Unprecedented Flooding in the Marche Region (Italy): Analyzing the 15 September 2022 Event and Its Unique Meteorological Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found the paper not ready to be published. Many points are lacking. Below is a list of comments that the author should reply to before considering for publication.

First, since a single author writes the manuscript, I think “we” is not the correct plural in all sentences.

I strongly don’t agree with a sentence in LL29-20. There are a lot of examples of cyclones impacting southern Italy regions

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-020-02609-1

https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/2563/2021/

https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-19-0270.1

https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14503

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.03.009

Fig 1. Increase all font sizes and the Italian inset greatly. In the caption, specify that the inset shows the regional administrative borders. Use a color palette (same as Figure 7-7) to discriminate the rain gauge precipitation recorded.

Why did you cut Cantiano? It was the most affected station with more than 400mm in less than 12h. A lot higher than the 156 mm simulated by the best configuration you adopted.

LL 65: It is not precise; ERA5 can be retrieved from the CCS portal but is an independent product.

LL67: geographical -> spatial horizontal. Moreover, expressing it in degrees (0.25°) is better since its conversion in kilometers depends on the position.

LL72: To be more precise, ERA5 releases its initial evaluation five days behind real-time, calling it ERA5T. The real ERA5 products (i.e., validated) are usually released after three months with respect to real-time.

LL78: which earlier efforts?

Figure A2: The caption should show the second set of blue, black, and red simulations. I suggest enlarging the figure; I cannot adequately see D03.

I suggest calling the two sets of simulations sets of simulations and not runs.

A significantly weak point is the missing sensitivity analyses on the physical scheme. Why did you change the scheme between the two sets of simulations?

LL130: it can be seen for didactic purposes, but it is completely missing quantitative information. I suggest removing it from the supplementary materials and the manuscript.

Figure 2: enlarge font size. The colors refer to specific humidity at 850 hPa. What are the continuous and dotted contour lines related to? I’m very confused with this figure.

Figure 3: I suggest mentioning it earlier to demonstrate the sentence in LL160. However, please increase the size of the font and legend a lot.

Figure 4: since all the comments and discussion refer to the Marche region, I suggest plotting a zoom of the area instead of the whole of Europe. Please enlarge the font and label size.

Figure 5: This figure is a zoom, as I suggest for Figure 4. Specify that the color refers to the frontogenesis while the contour relates to the temperature. Is it necessary to put wind barbs? They confuse the contour plot.

What is the ERA5’s BCs time step? It should be specified.

Figure 6: Please be scientific. Plot the precipitation over a larger area, and don’t use opacity or smoothing to confuse it. Does it make sense to use a color palette until 156? 156 what? Millimiters? Please enlarge the font sizes.

Figure 7: Now I understand the 156 (mm?) limits. But as you wrote in LL237, I would like to see the observed precipitation map. So, maybe a figure-of-three panel showing the SCIA map and the two sets of simulation output with the same colormap could be much better. Moreover, don't use smoothing to appreciate the finer resolution of the last configuration set.

Figure 8: all label fonts are almost invisible.

LL149: I supposed that all comments there refer to the finer-resolution simulation results. Please specify it.

Figure 9: same comment as Figure 8.

LL287: something is missing there…

LL286: incorrect referencing

LL288: formulas -> equations

Figure 10: Reduce the palette legend size and specify what it refers to. Increase each subplot size slightly; I didn’t see the colors correctly. You might also consider reducing the width of the contour lines.

Reference21: the link does not work.

Section 4: I didn’t enjoy it. I understand the aim of this section, but it proves that the high precipitation is not related to what you try to demonstrate earlier in the paper. I suggest making the inverse process, searching for the highest precipitation recorded, and then looking at the baric configuration.

Only after this analysis would I agree that this event is unique.

Author Response

Please find my reply attached in a pdf file. There is also a pdf showing the differences between the first and the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the analysis of meteorological conditions from 15 September 2022 that resulted in flooding of the Marche region.

The research has the potential to be valuable contribution to the field, but the manuscript needs to be upgraded before publishing.

The paper lacks proper state of the art review that would provide framework within the research is conducted and context within the scientific contribution is provided. The methodology section lacks the detail of the used methodology – what is the reasoning behind the selected approach, besides being used by others? The results are just a pure readout of the results, without authors insight that would provide more information than the ones shown in the manuscript. The discussion is lacking comparison with the finding of the similar studies. The conclusion ic completely omitted from the manuscript.

 

Technical remarks:

Figures are poor in quality and do not add enough descriptive value to the manuscript.

Ln287: figure reference ??

Author Response

Please find my reply attached in a pdf file. There is also a pdf showing the differences between the first and the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author addresses most of the issues I found in the previous version of the paper. I'm still not 100% satisfied with the answer (especially the idea that Sicily experienced drought and not extreme precipitation events, but it is not written in the paper). Still, after a few changes, the paper can be considered for publication. Below is a list of minor points:

 

Fig 2: I think that the raster should reach the sea, at least in the Musone area. Moreover, are you sure about the hisohyet curve on the left? You should enlarge the area because it seems to sharpen the transition.

L178: fequation -> equation

L192: moe -> more

L350: Senigalli -> Senigallia

Table 1 caption: Candiano -> Cantiano

 

Author Response

Comment 1. The author addresses most of the issues I found in the previous version of the paper. I'm still not 100% satisfied with the answer (especially the idea that Sicily experienced drought and not extreme precipitation events, but it is not written in the paper). Still, after a few changes, the paper can be considered for publication. Below is a list of minor points:

Response 1. I wish to thank the reviewer for his valuable comments and corrections. As the reviewer pointed out, I did not include any information about Sicily in the text. I do not remember having said that Sicily experienced only drought and not extreme precipitation events, but I agree with the reviewer that heavy rainfall events, such as the flooding event in Giarre on November 13, 2024, can occur in Sicily.

 

Comment 2. Fig 2: I think that the raster should reach the sea, at least in the Musone area. Moreover, are you sure about the hisohyet curve on the left? You should enlarge the area because it seems to sharpen the transition.

Response 2. Thank you for pointing out this feature. I have adjusted the figure in accordance with the reviewer's comment, although I have made an extrapolation over the coast between Ancona and the mouth of Musone.

Comment 3.

L178: fequation -> equation

L192: moe -> more

L350: Senigalli -> Senigallia

Table 1 caption: Candiano -> Cantiano

Response 3. Thank you for these corrections. I have revised all the text, and I discovered a few other typos.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I believe that the manuscript has been sufficiently updated to be published.

Author Response

Comment 1. I believe that the manuscript has been sufficiently updated to be published.

Response 1. I am grateful for the reviewer's insightful comments and corrections.