could be interesting to highlight the location of the Volga river in Figure 5.
  
  Answer: It's a good idea, we will add the Volga river to the figures.
  L 293: the sentence need to be reformulated.
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  305: please, reformulate the sentence (grammatical construction)
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  302 to 308: the sensivity experiments used to differentiate the contribution of wind and pressure changes to sea level change should be detailed (maybe with a table), including information like the experiment lengths (several years? Full period, one event?) as well as the complete protocol.
  
  Answer: We will revise this part of the text and make it more detailed and visual.
  321: 1 point -> point 1
  
  Answer: We will apply this change in the whole manuscript.
  335: I would replace climate change by climate variability here, since this statement is verified both for long-term changes and variability at higher frequency.
  
  Answer: We will correct this.
  340: from 12 to 41 in the east (Fig.8) -> At point 6, the blue and green curves go below 5, isn‘t it?; « In the north, the values do not exceed 26. In case of surges of more than 1 meter, the maximum number of surges of up to 15 cases per year » -> It is not clear, which point are considered here?
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence and make it more clearly.
  343: the discussion on intra-annual variability should be based on numbers, included in the text or preferably included in a Figure or a Table.
  
  Answer: We will provide a more detailed discussion of the intra-annual variability.
  Page 9: A table describing the mean numbers of surges of different magnitude (>0.5, >1, >2) for the different points, including variability, seasonal contrast and maximum/minimum values would be helpful in this manuscript.
  Answer: We will create a table to describe the results more clearly.
  Page 9: when including the Gumbel law for the distribution, the variable V should be defined as the parameters A and B. Same remark for “T” “m’” and « где N » that need to be explained when giving in the relationship between the period of the frequency and the number of values.
  Answer: We will define all parameters.
  Page 9 and 10: The equations should be numbered as previously.
  The equation considered to build the curves in Figure 10 should be mentioned in the text and maybe in the caption.
  Answer: All equations for building 10 and 11 plots are mentioned. We will number the equations and link to them below in the text.
  372: on the west – 2.6 m -> on the west + 2.6 m, isn’t it?
  
  Answer: This is a dash. We will correct this.
  Figure 11: is the Gumbel law has been also used to build these maps?
  Answer: Both figures 10 and 11 were plotted according to Gumbel law.
  391: please reformulate the sentence.
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  409-410: “In our results, we have a maximum value of SWH 8.2 m, which can be transformed to 10.8 m of 3% probability of exceedance. » -> How is get this result?
  
  Answer: The wave heights of 1% and 3% probability of exceedance were calculated as 1.51 * SWH and 1.32*SWH, respectively. We will add some comments to the manuscript.
  
  L435: « the significant linear trend » -> how is estimated the level of significance?
  Answer: The significance of trends was assessed by the F-test. The F-statistic is the standard significance test of the linear model. We will add some comments to the manuscript.
  454: « Fig.16) » -> (Fig.16)
  
  Answer: We will correct this.
  456-457: This statement is not clear.
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  460: In he present climate -> In the present climate : I suppose that this reefer to 1961-1990? That’s not clear.
  
  Answer: We will correct and clarify the sentence.
  460-462: this statement is not clear.
  
  Answer: We will clarify the sentence.
  Conclusion:
  476-477: please reformulate the sentence.
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  487: “The number of storms with the SWH ≥ 3 m » -> for more clarity, you could write “the annual number of storms…”
  
  Answer: We will reformulate the sentence.
  507: SWH o about 8.9 m -> SWH of about 8.9 m
  
  Answer: We will correct this.
  L 510: overestimates of the SWH.
  Answer: We will correct this.
  Data availability: following the FAIR protocol, the data should be available on an open platform, without the need to contact the authors.
  Answer: At the moment, the data is on a closed server, but in the future we plan to transfer it to an open server.
  References: please homogenise the format of the references
  Answer: We will correct and homogenize all references.
  Figures: all the Figures are well presented, but the figure captions should include more explicit details about the data and the methods used to build the curves and maps.
  Answer: We will add details to the figure captions.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-244-AC3

Anna Pavlova, Stanislav Myslenkov, Victor Arkhipkin, and Galina Surkova

Viewed

Total article views: 1,537 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
1,015	459	63	1,537	50	62

HTML: 1,015
PDF: 459
XML: 63
Total: 1,537
BibTeX: 50
EndNote: 62

Views and downloads (calculated since 02 Sep 2021)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2021	163	33	5	201
Oct 2021	62	26	3	91
Nov 2021	48	28	3	79
Dec 2021	21	14	2	37
Jan 2022	65	28	3	96
Feb 2022	23	11	0	34
Mar 2022	12	12	3	27
Apr 2022	18	13	1	32
May 2022	7	4	1	12
Jun 2022	6	5	1	12
Jul 2022	13	9	0	22
Aug 2022	16	12	0	28
Sep 2022	22	6	0	28
Oct 2022	24	5	1	30
Nov 2022	20	4	0	24
Dec 2022	12	12	0	24
Jan 2023	16	20	1	37
Feb 2023	32	6	0	38
Mar 2023	25	3	2	30
Apr 2023	13	6	0	19
May 2023	19	6	1	26
Jun 2023	6	9	0	15
Jul 2023	16	14	2	32
Aug 2023	16	17	1	34
Sep 2023	34	19	0	53
Oct 2023	27	14	1	42
Nov 2023	14	13	0	27
Dec 2023	16	2	1	19
Jan 2024	31	6	0	37
Feb 2024	30	14	4	48
Mar 2024	20	28	3	51
Apr 2024	23	13	5	41
May 2024	25	7	4	36
Jun 2024	45	6	2	53
Jul 2024	21	6	7	34
Aug 2024	16	7	3	26
Sep 2024	20	4	1	25
Oct 2024	15	15	2	32
Nov 2024	3	2	0	5

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 02 Sep 2021)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2021	163	33	5	201
Oct 2021	62	26	3	91
Nov 2021	48	28	3	79
Dec 2021	21	14	2	37
Jan 2022	65	28	3	96
Feb 2022	23	11	0	34
Mar 2022	12	12	3	27
Apr 2022	18	13	1	32
May 2022	7	4	1	12
Jun 2022	6	5	1	12
Jul 2022	13	9	0	22
Aug 2022	16	12	0	28
Sep 2022	22	6	0	28
Oct 2022	24	5	1	30
Nov 2022	20	4	0	24
Dec 2022	12	12	0	24
Jan 2023	16	20	1	37
Feb 2023	32	6	0	38
Mar 2023	25	3	2	30
Apr 2023	13	6	0	19
May 2023	19	6	1	26
Jun 2023	6	9	0	15
Jul 2023	16	14	2	32
Aug 2023	16	17	1	34
Sep 2023	34	19	0	53
Oct 2023	27	14	1	42
Nov 2023	14	13	0	27
Dec 2023	16	2	1	19
Jan 2024	31	6	0	37
Feb 2024	30	14	4	48
Mar 2024	20	28	3	51
Apr 2024	23	13	5	41
May 2024	25	7	4	36
Jun 2024	45	6	2	53
Jul 2024	21	6	7	34
Aug 2024	16	7	3	26
Sep 2024	20	4	1	25
Oct 2024	15	15	2	32
Nov 2024	3	2	0	5

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,443 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,443 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Cited

Latest update: 15 Nov 2024

Short summary

This article presents new information about storm surges, wind waves, and their recurrence in the Caspian Sea based on the results of numerical modeling. The storm surges maximum is 2.7 m and it was observed in the northern part of the Sea for the modeling period (1979–2017). The extreme sea level values in the northern part of the Caspian Sea for the return period 100 years is close to 3 m. The significant wave height maximum is 8.2 m.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0

Storm surges and storm wind waves in the Caspian Sea in the present and future climate

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Cited

4 citations as recorded by crossref.