Multi-Platform, High-Resolution Study of a Complex Coastal System: The TOSCA Experiment in the Gulf of Trieste

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of jmse-1169539 “Multi-platform, high-resolution study of a complex coastal system: the TOSCA experiment in the Gulf of Trieste” by S. Querin, S. Cosoli, R. Gerin, C. Laurent, V. Malacic, N. Pristov and P-M. Poulain.

 

The paper concerns a numerical and observational study of a small embayment in the northeast Adriatic coast. Both observational and model tools are used to define the physical circulation processes, and as such is an excellent example of this kind coastal circulation investigation.  The model results seem very reasonable for the RR, NW, NR and NT cases (Figs 7 & 8) for a shallow bay strong forced by winds, riverflow and open boundary flows.  The paper is mainly concerned with near-surface circulation.  It might be informative to show an example of deeper circulations (say 10-15 m) during the stratified season with high riverflow. Pollution is not always confined to the surface!

 

General:

More detail is needed on the nested numerical models.  How was the nesting done for each model,  e.g., 1 or 2-way nesting at the boundaries, and were sponge layers used at the open boundaries to control wave reflections?

 

Comparison of drifter tracks derived from model or HF Radar velocity fields with observed drifter tracks is nearly always problematic because of the different scales (grid-spacing) of the velocity fields lead to different effective dispersion (i.e., velocity shears and model turbulence parameterizations) compared to real drifters.  It is, therefore, not surprising that model and HF Radar virtual drifters disperse more rapidly even when reseeded on a daily basis, because of differences in horizontal velocity shears between the data sets.  This seems to be the conclusion from Fig. 10.  More explanation is needed why here is less confidence in drifter comparisons compared to direct velocity or scaler comparisons.  

 

Specific:

Line 90: Sirocco winds are predominantly southeasterlies, coinciding with the main axis of the Adriatic?

 

Line 182ff:  Is riverflow accounted for in the outer Adriatic models?

 

Section 2.2, line 235ff: What is the spacing of the HF Radar grid points?

 

Fig. 3 & 4.  The velocity arrows at the seeding points are hard to distinguish from the gridded velocities.  Perhaps thicker arrows or use a contrasting color.

 

Line 447: “northwesterly current” Need to be consistent in describing wind and current directions.  I have no objection to using meteorological and oceanographic conventions for wind directions, respectively.  However, be consistent with terminology, so it always “northwestward” for current, and “southeasterly” for wind as appropriate.

 

Small Changes:

Line 68: “…limits the effects of large floods to time-limited events, …”.  I know what you mean, but the phrasing is awkward.

Line 78: Suggest: “Inertial and near-inertial oscillations also affect the circulation during the summer stratified season, becoming negligible in winter.”

Line 675:  A heading for a section?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you,

SQ (on behalf of co-authors)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is devoted to an urgent problem of studying currents in Gulf of Trieste and analysing factors forming them. In the manuscript, using a complex model of atmospheric and water media, current modeling is performed and results obtained are compared with the data of HFR and drifter observations. Among the advantages of the manuscript are the excellent literature review, the detailed description of the employed mathematical model, and the level of this model that takes into account a great number of factors determining the process. Nevertheless, I still had some minor comments and questions that can be found in the attached file.

As a whole, the authors have done a great amount of work. The main conclusions of the manuscript do not cause doubts. The proposed approach can be used to study currents in the Gulf of Trieste in other days and potentially for other gulfs. After improvement of the quality of some figures and answering my questions, the manuscript can be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you,

SQ (on behalf of co-authors)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In the revised version of the manuscript, the authors have taken into account all my comments. The manuscript can be published.