Impact of wave-water level non-linear interactions for the projections of mean and extreme wave conditions along the coasts of western Europe

Chaigneau, Alisée A.; Law-Chune, Stéphane; Melet, Angélique; Voldoire, Aurore; Reffray, Guillaume; Aouf, Lotfi

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-508

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-508

Preprints

05 Jul 2022

| 05 Jul 2022

Impact of wave-water level non-linear interactions for the projections of mean and extreme wave conditions along the coasts of western Europe

Alisée A. Chaigneau, Stéphane Law-Chune, Angélique Melet, Aurore Voldoire, Guillaume Reffray, and Lotfi Aouf

Abstract. Wind-waves are a main driver of coastal environment changes. Wave setup and runup contribute to coastal hazards such as coastal flooding during extreme water level (EWL) events. Wave characteristics used to estimate wave setup are sensitive to changes in water depth in shallow waters. However, wind-waves models used for historical simulations and projections typically do not account for water level changes whether from tides, storm surges, or long-term sea level rise. In this study, the sensitivity of projected changes in wind-wave characteristics to the non-linear interactions between wind-waves and water level changes is investigated along the Atlantic European coastline. For this purpose, a global wave model is dynamically downscaled over the northeastern Atlantic for the 1950–2100 period and for two climate change scenarios (SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5). Twin experiments are performed by accounting (or not) for hourly variations of water level from regional ocean simulations in the regional wave model. The largest impacts of wave-water level interactions are found in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel in France, due to a large tidal range of 10 m. At this location and during an historical extreme event, significant wave height was found to be up to 1 m higher (or +25 %) when considering water level variations, leading to an increase in wave setup by between +8.4 cm and +14.7 cm, depending on the value of the beach slope used. At the end of the 21^st century under SSP5-8.5 scenario, the wave simulation including water level variations exhibits an increase in extreme significant wave heights and wave setup values by up to +20 % and +10 % respectively. These results are found for many coastal points of the large continental shelf where shallow-water dynamics prevail, and especially so in macro-tidal areas.

Received: 17 Jun 2022 – Discussion started: 05 Jul 2022

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 2406 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (2406 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

20 Jul 2023

Impact of sea level changes on future wave conditions along the coasts of western Europe

Alisée A. Chaigneau, Stéphane Law-Chune, Angélique Melet, Aurore Voldoire, Guillaume Reffray, and Lotfi Aouf

Ocean Sci., 19, 1123–1143, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-1123-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-1123-2023, 2023

Short summary

Alisée A. Chaigneau et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-508', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Sep 2022
Review of “Impact of wave-water level non-linear interactions for the projections of mean and extreme wave conditions along the coasts of western Europe” by Chaigneau et al.

The aim of this paper is to assess the impact of including time dependent water level variations in the external forcings of a regional wind-wave model of the IBI domain (i.e., an area of the northeastern Atlantic including the Iberian-Biscay-Ireland regions) on the wave setup estimated from modelled mean and extreme sea state statistics.

Two configurations of the same regional wind-wave model differing only in the water level forcing (i.e., one uses it while the other one does not) are compared. Numerical experiments include hindcast integrations covering the period 1950-2014 and projected simulations spanning the period 1950-2100 under two climate change scenarios.

I believe the idea behind the study is intriguing and of interest for the broad environmental-scientific community and I think the topic of the manuscript is relevant to Ocean Science journal. However, I do have few major concerns listed below that I think the authors should address before the study could be suitable for publication.

General major comments

1. Methodology:

As stated by the authors (L60-61), “wave characteristics used to estimate wave setup are sensitive to water level changes in shallow waters, where waves interact with the ocean bottom.” From section 2.2.4 I understand that the wave model considers water-level variations only for the wave propagation (i.e., group velocity and wave number) while “coastal (depth-induced) breaking is not included” in the model (L92-95). My concern is that by not including the depth-induced wave-breaking the authors are missing a fundamental depth-dependent process, which can have a first order effect on the wave statistics in shallow water and hence on the wave setup. In addition, as the authors also explain in the introduction (L35-36), the wave setup is in fact due to the depth-induced wave breaking. So what I cannot understand is how the authors can assess the impact of water-level variations on the wave setup if the leading order physical mechanism driving the wave setup is not included in the model. I think the authors should carefully address this point in their manuscript.

When assessing the impact of water-level forcing on the wave setup at a domain level the authors report an impact in few coastal locations. My doubt is: how much can we trust these results given the 6m minimum depth approximation?

Also, could it be that the authors found a generally small (very few locations) impact because the depth-induced breaking is neglected and the minimum depth approximation is applied?

2. Validation:

The title of section 3 is “Validation and projections of IBI-CCS-WAV, without waves-sea level interactions” and in fact the figures of this section report data only for IBI-CCS-WAV. However, at L259-261 the authors state that “The ability of IBI-CCS-WAV and IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh to reproduce observed distributions is assessed for the mean state and the 99th percentile of the significant wave height and peak period since these variables are then used to compute the wave setup scaling”. Is the IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh validated as well? If not (as I believe is the case), then I think the authors should also include the validation for the experiment using water-level forcing since, apart from the impact on the wave setup, it is also interesting and useful to know for the wave modelling community whether including this forcing can help to improve the accuracy of the model.

3. Manuscript structure:

In general, I think the structure of the paper should be substantially improved before being suitable for publication. Below, a list of possible changes:

Section 2: this section is quite confused and not logically structured in my opinion. I would first move L101-112 as in intro of Sec. 2, improving the text and Fig 2 (the colours are to weak). Then, I think the authors could

            a) describe the numerical wave model (sec 2.1), avoiding the references to global and regional simulations (e.g. L85), since I think can confuse the reader.

            b) describe the regional wave configuration IBI-CCS-WAV (sec 2.2): this is the real focus of this paper, all the other models are used to force this model in my opinion. In addition, I would move L185-190 at the beginning of this section just to state at the beginning what is the aim of this model.

            c) describe the external forcings (sec 2.3) with three subsections:

                *) Atmospheric forcing (sec. 2.3.1), describing and validating (L138-152) CNRM-CM6-1-HR model and the fields used to force IBI-CCS-WAV. Also, please avoid the acronym GCM which is typically used for General Circulation Model instead.

                *) Hydrodynamic forcing (sec 2.3.2), describing IBI-CCS and the fields used to force IBI-CCS-WAV.

                *) Wave forcing (sec 2.3.3), describing CNRM-HR-WAV and the fields used to force IBI-CCS-WAV.

            d) Inclusion of water level variations in the regional wave model: IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh (sec 2.4)

            e) Wave setup calculation (sec. 2.5): Please check the definition of the wave setup scaling – there is a delta in the definition (L243) that I think should not be there.

Section 4: I would first describe the impact on the entire coastal domain and after on the specific locations. Also, I think the authors should clarify better what is the rational behind the choice of those two specific locations. Why not for example the Bristol channel? The tidal range there is almost as large as in Mont-Saint Michel. Also, I would rewrite Sec. 4.2 and 4.1 (which are the most important sections in my opinion), trying to discuss more in depth what is the impact and to contextualise it, maybe moderating a bit the wording (e.g., “highly impacted”) which I think it is not fully reflecting the results of the authors.

I would describe a bit better in the Conclusions and Abstract the limitations of your study.

Specific comments

L13: you don’t need the acronym EWL here, since you don’t use it anymore in the abstract.

The authors may want to add some references at L170 – 173. Here I am suggesting some possible references for the North Atlantic (which is the area I am more familiar with): the Atlantic coasts are subject to very energetic events in terms of significant wave heights, wave periods and energy flows (e.g., Masselink et al. 2016, Bruciaferri et al. 2021) whereas the Mediterranean Sea and North Sea are more sheltered areas. In addition, the zone also contains very different tidal regimes with both macro and micro tidal regimes respectively in the English Channel/Celtic Sea (Valiente et al. 2018, Stokes et al. 2021) and in the Mediterranean Sea.

L219-220: “Limitations related to the use of parameterizations have been extensively discussed in Melet et al., 2020” -> can the authors do a summary of those limitations here so that the reader is aware?

L224: please define “foreshore”.

L355: Figure 7 illustrates “projected changes” -> changes respect to what? Please clarify

L422-425: please rephrase it.

L453: the most significant impact -> quite strong wording, you have an impact (not so strong) only in one location out of two in Fig. 10.

L461: however small -> to me seems nihil

L484-485: I would be careful here. If what the authors are saying is true, then why it is not valid everywhere, e.g. Mont-Saint Michel? Please clarify.

References

Masselink, G. et al. 2016: The Extreme 2013/2014 Winter Storms: Hydrodynamic Forcing and Coastal Response along the Southwest Coast of England, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3836

Bruciaferri, D. et al. 2021 - The Impact of Ocean-Wave Coupling on the Upper Ocean Circulation During Storm Events, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JC017343

Valiente, G. N. et al. 2018: Role of waves and tides on depth of closure and potential for headland bypassing, Journal of Marine Geology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2018.10.009

Stokes et al. 2021: Forecasting coastal overtopping at engineered and naturally defended coastlines, Journal of Coastal Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2020.103827
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-508-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alisée Chaigneau, 20 Dec 2022
  
  Please see the supplement for the author response to Reviewer 1.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-508-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-508', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Sep 2022
Summary

This paper analyses the impact of nonlinear interactions between wind-waves and water level changes using numerical modelling projections. The study is focused on the IBI region, and the methods involve running different experiments accounting (or not) for water level variations, under different SLR scenarios. The focus is on the wave set up, which is calculated by deriving the wave setup scaling (without beach slope); the latter can then be scaled based on different empirical formulae or slopes. This allows calculation of the wave set-up over different potential beach slopes. Results show projected changes in significant wave height, peak periods, and wave set-up scaling. The inclusion of water level variation in the wave model has little (but some) impact over the mean sea state, however it does have an important impact during extreme event periods, particularly in high tidal range regions. Here, including the water-level changes can lead to an increase of significant wave height and wave setup.

General comments

The interaction between waves and ocean are bound by complex feedback effects, which are difficult to represent in models, yet increasingly important to consider in the light of future sea level rise predictions. This paper therefore tackles a very current issue, of interest to the scientific community and within the scope of the journal; that of the impact of water-level changes over wind-wave projections in regional climate models.

This work gives a new, good picture of changes induced by water-level changes to both the significant wave height and the wave period at the coast. The study also shows changes to the wave set up scaling, in a way which can be easily re-used and adapted to future studies considering specific beach slopes.

Details on the models used and methodology are thoroughly detailed. The paper is overall well written with strengths as well as weaknesses of the method explained clearly and objectively outlined. The limitation of the study however could be better explained in the discussion.

The discussion brings up important points to consider when analyzing results but could be better written by developing what the implications of the paper’s findings are.

I thinks this paper brings an interesting contribution to the field, but before publication I would like the authors to clarify the following major point:

The model used does not include shallow water processes such as wave breaking (line. 93), and cannot represent important interactions with the seabed in shallow regions, as the minimum depth is 6m (line. 206). These shallow water processes, as stated by the authors in the introduction, are important for wave setup and set down; yet this work estimates the setup from data that exclude them. Can the estimation of the setup, calculated excluding important shallow water processes, be trusted? Is it a reliable approximation?

Detailed comments

Section 2 Methods: model and simulations: I find this section hard to read. I appreciate that all information required on the models are provided in section 2, and figure 1 is helpful to understand the simulation used, however it is easy to get lost in the nomenclature of the multiple simulations, and in the mere amount of information laid out. It may be worth considering simplifying the reader’s work by adding a table containing a list of all simulations ran, including which forcing were used and the main details (resolution, period etc.) for each. This would improve the readability.

Line 217-223: ‘.’ This is the paragraph where you should convince the reader that runup estimation is reliable, despite the model’s approximation. Please give more details on the parametrization limitations and how the empirical formulation you use affects results (i.e. what processes you are missing out). Explain why you think this first order approximation is good enough, even though you are not including sallow water processes.

Line 243: When referring to the wave setup scaling the author sometimes use (eg. Line 243) and sometimes don’t use (eg. Figur10 description, Line 433) the delta sign. Please be consistent with it.

Line 259-261 ‘’ Has the IBI_CCS_WAV_ssh been validated? The section title seems to imply it hasn’t (‘).

Section 5. Discussion: Important points are discussed, but I would strongly recommend adding a section on the implications of your results. For example:

The authors found an increase in the wave set up and a large impact on the wave-water level interaction in regions of extreme tidal range. In the introduction, the authors talk about coastal hazards and flooding during extreme water level to motivate the study. You cannot quantify hazards based on wave setup alone, but there is a lot to discuss. Considering that the tidal range will also be affected by sea level rise, are the regions where you predicted an increase in wave setup the same regions that are at risk from extreme wave events today? Are there other regions in the world that these finding could be relevant for (eg. Regions where the tidal range is expected to increase significantly)? The number of extreme events is also expected to increase in future, and your results show that these are periods in which the wave setup is particularly affected by the water-level changes; this could also be discussed. Which are the limitations of this study?

Line 587, Impact of waves on sea level. Please discuss what this means in relation to your results: how would you expect the impact of waves on sea level to affect your results?

Line 605: The new paragraph starts with ‘’, it would be better to remove and start the sentence with ‘’.

Section 6. Conclusion. The main conclusion is not clear. I would rephrase it a way that answers your main aim reformulated as a question. For example, answer specifically: How is the sensitivity of historical and projected sea states for the IBI region coastlines affected by the non-linear interactions between wind-waves and water level changes, notably during extreme events?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-508-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alisée Chaigneau, 20 Dec 2022
  
  Please see the supplement for the author response to Reviewer 2.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-508-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-508', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Sep 2022
Review of “Impact of wave-water level non-linear interactions for the projections of mean and extreme wave conditions along the coasts of western Europe” by Chaigneau et al.

The aim of this paper is to assess the impact of including time dependent water level variations in the external forcings of a regional wind-wave model of the IBI domain (i.e., an area of the northeastern Atlantic including the Iberian-Biscay-Ireland regions) on the wave setup estimated from modelled mean and extreme sea state statistics.

Two configurations of the same regional wind-wave model differing only in the water level forcing (i.e., one uses it while the other one does not) are compared. Numerical experiments include hindcast integrations covering the period 1950-2014 and projected simulations spanning the period 1950-2100 under two climate change scenarios.

I believe the idea behind the study is intriguing and of interest for the broad environmental-scientific community and I think the topic of the manuscript is relevant to Ocean Science journal. However, I do have few major concerns listed below that I think the authors should address before the study could be suitable for publication.

General major comments

1. Methodology:

As stated by the authors (L60-61), “wave characteristics used to estimate wave setup are sensitive to water level changes in shallow waters, where waves interact with the ocean bottom.” From section 2.2.4 I understand that the wave model considers water-level variations only for the wave propagation (i.e., group velocity and wave number) while “coastal (depth-induced) breaking is not included” in the model (L92-95). My concern is that by not including the depth-induced wave-breaking the authors are missing a fundamental depth-dependent process, which can have a first order effect on the wave statistics in shallow water and hence on the wave setup. In addition, as the authors also explain in the introduction (L35-36), the wave setup is in fact due to the depth-induced wave breaking. So what I cannot understand is how the authors can assess the impact of water-level variations on the wave setup if the leading order physical mechanism driving the wave setup is not included in the model. I think the authors should carefully address this point in their manuscript.

When assessing the impact of water-level forcing on the wave setup at a domain level the authors report an impact in few coastal locations. My doubt is: how much can we trust these results given the 6m minimum depth approximation?

Also, could it be that the authors found a generally small (very few locations) impact because the depth-induced breaking is neglected and the minimum depth approximation is applied?

2. Validation:

The title of section 3 is “Validation and projections of IBI-CCS-WAV, without waves-sea level interactions” and in fact the figures of this section report data only for IBI-CCS-WAV. However, at L259-261 the authors state that “The ability of IBI-CCS-WAV and IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh to reproduce observed distributions is assessed for the mean state and the 99th percentile of the significant wave height and peak period since these variables are then used to compute the wave setup scaling”. Is the IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh validated as well? If not (as I believe is the case), then I think the authors should also include the validation for the experiment using water-level forcing since, apart from the impact on the wave setup, it is also interesting and useful to know for the wave modelling community whether including this forcing can help to improve the accuracy of the model.

3. Manuscript structure:

In general, I think the structure of the paper should be substantially improved before being suitable for publication. Below, a list of possible changes:

Section 2: this section is quite confused and not logically structured in my opinion. I would first move L101-112 as in intro of Sec. 2, improving the text and Fig 2 (the colours are to weak). Then, I think the authors could

            a) describe the numerical wave model (sec 2.1), avoiding the references to global and regional simulations (e.g. L85), since I think can confuse the reader.

            b) describe the regional wave configuration IBI-CCS-WAV (sec 2.2): this is the real focus of this paper, all the other models are used to force this model in my opinion. In addition, I would move L185-190 at the beginning of this section just to state at the beginning what is the aim of this model.

            c) describe the external forcings (sec 2.3) with three subsections:

                *) Atmospheric forcing (sec. 2.3.1), describing and validating (L138-152) CNRM-CM6-1-HR model and the fields used to force IBI-CCS-WAV. Also, please avoid the acronym GCM which is typically used for General Circulation Model instead.

                *) Hydrodynamic forcing (sec 2.3.2), describing IBI-CCS and the fields used to force IBI-CCS-WAV.

                *) Wave forcing (sec 2.3.3), describing CNRM-HR-WAV and the fields used to force IBI-CCS-WAV.

            d) Inclusion of water level variations in the regional wave model: IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh (sec 2.4)

            e) Wave setup calculation (sec. 2.5): Please check the definition of the wave setup scaling – there is a delta in the definition (L243) that I think should not be there.

Section 4: I would first describe the impact on the entire coastal domain and after on the specific locations. Also, I think the authors should clarify better what is the rational behind the choice of those two specific locations. Why not for example the Bristol channel? The tidal range there is almost as large as in Mont-Saint Michel. Also, I would rewrite Sec. 4.2 and 4.1 (which are the most important sections in my opinion), trying to discuss more in depth what is the impact and to contextualise it, maybe moderating a bit the wording (e.g., “highly impacted”) which I think it is not fully reflecting the results of the authors.

I would describe a bit better in the Conclusions and Abstract the limitations of your study.

Specific comments

L13: you don’t need the acronym EWL here, since you don’t use it anymore in the abstract.

The authors may want to add some references at L170 – 173. Here I am suggesting some possible references for the North Atlantic (which is the area I am more familiar with): the Atlantic coasts are subject to very energetic events in terms of significant wave heights, wave periods and energy flows (e.g., Masselink et al. 2016, Bruciaferri et al. 2021) whereas the Mediterranean Sea and North Sea are more sheltered areas. In addition, the zone also contains very different tidal regimes with both macro and micro tidal regimes respectively in the English Channel/Celtic Sea (Valiente et al. 2018, Stokes et al. 2021) and in the Mediterranean Sea.

L219-220: “Limitations related to the use of parameterizations have been extensively discussed in Melet et al., 2020” -> can the authors do a summary of those limitations here so that the reader is aware?

L224: please define “foreshore”.

L355: Figure 7 illustrates “projected changes” -> changes respect to what? Please clarify

L422-425: please rephrase it.

L453: the most significant impact -> quite strong wording, you have an impact (not so strong) only in one location out of two in Fig. 10.

L461: however small -> to me seems nihil

L484-485: I would be careful here. If what the authors are saying is true, then why it is not valid everywhere, e.g. Mont-Saint Michel? Please clarify.

References

Masselink, G. et al. 2016: The Extreme 2013/2014 Winter Storms: Hydrodynamic Forcing and Coastal Response along the Southwest Coast of England, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3836

Bruciaferri, D. et al. 2021 - The Impact of Ocean-Wave Coupling on the Upper Ocean Circulation During Storm Events, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JC017343

Valiente, G. N. et al. 2018: Role of waves and tides on depth of closure and potential for headland bypassing, Journal of Marine Geology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2018.10.009

Stokes et al. 2021: Forecasting coastal overtopping at engineered and naturally defended coastlines, Journal of Coastal Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2020.103827
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-508-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alisée Chaigneau, 20 Dec 2022
  
  Please see the supplement for the author response to Reviewer 1.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-508-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-508', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Sep 2022
Summary

This paper analyses the impact of nonlinear interactions between wind-waves and water level changes using numerical modelling projections. The study is focused on the IBI region, and the methods involve running different experiments accounting (or not) for water level variations, under different SLR scenarios. The focus is on the wave set up, which is calculated by deriving the wave setup scaling (without beach slope); the latter can then be scaled based on different empirical formulae or slopes. This allows calculation of the wave set-up over different potential beach slopes. Results show projected changes in significant wave height, peak periods, and wave set-up scaling. The inclusion of water level variation in the wave model has little (but some) impact over the mean sea state, however it does have an important impact during extreme event periods, particularly in high tidal range regions. Here, including the water-level changes can lead to an increase of significant wave height and wave setup.

General comments

The interaction between waves and ocean are bound by complex feedback effects, which are difficult to represent in models, yet increasingly important to consider in the light of future sea level rise predictions. This paper therefore tackles a very current issue, of interest to the scientific community and within the scope of the journal; that of the impact of water-level changes over wind-wave projections in regional climate models.

This work gives a new, good picture of changes induced by water-level changes to both the significant wave height and the wave period at the coast. The study also shows changes to the wave set up scaling, in a way which can be easily re-used and adapted to future studies considering specific beach slopes.

Details on the models used and methodology are thoroughly detailed. The paper is overall well written with strengths as well as weaknesses of the method explained clearly and objectively outlined. The limitation of the study however could be better explained in the discussion.

The discussion brings up important points to consider when analyzing results but could be better written by developing what the implications of the paper’s findings are.

I thinks this paper brings an interesting contribution to the field, but before publication I would like the authors to clarify the following major point:

The model used does not include shallow water processes such as wave breaking (line. 93), and cannot represent important interactions with the seabed in shallow regions, as the minimum depth is 6m (line. 206). These shallow water processes, as stated by the authors in the introduction, are important for wave setup and set down; yet this work estimates the setup from data that exclude them. Can the estimation of the setup, calculated excluding important shallow water processes, be trusted? Is it a reliable approximation?

Detailed comments

Section 2 Methods: model and simulations: I find this section hard to read. I appreciate that all information required on the models are provided in section 2, and figure 1 is helpful to understand the simulation used, however it is easy to get lost in the nomenclature of the multiple simulations, and in the mere amount of information laid out. It may be worth considering simplifying the reader’s work by adding a table containing a list of all simulations ran, including which forcing were used and the main details (resolution, period etc.) for each. This would improve the readability.

Line 217-223: ‘.’ This is the paragraph where you should convince the reader that runup estimation is reliable, despite the model’s approximation. Please give more details on the parametrization limitations and how the empirical formulation you use affects results (i.e. what processes you are missing out). Explain why you think this first order approximation is good enough, even though you are not including sallow water processes.

Line 243: When referring to the wave setup scaling the author sometimes use (eg. Line 243) and sometimes don’t use (eg. Figur10 description, Line 433) the delta sign. Please be consistent with it.

Line 259-261 ‘’ Has the IBI_CCS_WAV_ssh been validated? The section title seems to imply it hasn’t (‘).

Section 5. Discussion: Important points are discussed, but I would strongly recommend adding a section on the implications of your results. For example:

The authors found an increase in the wave set up and a large impact on the wave-water level interaction in regions of extreme tidal range. In the introduction, the authors talk about coastal hazards and flooding during extreme water level to motivate the study. You cannot quantify hazards based on wave setup alone, but there is a lot to discuss. Considering that the tidal range will also be affected by sea level rise, are the regions where you predicted an increase in wave setup the same regions that are at risk from extreme wave events today? Are there other regions in the world that these finding could be relevant for (eg. Regions where the tidal range is expected to increase significantly)? The number of extreme events is also expected to increase in future, and your results show that these are periods in which the wave setup is particularly affected by the water-level changes; this could also be discussed. Which are the limitations of this study?

Line 587, Impact of waves on sea level. Please discuss what this means in relation to your results: how would you expect the impact of waves on sea level to affect your results?

Line 605: The new paragraph starts with ‘’, it would be better to remove and start the sentence with ‘’.

Section 6. Conclusion. The main conclusion is not clear. I would rephrase it a way that answers your main aim reformulated as a question. For example, answer specifically: How is the sensitivity of historical and projected sea states for the IBI region coastlines affected by the non-linear interactions between wind-waves and water level changes, notably during extreme events?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-508-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alisée Chaigneau, 20 Dec 2022
  
  Please see the supplement for the author response to Reviewer 2.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-508-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Alisée Chaigneau on behalf of the Authors (20 Dec 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (04 Jan 2023) by Joanne Williams

Dear authors,

Thank-you for your revised manuscript and response to reviewers. It is much improved, but I have just reviewed it from scratch and noted some of the same points that both reviewers made, so I do not think you have sufficiently addressed their concerns. I would therefore like you to take a further look at this before I ask them to re-review.

In particular:

I found the methodology and results section of this paper rather heavy-going to read, though it has improved since the revisions. There are several model combinations and it's hard work keeping track of the various acronyms, especially as similar acronyms describe very different parts of the system. It might help to move some of the details of the model setup into an appendix.
Fig 1 is helpful, though it is difficult to read the small font, but I agree with reviewer 2 that it would help to include a table/figure to explain which model combinations are included in the results section. Please do this.

Also consider combining more of the figures. Figures 8, 10, 11 and 13 are very similar - could some of these be merged? Can you synthesise the key result in one figure, or do we need to read all of these?

I agree with both reviewers that the issue of waves in very shallow water and depth-dependent wave breaking, especially in such a wide flat bay as M-St-M, needs handling more carefully, and I don't think you've addressed this yet. I understand that this is not easy to include with a modelling scale that cannot include wetting and drying, but it is not enough to leave it to section 5 to list as a limitation. You should be a lot more open about this limitation up front, and to be clear what your model still can do despite this. It is not obvious that this model can be applied at all in very shallow water, but that it might only be relevant further off-shore. Perhaps an illustration would be useful to explain, something like a depth/beach profile at a specific site in your model under the various circumstances, and how that relates to the real-world depth? Is it capped at 6m at both high and low tide? Or allowed to go to 1m at low tide? It is not clear.

There are a number of small typos and language corrections, eg
line 12: contributes,
line 40: 10-20%
line 615: "A perspective for this study" makes no sense
various commas etc. There are too many to list here, a copy-edit for English may be necessary before final publication but please catch as many as you can.

Some of the figure labels seem inaccurate. For example Fig 5g should be change in peak period I think? Please check every figure carefully.

line 21: Mont-St-Michel has a tidal range of much more than 10m? That sounds about right for the mean range - be clear what you mean.

Regards,

Dr Joanne Williams, Topic Editor

Hide

AR by Alisée Chaigneau on behalf of the Authors (24 Feb 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 Mar 2023) by Joanne Williams

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (21 Mar 2023)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This is my second review of manuscript egusphere-2022-508 by Chaigneau at al. I appreciate that the authors seriously considered my suggestions and importantly modified the manuscript. In particular, I see that the authors preferred to not include the impact on the wave-setup this time, decision that I fully agree with.

I generally think the manuscript is in much better shape now (I do like Tab 1 for example, I think it helps a lot the reader) and in my opinion ready to be published, provided the authors clarify some points that I consider minor but could potentially result in major revisions.

Comments:
1) My main point is sec 2.1. I think this Sec. is not clear enough about the physical processes included or not in the model. In particular, in this version of the paper the authors claim that “coastal depth-induced breaking that occurs in shallow waters is parametrized using Battjes and Janssen, 1978” (L78-79). This choice is in line with current state-of-the-art large scale spectral wave models - e.g. UK Met Office wave configurations (Valiente et al. 2022). However, in the first version of the paper the authors stated: “MFWAM primarily aims at describing the open ocean sea states. As such, coastal (depth-induced) breaking is not included in MFWAM” (L92-93). So I don’t really understand whether shallow water dissipative processes are included or not in the model. One think that makes me think is that I also checked Law-Chune et al, 2021 since the authors suggest checking this for the technical details. However, also in that paper there is no mention about shallow water physics included or not in the model. Could the authors please clarify this point, specifying all the processes that the model takes into account and which formulation/parameterization are used? I understand these are rather technical details but they can help a lot clarifying what the model should be able to reproduce.

2) Sec. 2.3 is not very clear in my opinion – I really like the idea behind this section, since explains the methodology and can help others to replicate the method, but as it is written is very confused. In particular, the authors should/could think to use better Fig. 2, perhaps describing it in the text. I suggest also if possible to use a consistent mathematical notation – e.g. I think it shouldn’t be k_0 or k_1 but instead k(t=0) and k(t=1) (or just k(0) and k(1)) … Anyway, with the current text I really didn’t understand how the computations with the look-up tables are done.

3) Sec. 2.4 I think should summaries a bit the method used for the extreme value analysis.

4) L166-167: I would rewrite this sentence, make it clearer that IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh is compared only against buoy and why.
5) L323-326: please rephrase this sentence since I really don’t understand what the authors are trying to say – e.g. 70% where does it come from?

References

Valiente, N. G., Saulter, A., Gomez, B., Bunney, C., Li, J.-G., Pequignet, C., and Palmer, T.: The Met Office operational wave forecasting system: the evolution of the Regional and Global models, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-261, in review, 2022

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (31 Mar 2023)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (05 Apr 2023) by Joanne Williams

Dear authors,

hopefully you've seen we have two new reviewer reports on the manuscript. Reviewer 1 has a few minor corrections still, please attend to these. (Copied here for convenience):

=================
"This is my second review of manuscript egusphere-2022-508 by Chaigneau at al. I appreciate that the authors seriously considered my suggestions and importantly modified the manuscript. In particular, I see that the authors preferred to not include the impact on the wave-setup this time, decision that I fully agree with.

I generally think the manuscript is in much better shape now (I do like Tab 1 for example, I think it helps a lot the reader) and in my opinion ready to be published, provided the authors clarify some points that I consider minor but could potentially result in major revisions.

Comments:
1) My main point is sec 2.1. I think this Sec. is not clear enough about the physical processes included or not in the model. In particular, in this version of the paper the authors claim that “coastal depth-induced breaking that occurs in shallow waters is parametrized using Battjes and Janssen, 1978” (L78-79). This choice is in line with current state-of-the-art large scale spectral wave models - e.g. UK Met Office wave configurations (Valiente et al. 2022). However, in the first version of the paper the authors stated: “MFWAM primarily aims at describing the open ocean sea states. As such, coastal (depth-induced) breaking is not included in MFWAM” (L92-93). So I don’t really understand whether shallow water dissipative processes are included or not in the model. One think that makes me think is that I also checked Law-Chune et al, 2021 since the authors suggest checking this for the technical details. However, also in that paper there is no mention about shallow water physics included or not in the model. Could the authors please clarify this point, specifying all the processes that the model takes into account and which formulation/parameterization are used? I understand these are rather technical details but they can help a lot clarifying what the model should be able to reproduce.

2) Sec. 2.3 is not very clear in my opinion – I really like the idea behind this section, since explains the methodology and can help others to replicate the method, but as it is written is very confused. In particular, the authors should/could think to use better Fig. 2, perhaps describing it in the text. I suggest also if possible to use a consistent mathematical notation – e.g. I think it shouldn’t be k_0 or k_1 but instead k(t=0) and k(t=1) (or just k(0) and k(1)) … Anyway, with the current text I really didn’t understand how the computations with the look-up tables are done.

3) Sec. 2.4 I think should summaries a bit the method used for the extreme value analysis.

4) L166-167: I would rewrite this sentence, make it clearer that IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh is compared only against buoy and why.
5) L323-326: please rephrase this sentence since I really don’t understand what the authors are trying to say – e.g. 70% where does it come from?

References

Valiente, N. G., Saulter, A., Gomez, B., Bunney, C., Li, J.-G., Pequignet, C., and Palmer, T.: The Met Office operational wave forecasting system: the evolution of the Regional and Global models, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-261, in review, 2022 "
===============

I also noted a few small points:

Abstract still refers to M-St-M tidal range of 10m (it is more than this). Please check.

Fig 1b colorbar would make more sense labelled as "depth difference" or "M2 tidal range"
Similarly Fig 3 right hand colour bars should be labelled as difference in T, difference in H
Same on Fig4.

Fig 8/9 are superficially similar but very different in content. To help readers comparing parts of the paper I suggest titling them "Mean state" and "Extreme condition"

Fig 10: To improve accessibility please add a key with line colours.

I agree with Reviewer 2 that section 2.3 is a little confused from about line 133 and needs the wording tidying up. The bit about discretisation and the yellow arrows on the figure are simply "depth including tide is rounded to the nearest 15cm and truncated to a minimum depth of 3m" I think? Whilst depth in the tide-less model is truncated to 6m?

I look forward to what will hopefully be the final revision! I realise you may not get this till after Easter, so don't panic about the automatic deadlines.

Best wishes,
Jo
=============
Dr Joanne Williams

Hide

AR by Angelique Melet on behalf of the Authors (29 Apr 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (18 May 2023) by Joanne Williams

AR by Angelique Melet on behalf of the Authors (22 May 2023) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

20 Jul 2023

Impact of sea level changes on future wave conditions along the coasts of western Europe

Alisée A. Chaigneau, Stéphane Law-Chune, Angélique Melet, Aurore Voldoire, Guillaume Reffray, and Lotfi Aouf

Ocean Sci., 19, 1123–1143, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-1123-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-1123-2023, 2023

Short summary

Alisée A. Chaigneau et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 717 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
487	208	22	717	7	11

HTML: 487
PDF: 208
XML: 22
Total: 717
BibTeX: 7
EndNote: 11

Views and downloads (calculated since 05 Jul 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2022	105	29	8	142
Aug 2022	39	47	0	86
Sep 2022	82	14	2	98
Oct 2022	64	15	3	82
Nov 2022	26	9	0	35
Dec 2022	44	13	4	61
Jan 2023	21	5	0	26
Feb 2023	30	21	0	51
Mar 2023	26	11	2	39
Apr 2023	13	9	0	22
May 2023	16	6	0	22
Jun 2023	14	22	2	38
Jul 2023	7	7	1	15

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 05 Jul 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2022	105	29	8	142
Aug 2022	39	47	0	86
Sep 2022	82	14	2	98
Oct 2022	64	15	3	82
Nov 2022	26	9	0	35
Dec 2022	44	13	4	61
Jan 2023	21	5	0	26
Feb 2023	30	21	0	51
Mar 2023	26	11	2	39
Apr 2023	13	9	0	22
May 2023	16	6	0	22
Jun 2023	14	22	2	38
Jul 2023	7	7	1	15

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 667 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 667 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 20 Jul 2023

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (2406 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Wind-waves are a major driver of coastal environment changes and can drive coastal marine hazards such as coastal flooding. In this paper, by using numerical modeling along the Atlantic European coastline, we assess how much wind-wave characteristics will change at the end of the century due to sea level rise. For example, significant wave height and wave setup extreme events will be increased by up to +20 % and +10 % respectively when considering mean sea level rise.


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