The Downscaling Study for Typhoon-Induced Coastal Inundation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Attached please find my suggestions and comments.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank for your kind reviews and comments.

I have been trying to fulfill your opinion for us.

Best regards

corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents a useful tool that can be successfully applied for hindcasting and predicting coastal flooding due to typhoons. The authors show the comparison between simulated and observed data concerning the 2016 CHABA typhoon, and finally illustrate the coastal inundation of the coastal city of Busan.

In my opinion, the manuscript looks more like a “short communication” than like an original “article”, especially because many of the points (in both methodology and results sections) are only briefly described, with no sufficient details nor discussions aimed at understanding the physics. Hence, although interesting, several lacks exist in the paper, which requires a strong improvement throughout all sections, together with a thorough revision of the English use.

Main comments

In the introduction section, when speaking about the need of HPC, it has been demonstrated that such high performances are not fundamental sometimes. Recent works, based on model chains, demonstrated how the combined use of field data and numerical/analytical models can be a suitable tool to assess coastal inundation (e.g., Gaeta et al., 2018; Postacchini et al., 2019).

At L61, the acronyms TPAS, SPAS and FPAS are recalled. Are these useful (notice that many acronyms are already present in the manuscript)? If the authors decide to retain these terms, please better explain what they mean.

Figure 1 should be improved: 1) the color bar does not exist and should be included in each panel to make things clear, also indicating what colors represent; 2) the caption must describe each panel; 3) all acronyms used in the panels must be recalled in the caption; 4) “GRID” and not “GIRD” in the top right panel.

In section 2.3, the description of the used models must be improved, to better understand their numerical features/skills. Further, to better describe the interaction among such models, a chart/graph should be included.

In addition to the model description, a better description of the numerical domains used within each model should be provided. As an example, AD1, OD1-S, OD2 are recalled both in the text and in Fig.1, but it is relatively hard for a reader to understand what they represent.

Also include a description of the coastal-inundation simulations.

What reported at L140-141 is not completely true: ω_p is not the peak period, but the peak frequency, while α is the slope parameter, sometimes called the Phillips constant.

At L144, how can one understand which is the first node?! Please indicate such node in the map of Fig.1.

Concerning Figs. 3, 4 and 5, a series of improvements are required:

1. A better description of such figures must be included, especially concerning the main differences between observed and modeled data.
2. When the illustrated results are discussed, the error between observations and modeled data must be reported and commented, especially to properly understand the source of possible errors in the simulation of coastal inundation.
3. It is not clear where the used sites are located. Hence, such locations must be indicated either in the map of Fig.1 or in an additional map, specifically suited for such comparisons between observations and modeled data.
4. In Figs.4 and 5, please make x axis homogeneous with x axis of Fig.3.

Specifically concerning Fig.4:

• Such figure should be better discussed also in view of the different presented modeling, i.e. with and without surge.
• How and where can one see/observe what is described at L182-185? Please refer to the specific panels of Fig.4.

The illustration of the peak period is interesting and should be added (L193-194).

Since the coastal inundation for the surge-only case is not shown, why are you telling this here?!

I understand the authors want to show the skills of their system, but a model which is not well initialized is not scientifically sound, nor useful for the community. Hence, what stated at L211-212 is not logical to me. What is the sense of the model results shown in Fig.6 and concerning Haeundae Beach? In my opinion, the authors either do not plot results in such protected coastal area or try to run the simulation using the actual situation (i.e. with breakwaters). This also in view of the different hydrodynamics generating in the nearby region, if no breakwaters are included!

Further, a color bar is required for Fig.6 to better understand the coastal flooding.

In the final part of the conclusion (L236-242), I do not understand if the simulations presented in the previous sections account for roughness, and whether they are 2d or 3d simulations. Please clarify in the text.

Minor comments

• L35: “combination OF tide…”.
• L50-51: please amend citation with [1].
• L94: please do not use the acronym SSTs, but “sea surface temperatures”.
• L95: wind speed in km/h seems to be wrong (perhaps, it is 180 and 270km/h, respectively), please recalculate!
• L117: “Table 1, 2 AND 3 SHOW …”.
• 2: the text in the top panel refers to γ and not to r.
• L149: “SPECTRA …”.
• L158: “SIMULATIONS… RESULTS”.
• L178-179: unclear sentence, please reword.

References

Gaeta, M. G., Bonaldo, D., Samaras, A. G., Carniel, S., & Archetti, R. (2018). Coupled wave-2D hydrodynamics modeling at the Reno river mouth (Italy) under climate change scenarios. Water, 10(10), 1380.

Postacchini, M., Lalli, F., Memmola, F., Bruschi, A., Bellafiore, D., Lisi, I., ... & Brocchini, M. (2019). A model chain approach for coastal inundation: Application to the bay of Alghero. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 219, 56-70.

Author Response

Dear author,

I appreciate your comments and reviews about my manuscript.

And I have been trying to satisfy yours with my editing.

Thank you.

Best regards,

corresponding author.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am glad that the authors largely improved the manuscript. However, some issues still remain and must be addressed before publication:

• First, a careful revision of the English use is required throughout the manuscript.
• L116: maybe “AD1 and AD2” just before “WRF model” is a typo.
• 6: what does the color represent? addition of a color bar might help the reader.
• Table 4: I hope the unit is not in meters (RMSE=44m would be completely unreal), but in millimeters, as in Fig.11.
• L231, caption of Figure 9: it should be “Contour map of simulated …”.
• L277, caption of Figure 12: why just speaking about the “area in Haeundae of South Korea”, if the Gamman area is also shown?
• L263-274: these paragraphs are recalling what previously described at L250-262. I suggest the authors to better blend and summarize the main concepts included within L250 and L274.

Author Response

Thank for your comments and suggestions.

I tried to reflect them in the manuscript.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf