Total water levels along the South Atlantic Bight during three along-shelf propagating tropical cyclones: relative contributions of storm surge and wave runup

Hsu, Chu-En; Serafin, Katherine; Yu, Xiao; Hegermiller, Christie; Warner, John C.; Olabarrieta, Maitane

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49

Preprints

03 Apr 2023

| 03 Apr 2023

Status: a revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal NHESS and is expected to appear here in due course.

Total water levels along the South Atlantic Bight during three along-shelf propagating tropical cyclones: relative contributions of storm surge and wave runup

Chu-En Hsu, Katherine Serafin, Xiao Yu, Christie Hegermiller, John C. Warner, and Maitane Olabarrieta

Abstract. Total water levels (TWLs), including the contribution of wind waves, associated with tropical cyclones (TC) are among the most damaging hazards faced by coastal communities. According to the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC; Masson-Delmotte et al., 2021), TC–induced damages are expected to increase because of stronger TC intensity, sea level rise, and increased populations along the coasts. TC intensity, translation speed, and distance to the coast affect the magnitude and duration of increased TWLs and wind waves. Under climate change, the proportion of high–intensity TCs are projected to increase globally (IPCC; Masson-Delmotte et al., 2021), whereas the variation pattern of TC translation speed also depends on regions (Yamaguchi et al., 2020). There is an urgent need to improve our understanding of the linkages among TC characteristics and TWL components. In the past years, hurricanes Matthew (2016), Dorian (2019), and Isaias (2020) propagated over the South Atlantic Bight (SAB) with similar paths but resulted in different coastal impacts. We combined in situ observations and numerical simulations with the Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere–Wave–Sediment Transport (COAWST) modeling system to analyze the extreme TWLs under the three TCs. Model verification showed that the TWL components were well reproduced by the present model setup. Our results showed that peak TWL depends mainly on the TC intensity, the distance to the TC eye, and the TC heading direction. A decrease of TC translation speed primarily led to longer exceedance duration of TWL, which may lead to more severe damage. Wave–dependent water level components (i.e., wave setup and wave swash) were found to dominate the peak TWL within the near–TC wave field (60 %). Our results also showed that in specific conditions, the pre–storm wave runup associated with the TC–induced swell may lead to TWLs higher than at the peak of the storm. This was the case along the SAB during Hurricane Isaias. Isaias’s fast TC translation speed and the fact that its swell was not blocked by any islands were the main factors contributing to these peak TWLs ahead of the storm peak.

Received: 24 Mar 2023 – Discussion started: 03 Apr 2023

Download & links

Chu-En Hsu et al.

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on nhess-2023-49', Juan Felipe Paniagua-Arroyave, 09 Apr 2023

Respected colleagues,
Thanks for your time and consideration. I just wanted to highlight a process that might introduce discrepancies between your model results and observations. We documented tidal distortions (overtides) related to a hurricane-induced current at the inner shelf near Cape Canaveral:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JC015021
You might want to explore whether this mechanism could add to your uncertainties or not. We documented the hurricane-induced overtides during Hurricane Matthew in 2016.
Best wishes,

Pani

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Chu-En Hsu, 18 Jun 2023
  
  Dear Juan Felipe Paniagua-Arroyave and the NHESS Discussion Forum scientific community,
  We appreciate the time and effort you and the other reviewers expended in providing valuable feedback on our work. We gratefully acknowledge Juan Felipe Paniagua-Arroyave for sharing this work and we have included the reference in our introduction. As we receive and summarize all of the comments, we will upload the updated version to the reviewers and editors.
  
  Along with the aforementioned comments, any grammar and spelling errors reported by the reviewers have been corrected. Regarding our application, we eagerly anticipate your response and welcome any additional questions or comments you may have. We appreciate the reviewer's and scientific community's comments, and we thank you for your feedback.
  Sincerely,
  Chu-En Hsu, Ph.D.
  
  Postdoctoral Research Associate
  
  University of Florida
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-AC1
RC1:
'Comment on nhess-2023-49', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 May 2023
The manuscript entitled “Total water levels along the South Atlantic Bight during three along-shelf propagating tropical cyclones: relative contributions of storm surge and wave runup” by Hsu et al. aims at improving the understanding of the linkages among tropical cyclones characteristics and total water level components. Hurricanes Matthew (2016), Dorian (2019), and Isaias (2020) were chosen as case studies in the South Atlantic Bight and numerical simulations (COAWST modeling system) combined with in situ observations were used to model the extreme total water levels induced by them. The topic addressed in the manuscript is in line with the scope of the NHESS journal and is relevant to the scientific community to better understand storm impacts and their effects on the coastlines.

I found that the manuscript is quite long, not always smooth and streamlined reading due to the presence of many acronyms and subsections. I suggest reformulating some statements or thinking about the possibility to merge some subsections. Therefore, I hope my suggestions are helpful in improving it.
For future publications focused on the same tropical cyclones analyzed here, I suggest exploring the presence of tidal distortion near Cape Canaveral during Hurricane Matthew in 2016, as highlighted in the public discussion associated with your preprint (https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-CC1).
As a result of the above considerations, I conclude that the manuscript is suitable for publication with some minor revisions. I provide detailed general and point-by-point comments/suggestions below.
General comments:

1) I suggest to avoid references in the abstract section because it should be stand alone. In this section, you must briefly introduce your personal contributions instead of the work of others.

2) As the manuscript stands today, some of the methods used in this application are in the introduction (e.g. the empirical formulations for R₂). It would be helpful to have a methods section easily accessible to the reader within the manuscript. Moreover, some findings are introduced in the discussion section (see e.g. Figs. 10 and 11). I suggest merging the results and discussion sections into one section. Alternatively, if you want to keep this setup, please use this section only to discuss your findings.

3) Please, introduce the acronyms in the main text. For example, the translation speed of storm (V_t) is introduced in the table caption but not in the main text. Please, uniform the style throughout the manuscript.

4) Avoid using symbols as +, -, or = inside brackets introduced in the main text, unless you are using an inline equation such as in line 418.

5) Sometimes you use “peak 𝜂_𝑇𝑠” and other times “peak 𝜂_𝑇”. Be consistent throughout the text.
Point-by-point comments:
Figures 2, 3, 7, 11, A4, and A3. They lost quality during the exportation step. Lines, dots, axes labels, internal and external box grids are blurred. Please, improve the resolution.

Lines 39-42. It would be helpful to summarize the classification definition of the four regimes. There is the reference for more details. Maybe something like “[…] regimes: inundation (TWLs ≥ D_crest), swash (TWLs < D_base), overwash (…), and collision (…). Among these, coastal dunes experience […]” is more appropriate.

Line 53. Avoid “=” inside the brackets. For example, you can say “(i.e. the sum of astronomic tides, mean sea level, and storm surge). You can also indicate the name of the variable you introduced. I suppose is the water level observed.

Line 54. If data are available at the NOAA repository, please add reference and link.

Line 66. Use “Eqs. 1 and 2” instead of “Eq. 1 and Eq. 2”.

Lines 70-71. Avoid the use of “=” inside brackets. Use instead “is”.

Line 72. Change Eq. 2 with Eq. 1.

Lines 92-97. I suggest moving the statement “Thus, we employed […] for analysis and comparison” after “Despite the importance of […] had not been thoroughly examined”. Also, please add “on the contrary” or “conversely” before “Senechal et al. (2011)”.

Lines 98-103. Please, reformulate the statements. For example, “Under projected climatic conditions, TC characteristics are projected to change at global scale (add reference). Thereby the proportion of high-intensity […] to increase. In this context of change, the main goal of this study is to ascertain how TC […] to TWLs. With that aim […] similar tracks”.

Line 108. The acronym V_t is introduced in Table 1 but not in the main text.

Line 145. Explain how you evaluate the suitability of the chosen exchange intervals.

Lines 152-153. Please, move the link after RAP and add the reference.

Lines 155 and 162. Please, add references for the GFS and HYCOM database.

Lines 165-168. Add reference for the Flather boundary. Furthermore, panel A is indicated with a capital letter in the main text and in the caption of the figure while in the figure a lowercase letter is used. Please, uniform the style.

Line 186. Please, add the repository link and references for NOAA tide gauges and NDBC buoys.

Line 219. T_p is not yet introduced in the text.

Caption of Figure 4. I suggest using “the red, cyan, and black points indicated […]”.

Table 2. Improve the table headers. I suppose that D_base refers to the second column.

Lines 276-277. As reported in Figure 5, the difference of 22.6 hours is for T_ETA. Please, change each of the contents in the brackets.

Figures 7 and 11. The x-axis label is missing.

Figure 8. I suggest to introduce this figure in the supplementary material.

Figure 10. Use A1, A2), B1, B2) and C1, C2) in the figure caption.

Line 455. Change “in contrary” with “on the contrary”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Chu-En Hsu, 18 Jun 2023
  
  Dear reviewer,
  
  We appreciate the time and effort you and the other reviewers put in to provide valuable feedback on our work. All of the reviewer's comments have been considered and addressed. The document has been revised and marked with track changes. We thank Juan Felipe Paniagua-Arroyave for sharing their study on tidal distortion around Cape Canaveral and we have included it in our introduction. We will upload the updated version to the reviewers and editors when we receive and summarize all of the comments. We have added a PDF file to this posting to respond to all of the reviewer's comments.
  
  Along with the above remarks, all grammar and spelling mistakes identified by the reviewers have been fixed. Regarding our application, we eagerly await your response and look forward to answering any additional inquiries and comments you might have. We appreciate the reviewer's comments and thank you for the feedback.
  Sincerely,
  Chu-En Hsu, Ph.D.
  
  Postdoctoral Research Associate
  
  University of Florida
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on nhess-2023-49', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jul 2023

The manuscript compares coastal sea level setup associated with three different tropical cyclones that were similar in their intensities and trajectories, yet resulting in different coastal hazard along the South Atlantic Bight. As for other reviewer, for me the manuscript is also too techical and therefore hard to follow. Also, I am supporting other comments of other reviewers, so will not repeat them here.
In addition, what seems as a weakness to me is the model evaluation, which is performed integrally over a prolonged (10 days) interval with just one measure coming out of it ('skill'). However, such a defined skill cannot say anything about model performance during extreme conditions (i.e., during the close passage of a hurricane) as is largely determined by a backgound conditions to which models are normally performing better. From figures, I see (and not easy to see in figures) substantial underestimations and overestimations for some stations for peak sea level values. Therefore, I would like to see model verification during extreme η0 and TWL values (using max values, or using q-q plots, tails of pdfs, or similar) with model performance validated during extreme conditions. Such an evaluation might also use estimates of 'maximum consecutive duration' from both model and observations, to see if the model can reproduce persistence in coastal flooding as well.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-RC2
- AC3:
  'Reply on RC2', Chu-En Hsu, 11 Aug 2023
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  We value the time and effort you and the other reviewers took to offer insightful feedback on our work. All of the reviewer's suggestions have been taken into account and taken care of. Track changes have been made to the document and it has been updated. We acknowledge Juan Felipe Paniagua-Arroyave and have included their paper on the tidal distortion around Cape Canaveral in our introduction. When we have compiled all of the comments, we will upload the revised version to the reviewers and editors. In order to address all of the reviewer's concerns, we have included a PDF file to this posting.
  Along with the aforementioned comments, any grammatical and spelling errors found by the reviewers have been corrected. We eagerly await your response about our submission and look forward to responding to any additional questions and comments you might have. We value the reviewer's input and are grateful for the comments.
  Sincerely,
  Chu-En Hsu, Ph.D.
  
  Postdoctoral Research Associate
  
  University of Florida
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-AC3
  - AC4: 'Reply on AC3', Chu-En Hsu, 14 Aug 2023
    
    Dear editors and reviewers,
    Please see the attached file of this comment for the "Fig. 2" stated in the attached response to RC#2. We utilized this figure to demonstrate model performance, focusing on the peak TWL, peak storm surge (η_S), peak wave runup (R₂), and maximum continuous duration (T_TWL), as suggested by RC#2. The correlation coefficients suggest that the model agrees well with the NOAA and NDBC data.
    Along with the above remarks, all grammar and spelling mistakes identified by the reviewers have been fixed. Regarding our application, we eagerly await your response and look forward to answering any additional inquiries and comments you might have. We appreciate the reviewer's comments and thank you for the feedback.
    Sincerely,
    Chu-En Hsu, Ph.D.
    
    Postdoctoral Research Associate
    
    University of Florida
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-AC4

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on nhess-2023-49', Juan Felipe Paniagua-Arroyave, 09 Apr 2023

Respected colleagues,
Thanks for your time and consideration. I just wanted to highlight a process that might introduce discrepancies between your model results and observations. We documented tidal distortions (overtides) related to a hurricane-induced current at the inner shelf near Cape Canaveral:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JC015021
You might want to explore whether this mechanism could add to your uncertainties or not. We documented the hurricane-induced overtides during Hurricane Matthew in 2016.
Best wishes,

Pani

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Chu-En Hsu, 18 Jun 2023
  
  Dear Juan Felipe Paniagua-Arroyave and the NHESS Discussion Forum scientific community,
  We appreciate the time and effort you and the other reviewers expended in providing valuable feedback on our work. We gratefully acknowledge Juan Felipe Paniagua-Arroyave for sharing this work and we have included the reference in our introduction. As we receive and summarize all of the comments, we will upload the updated version to the reviewers and editors.
  
  Along with the aforementioned comments, any grammar and spelling errors reported by the reviewers have been corrected. Regarding our application, we eagerly anticipate your response and welcome any additional questions or comments you may have. We appreciate the reviewer's and scientific community's comments, and we thank you for your feedback.
  Sincerely,
  Chu-En Hsu, Ph.D.
  
  Postdoctoral Research Associate
  
  University of Florida
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-AC1
RC1:
'Comment on nhess-2023-49', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 May 2023
The manuscript entitled “Total water levels along the South Atlantic Bight during three along-shelf propagating tropical cyclones: relative contributions of storm surge and wave runup” by Hsu et al. aims at improving the understanding of the linkages among tropical cyclones characteristics and total water level components. Hurricanes Matthew (2016), Dorian (2019), and Isaias (2020) were chosen as case studies in the South Atlantic Bight and numerical simulations (COAWST modeling system) combined with in situ observations were used to model the extreme total water levels induced by them. The topic addressed in the manuscript is in line with the scope of the NHESS journal and is relevant to the scientific community to better understand storm impacts and their effects on the coastlines.

I found that the manuscript is quite long, not always smooth and streamlined reading due to the presence of many acronyms and subsections. I suggest reformulating some statements or thinking about the possibility to merge some subsections. Therefore, I hope my suggestions are helpful in improving it.
For future publications focused on the same tropical cyclones analyzed here, I suggest exploring the presence of tidal distortion near Cape Canaveral during Hurricane Matthew in 2016, as highlighted in the public discussion associated with your preprint (https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-CC1).
As a result of the above considerations, I conclude that the manuscript is suitable for publication with some minor revisions. I provide detailed general and point-by-point comments/suggestions below.
General comments:

1) I suggest to avoid references in the abstract section because it should be stand alone. In this section, you must briefly introduce your personal contributions instead of the work of others.

2) As the manuscript stands today, some of the methods used in this application are in the introduction (e.g. the empirical formulations for R₂). It would be helpful to have a methods section easily accessible to the reader within the manuscript. Moreover, some findings are introduced in the discussion section (see e.g. Figs. 10 and 11). I suggest merging the results and discussion sections into one section. Alternatively, if you want to keep this setup, please use this section only to discuss your findings.

3) Please, introduce the acronyms in the main text. For example, the translation speed of storm (V_t) is introduced in the table caption but not in the main text. Please, uniform the style throughout the manuscript.

4) Avoid using symbols as +, -, or = inside brackets introduced in the main text, unless you are using an inline equation such as in line 418.

5) Sometimes you use “peak 𝜂_𝑇𝑠” and other times “peak 𝜂_𝑇”. Be consistent throughout the text.
Point-by-point comments:
Figures 2, 3, 7, 11, A4, and A3. They lost quality during the exportation step. Lines, dots, axes labels, internal and external box grids are blurred. Please, improve the resolution.

Lines 39-42. It would be helpful to summarize the classification definition of the four regimes. There is the reference for more details. Maybe something like “[…] regimes: inundation (TWLs ≥ D_crest), swash (TWLs < D_base), overwash (…), and collision (…). Among these, coastal dunes experience […]” is more appropriate.

Line 53. Avoid “=” inside the brackets. For example, you can say “(i.e. the sum of astronomic tides, mean sea level, and storm surge). You can also indicate the name of the variable you introduced. I suppose is the water level observed.

Line 54. If data are available at the NOAA repository, please add reference and link.

Line 66. Use “Eqs. 1 and 2” instead of “Eq. 1 and Eq. 2”.

Lines 70-71. Avoid the use of “=” inside brackets. Use instead “is”.

Line 72. Change Eq. 2 with Eq. 1.

Lines 92-97. I suggest moving the statement “Thus, we employed […] for analysis and comparison” after “Despite the importance of […] had not been thoroughly examined”. Also, please add “on the contrary” or “conversely” before “Senechal et al. (2011)”.

Lines 98-103. Please, reformulate the statements. For example, “Under projected climatic conditions, TC characteristics are projected to change at global scale (add reference). Thereby the proportion of high-intensity […] to increase. In this context of change, the main goal of this study is to ascertain how TC […] to TWLs. With that aim […] similar tracks”.

Line 108. The acronym V_t is introduced in Table 1 but not in the main text.

Line 145. Explain how you evaluate the suitability of the chosen exchange intervals.

Lines 152-153. Please, move the link after RAP and add the reference.

Lines 155 and 162. Please, add references for the GFS and HYCOM database.

Lines 165-168. Add reference for the Flather boundary. Furthermore, panel A is indicated with a capital letter in the main text and in the caption of the figure while in the figure a lowercase letter is used. Please, uniform the style.

Line 186. Please, add the repository link and references for NOAA tide gauges and NDBC buoys.

Line 219. T_p is not yet introduced in the text.

Caption of Figure 4. I suggest using “the red, cyan, and black points indicated […]”.

Table 2. Improve the table headers. I suppose that D_base refers to the second column.

Lines 276-277. As reported in Figure 5, the difference of 22.6 hours is for T_ETA. Please, change each of the contents in the brackets.

Figures 7 and 11. The x-axis label is missing.

Figure 8. I suggest to introduce this figure in the supplementary material.

Figure 10. Use A1, A2), B1, B2) and C1, C2) in the figure caption.

Line 455. Change “in contrary” with “on the contrary”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Chu-En Hsu, 18 Jun 2023
  
  Dear reviewer,
  
  We appreciate the time and effort you and the other reviewers put in to provide valuable feedback on our work. All of the reviewer's comments have been considered and addressed. The document has been revised and marked with track changes. We thank Juan Felipe Paniagua-Arroyave for sharing their study on tidal distortion around Cape Canaveral and we have included it in our introduction. We will upload the updated version to the reviewers and editors when we receive and summarize all of the comments. We have added a PDF file to this posting to respond to all of the reviewer's comments.
  
  Along with the above remarks, all grammar and spelling mistakes identified by the reviewers have been fixed. Regarding our application, we eagerly await your response and look forward to answering any additional inquiries and comments you might have. We appreciate the reviewer's comments and thank you for the feedback.
  Sincerely,
  Chu-En Hsu, Ph.D.
  
  Postdoctoral Research Associate
  
  University of Florida
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on nhess-2023-49', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jul 2023

The manuscript compares coastal sea level setup associated with three different tropical cyclones that were similar in their intensities and trajectories, yet resulting in different coastal hazard along the South Atlantic Bight. As for other reviewer, for me the manuscript is also too techical and therefore hard to follow. Also, I am supporting other comments of other reviewers, so will not repeat them here.
In addition, what seems as a weakness to me is the model evaluation, which is performed integrally over a prolonged (10 days) interval with just one measure coming out of it ('skill'). However, such a defined skill cannot say anything about model performance during extreme conditions (i.e., during the close passage of a hurricane) as is largely determined by a backgound conditions to which models are normally performing better. From figures, I see (and not easy to see in figures) substantial underestimations and overestimations for some stations for peak sea level values. Therefore, I would like to see model verification during extreme η0 and TWL values (using max values, or using q-q plots, tails of pdfs, or similar) with model performance validated during extreme conditions. Such an evaluation might also use estimates of 'maximum consecutive duration' from both model and observations, to see if the model can reproduce persistence in coastal flooding as well.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-RC2
- AC3:
  'Reply on RC2', Chu-En Hsu, 11 Aug 2023
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  We value the time and effort you and the other reviewers took to offer insightful feedback on our work. All of the reviewer's suggestions have been taken into account and taken care of. Track changes have been made to the document and it has been updated. We acknowledge Juan Felipe Paniagua-Arroyave and have included their paper on the tidal distortion around Cape Canaveral in our introduction. When we have compiled all of the comments, we will upload the revised version to the reviewers and editors. In order to address all of the reviewer's concerns, we have included a PDF file to this posting.
  Along with the aforementioned comments, any grammatical and spelling errors found by the reviewers have been corrected. We eagerly await your response about our submission and look forward to responding to any additional questions and comments you might have. We value the reviewer's input and are grateful for the comments.
  Sincerely,
  Chu-En Hsu, Ph.D.
  
  Postdoctoral Research Associate
  
  University of Florida
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-AC3
  - AC4: 'Reply on AC3', Chu-En Hsu, 14 Aug 2023
    
    Dear editors and reviewers,
    Please see the attached file of this comment for the "Fig. 2" stated in the attached response to RC#2. We utilized this figure to demonstrate model performance, focusing on the peak TWL, peak storm surge (η_S), peak wave runup (R₂), and maximum continuous duration (T_TWL), as suggested by RC#2. The correlation coefficients suggest that the model agrees well with the NOAA and NDBC data.
    Along with the above remarks, all grammar and spelling mistakes identified by the reviewers have been fixed. Regarding our application, we eagerly await your response and look forward to answering any additional inquiries and comments you might have. We appreciate the reviewer's comments and thank you for the feedback.
    Sincerely,
    Chu-En Hsu, Ph.D.
    
    Postdoctoral Research Associate
    
    University of Florida
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49-AC4

Chu-En Hsu et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 821 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
640	153	28	821	10	11

HTML: 640
PDF: 153
XML: 28
Total: 821
BibTeX: 10
EndNote: 11

Views and downloads (calculated since 03 Apr 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2023	203	46	8	257
May 2023	80	19	5	104
Jun 2023	65	17	4	86
Jul 2023	56	17	4	77
Aug 2023	77	15	5	97
Sep 2023	58	19	1	78
Oct 2023	72	14	1	87
Nov 2023	29	6	0	35

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 03 Apr 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2023	203	46	8	257
May 2023	80	19	5	104
Jun 2023	65	17	4	86
Jul 2023	56	17	4	77
Aug 2023	77	15	5	97
Sep 2023	58	19	1	78
Oct 2023	72	14	1	87
Nov 2023	29	6	0	35

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 790 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 790 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 03 Nov 2023

Short summary

We analyzed how tropical cyclone (TC) characteristics affect total water level components. We used a numerical model to simulate surges and wind waves in the South Atlantic Bight (SAB) during hurricanes Matthew 2016, Dorian 2019, and Isaias 2020. We compared the water levels along the SAB. As the TCs approached, the water levels were affected by the instantaneous wind speed and the TC locations. To quantify the individual effects of TC properties on water levels, further analysis is required.


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