the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A coupled modelling system to assess the effect of Mediterranean storms under climate change
- 1Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende (CS), 87036, Italy
- 2Capo Tirone Experimental Marine Station, University of Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende (CS), 87036, Italy
- 3Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Lamezia Terme (CZ), 88046, Italy
- 1Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende (CS), 87036, Italy
- 2Capo Tirone Experimental Marine Station, University of Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende (CS), 87036, Italy
- 3Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Lamezia Terme (CZ), 88046, Italy
Abstract. Climate change will have an undeniable influence on coastal areas. In the last decades, the impact of storm surges has promoted multiple mitigation and adaptation strategies worldwide, including more robust sea defenses, development of integrated modelling chains and warning systems, and improved storm impact management. However, as climate change seems likely to result in increased rates of both sea level rise and storm-related impacts, it is crucial to estimate the local probable extreme sea wave conditions, to properly reproduce the wave and hydrodynamic inshore field, and to investigate the effectiveness of sea defenses under different sea level rise scenarios. This work describes the first steps towards an innovative fully coupled modelling system composed of a hydrodynamic (2DEF) and wind wave model (SWAN). The models are two-way coupled at half-hourly intervals exchanging the following fields: 2D sea level, surface currents and bottom elevation are transferred from 2DEF to SWAN; wave climate computed by SWAN is then passed to 2DEF by modifying the radiation stress. Numerical simulations have been performed to identify the impact of extreme storms at Calabaia beach, Italy, by combining sea level rise and extreme wave projections with the most recent georeferenced territorial data.
Riccardo Alvise Mel et al.
Status: open (until 02 Jun 2022)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2022-67', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Mar 2022
reply
Title: A coupled modelling system to assess the effect of Mediterranean
storms under climate change
Authors: Mel et al.
RECOMMENDATION: Major revision
This work describes the first steps towards an innovative fully coupled modelling system composed of a hydrodynamic (2DEF) and wind wave model (SWAN). Numerical simulations have been performed to identify the impact of extreme storms at Calabaia beach by combining sea level rise and extreme wave projections with the most recent georeferenced territorial data both in a case study and in a climatological perspective. The paper is appropriate for publication in NHESS but it requires major revisions.
MAJOR POINTS:
- The title “A coupled modelling system to assess the effect of Mediterranean storms under climate change” is extremely vague. It may refer to meteorological, ocean, wave models so you should clarify already in the title its specific focus on coupled hydrodynamical and wave models.
- The abstract should focus on the results of the paper. Its first part is very generic and can be applied to any work in the field. There is no indication on the application of the model to a case study and to the climatology, which is not appropriate.
- Line 201: what do you mean with “wave climate”? here, you are not referring to a wave climatology and to different possible wave directions. Please, clarify.
- Line 244-245: the meteorological description is confusing, for example:
a strong divergence area may be relevant for cyclone development, but divergence does not originate cyclones;
extra-tropical cyclones have diameters of about 1000 km, 300 km is not realistic at all;
Line 251: “the medium wind speeds were within the range expected for a strong storm”: sorry, but I do not understand what you mean here;
- Lines 267-287: this part provides unnecessary results, since they are well known and references would be sufficient; Figure 7 is not necessary, but if you want to include it, you should ask the permission for reproduction;
- Section 3: The entire section should be rearranged, distinguishing the case study analysis from the climatological results. Now you go back and forth, and the two parts are not clearly distinguished. I think that separating the two different analyses, the one referring to the case study from that considering the synthetic (climatological) analysis would strongly improve the readability of the paper;
- Figures
Figure 8: what is the interpretation of the squares in panel a?
Figure 9: the figure is not commented on in the text;
- Conclusions: I do not think you show in any place that “The coupled system improves the performance of the simulation with respect to the uncoupled system”.
MINOR POINTS:
Line 63: change “the Mediterranean cyclone” into “the presence of Mediterranean cyclones …”
Line 66: change into “… makes the Mediterranean sea subject to …”
Line 67: … southerly winds …
Line 68: … easterly winds …
Line 99: … affecting the …
Line 102: you mention that you are using ERA-INTERIM but in other points you indicate ERA-5. Please clarify!
Line 103: “The most important recent storm which affected the Mediterranean Sea (25 – 29 December 1999)”: several intense storms affected the Mediterranean Sea in the last 20 years. It is not clear why this should be the most important.
Line 123: “the eastern, southern and eastern sides”: please correct;
Line 126: I do not understand why you refer here to a meteorological paper while you are describing geographical features;
Line 133: defenses -> defences;
Line 139: third and fourth quadrant: you should clarify which direction you are referring to;
Line 146 and elsewhere: statistics instead of statistic and it is plural (e.g., statistics have …);
Line 197: “The model grid is closed 4 km north of Diamante, 3 km south of Cape Bonifati …”: either you should report the places on the map or you should not mention them in the text;
Line 420: again, please clarify what you mean with wave climate;
Line 450: change into “A long term planning is crucial”.
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2022-67', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 May 2022
reply
The article presents and application of flow of wave modelling nearshore Calabaia considering different sea level rise values and offshore wave conditions. I find the application shown in the article interesting but the validity of the applied models and the rationale behind the considered conditions lacking.
As a whole the article needs restructuring, proof- and critical-reading. There are a few buzzwords being applied in a non-coherent way. For instance, what is the meaning of “global risk society” and “Climate change drives potential future sea hazards, as the greenhouse effect is expected to lead to global warming”? Furthermore, a lot of what is stated in the abstract and introduction can be removed as they are not directly related nor motivating the contents. I suggest that the authors rewrite the whole article. Below a few questions and suggestions. The list is not comprehensive, but at least these issues should be addressed before the article can be assessed.
- Line 14: What is the innovative aspect? Not the coupling between waves and hydrodynamics nor considering the effects of SLR on coastal waves and loads, for these you can find many references.
- Lines 17-18: If you are considering projections then it should be the “projected impact” or “impact projections”.
- Replace “Sea waves, caused by the effect of local wind climate” with “Sea or wind waves, forced by the local winds’.
- What do you mean with “Interaction between sea and swell waves can cause unpredictably high waves”? How and why is it unpredictable?
- Can “Extreme sea stormy conditions” be replaced with “Coastal extreme storms”?
- Lines 36-38: Please clearly state what you mean with: “sea storms”, “sea waves” and “swell waves”. How do you refer to (sea+swell) wave conditions?
- Lines 76 to 83 can be removed as they do not contribute to the subject.
- Line 95: ”Sea level and surface currents are driven by sea state,” this is not true. Please rephase or expand acknowledging that sea levels and currents are driven by atmospheric and astronomical forcing.
- Lines 99-101: Please rephrase of expand. The Gumbel distribution could in principle be used to model the annual maxima, not to ‘identify the extreme sea wave conditions” By “sea wave” you mean only wind sea?
- Lines 101-102: I assume that you mean ERA5 and not ERA-interim as it does not cover the full period given. Assuming that it should be ERA5, the quality of the ERA5 data is expected to be lower in the 1950-1979 period. Have you checked whether there are inhomogeneities in the ERA5 data before and after 1979?
- Line 140-141: Define “wave currents”. Are they only in the wave break-zone? Do they exclude direct wind and pressure forcing?
- Line 147: The ERA5 data are available hourly, why do you only consider 6-hourly?
- Lines 201-202: What do you mean with “model is forced by imposing (refer to Fig. 3a): (i) wave climate at the seaward boundary section (yellow dashed line) every 30 minutes”. By climate I understand long-term means or return values and these are generally assumed stationary, not changing every 30 minutes.
- Lines 144-146: I find the description of Lothar incorrect. Can you please check your references or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Lothar?
- Line 258: Why “CFS reanalysis” and not ERA5, as you are using ERA5 in the study?
- Section 2.6 should be significantly reduced, most of it is copied from the IPCC report. Just refer to it and state the values that will be considered further.
- Lines 245-247: Please rewrite. It is not clear from the text that the models use different numeric schemes and which. Is also confusing to be faced again with “climate”, what do you mean?
- Section 3.1: The return value estimates are not used further. Why are they presented? To motivate the range of values given in line 395?
- Section 3.2: In this section the 2DEF+SWAN results are validated by comparing them with the results of another model and none of the models are validated against observations. The validity of the model results is therefore not verified. The only conclusion/aim appears to be to show that the results are comparable and running times of 2DEF+SWAN lower.
- Section 3.3: There are two sections 3.3. Please correct.
Riccardo Alvise Mel et al.
Riccardo Alvise Mel et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 266 | 77 | 12 | 355 | 8 | 9 |
- HTML: 266
- PDF: 77
- XML: 12
- Total: 355
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1