the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An atmospheric approach to the flood disaster in the Western Black Sea region (Turkey) on 10–12 August 2021
Abstract. Precipitation is one of the important climate elements that directly affect disasters with its high spatial and temporal variability. In addition to the changes in precipitation amounts between years, precipitation intensity and duration are also necessary for precipitation climatology. The Black Sea coast is one of the regions that attract attention in terms of precipitation amounts, intensity and duration in the world. Countries bordering the Black Sea have been struggling with flash floods, which have arisen due to excessive rainfall in recent years. The flood has had the most loss of life and devastating effect in recent times, especially in the summer season, which occurred after heavy rains on August 10–12, 2021. In this disaster, 82 people lost their lives due to the flood. In addition, the flood damaged energy, transportation, access to drinking water, communication, and shelter areas. From 10 to August 12, total accumulated rainfall amounts of 452.5, 389.2, 386.2 and 281.1 mm were measured in the Bozkurt Mamatlar Village, Devrekani Kuzköy, Küre and Abana settlements of Kastamonu city, respectively. Additionally, precipitation was recorded 235.9 mm in Ulus Ceyüpler Village of Bartın, 317.9 mm in Ayancık and 225.8 mm in Türkeli of Sinop. In this study, the atmospheric conditions of the flood disaster were examined. The Basra low pressure settled over the eastern Black Sea during this period. On August 8–9, a trough developed above Anatolia at the level of 500 hPa. Due to the low pressure remaining on the region, the system coming to the Black Sea Basin from the north turned towards the east of the Black Sea as of August 8. Especially at this date, while high-pressure conditions continued in most western parts of the Black Sea, the pressure falling from the Sevastopol-Kastamonu line to the east attracted the system coming from the north. On August 10 2021, the surface temperature of the Black Sea, especially the eastern part, reached 28.3 °C (3.5 °C higher than average). The temperature difference between sea surface temperatures and 850 hPa reached 13 °C degrees. These conditions resulted in a strong low-level moisture convergence development that continued for three days in the Black Sea Basin. Thus, the developing convective cell gradually became more vigorous, expanded its area of influence in the interior of the land due to the cyclone movement as of the morning of August 10 and caused heavy rains with the effect of the topography.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(3360 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2022-185', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Aug 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2022-185', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Aug 2022
This paper is aimed at providing an analysis of the atmospheric conditions leading to a flood event in Turkey in August 2021. While the topic is an interesting and timely one, given the extensive research currently carried on about extreme precipitation events, the questions raised by the authors in the Introduction are definitely poorly addressed and not adequately supported by data, figures and/or original numerical studies.
This is quite evident starting just from the abstract, which seems a mere description of the analyzed case study with some qualitative statements about the mechanisms possibly underlying the genesis and the evolution of the event, rather than giving the essence of an original research and its results.
Typical ingredients for convection (e.g. low-level moisture convergence, instability, vertical shear, etc) are not considered or addressed in a simplistic and qualitative way without making use or even mentioning upper air soundings.
The literature cited by the authors is often scarcely relevant for the phenomena under investigation here or not properly addressed and explained. For instance, several works concerning other regions and/or different kinds of phenomena are considered while the extensive literature about severe convection in the Mediterranean region for instance is almost ignored. In particular, the authors refer to the temperature difference between sea surface and 850 hPa as one of the key mechanisms in triggering convection. However, to support this statement they make reference to lake-effect storm situations and threshold values used for snow without discussing it properly.
Last but surely not least, the manuscript quality is definitely poor. The academic merits, if any, cannot be recognized since the text contains countless linguistic errors as well as improper terminology in several parts which make it very hard to read.
In conclusion, although the topic is relevant and some analysis could be potentially interesting if properly described and motivated, I cannot recommend this paper for publication.
Hereafter, a list of more specific comments is given. This is just a very limited selection because almost every single line of the text could give rise to concerns and criticism.
- 3 is definitely not clear, especially panels e) and f) which should be crucial to explain some relevant ingredients for convective initiation according to the authors. Also, the caption is absolutely not clear.
- 4 caption indicates 700 hPa winds while in the text the 500 hPa level is mentioned.
- Lines 172-174. This statement should be better supported by figures. In any case, the SST analysis should be postponed to the following dedicated section.
- 5 caption again is not clear at all with apparently the same dates repeated redundantly instead of being mentioned once at the beginning of the caption. The MSG instrument SEVIRI is misspelled (SEVIRE) throughout the manuscript and the acronym is never introduced and defined.
- Figs 6 and 14 are basically unintelligible. Readers of a scientific articles are not supposed to be detectives, everything should be clear and well described.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-185-RC2
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2022-185', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Aug 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2022-185', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Aug 2022
This paper is aimed at providing an analysis of the atmospheric conditions leading to a flood event in Turkey in August 2021. While the topic is an interesting and timely one, given the extensive research currently carried on about extreme precipitation events, the questions raised by the authors in the Introduction are definitely poorly addressed and not adequately supported by data, figures and/or original numerical studies.
This is quite evident starting just from the abstract, which seems a mere description of the analyzed case study with some qualitative statements about the mechanisms possibly underlying the genesis and the evolution of the event, rather than giving the essence of an original research and its results.
Typical ingredients for convection (e.g. low-level moisture convergence, instability, vertical shear, etc) are not considered or addressed in a simplistic and qualitative way without making use or even mentioning upper air soundings.
The literature cited by the authors is often scarcely relevant for the phenomena under investigation here or not properly addressed and explained. For instance, several works concerning other regions and/or different kinds of phenomena are considered while the extensive literature about severe convection in the Mediterranean region for instance is almost ignored. In particular, the authors refer to the temperature difference between sea surface and 850 hPa as one of the key mechanisms in triggering convection. However, to support this statement they make reference to lake-effect storm situations and threshold values used for snow without discussing it properly.
Last but surely not least, the manuscript quality is definitely poor. The academic merits, if any, cannot be recognized since the text contains countless linguistic errors as well as improper terminology in several parts which make it very hard to read.
In conclusion, although the topic is relevant and some analysis could be potentially interesting if properly described and motivated, I cannot recommend this paper for publication.
Hereafter, a list of more specific comments is given. This is just a very limited selection because almost every single line of the text could give rise to concerns and criticism.
- 3 is definitely not clear, especially panels e) and f) which should be crucial to explain some relevant ingredients for convective initiation according to the authors. Also, the caption is absolutely not clear.
- 4 caption indicates 700 hPa winds while in the text the 500 hPa level is mentioned.
- Lines 172-174. This statement should be better supported by figures. In any case, the SST analysis should be postponed to the following dedicated section.
- 5 caption again is not clear at all with apparently the same dates repeated redundantly instead of being mentioned once at the beginning of the caption. The MSG instrument SEVIRI is misspelled (SEVIRE) throughout the manuscript and the acronym is never introduced and defined.
- Figs 6 and 14 are basically unintelligible. Readers of a scientific articles are not supposed to be detectives, everything should be clear and well described.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-185-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
590 | 161 | 47 | 798 | 37 | 32 |
- HTML: 590
- PDF: 161
- XML: 47
- Total: 798
- BibTeX: 37
- EndNote: 32
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1