the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Synoptic background of the Adriatic Sea high-frequency sea-level extremes
Abstract. Large oscillations in sea-level can pose significant threats to coastal communities and endanger infrastructure. The large sea-level variations are driven by different physical processes that occur on various spatial and temporal scales. This study focuses on the high-frequency component (periods shorter than 2 hours) of sea-level oscillations, particularly those induced by atmospheric processes. Episodes of extreme high-frequency sea level oscillations were identified at six tide gauge stations in the Adriatic Sea using the peak-over-threshold method. The length of time series was ~17 years. Characteristic synoptic situations preceding the Extremes were extracted using the k-medoid clustering method applied on the ERA5 reanalysis data. Analyses were conducted on the following ERA5 fields: mean sea-level pressure (MSLP), temperature at 850 hPa, and geopotential at 500 hPa. The structural similarity index measure (SSIM) was used as the distance metric. The data were divided into a training set (from the start of measurements to the beginning of 2018) and a testing set (from the beginning of 2018 to the end of 2020). For each station, k-medoid method was applied for selection of both 2 and 3 characteristic clusters. Two types of synoptic situations leading to extreme high-frequency sea level oscillations were extracted for all stations: “bad-weather” situation which favours both storm surges and intense high-frequency sea level oscillations, and “good-weather” situation which favours only intense high-frequency sea-level oscillations. The two situations mostly differ in surface fields, with the “bad-weather” situation characterised by larger MSLP gradients over the Adriatic and stronger surface winds. At higher levels, situations are more similar, and mostly described by inflow of warm air from the south-west and strong westerly to south-westerly jet stream. Inclusion of the third clusters led to refinement of one of two characteristic situations at all stations aside for Bakar and Rovinj where it led to a new “bora (strong north-easterly wind) -favourable” situation. The extracted clusters were used to label all days of the testing period, with particular attention given to days in which episodes of extreme high-frequency sea-level oscillations occurred. The potential of using k-medoid method for future prediction of these high-frequency, atmospherically induced sea-level oscillations is discussed.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(2663 KB)
-
Supplement
(2124 KB)
-
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(2663 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2124 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1601', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jul 2024
This paper concerns a method to categorize the types of extreme sea level events in the Adriatic. Although the technique is quite original, the paper presents too many shortcomings and cannot be considered for publication. The scope of the paper is weak and the method is badly explained. It is not clear how data are used, or what are the clusters and the groups. The categories are based on the division between storm surges and HF components, but no filtering method to do this is explained. Also, I don't understand the division between good weather, bad weather, and Bora events. The performances cannot be deduced well by the results and the application to real forecasts is only hypothesized. I suggest explaining the technique and results better before submitting this work again.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1601-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Krešimir Ruić, 19 Jul 2024
Thank you for your comments. We will greatly improve:
- the description of the methodology, including the use of data, terminology, selection of events, filtering process, etc.
- the evaluation of the performance
- parts of the manuscript where we discuss the application to real-time forecast
We will describe in detail how we will make the proposed changes once we have received the second review.
Also could I ask what do you specifically mean by "scope is weak"?
Best regards, Kresimir Ruic
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1601-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Jul 2024
Dear Authors,
I think the changes are too many and a new submission is needed. Anyway, it's only my idea, so wait for the other reviewer's comments and the Editor will decide.
About my last comment: you don't provide a forecast tool and you don't use it to find something interesting on the events that you analyse. Maybe you could give a more rigorous definition of the method and its applicability to other locations. Or to test it in the forecast.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1601-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Krešimir Ruić, 27 Sep 2024
Thank you for all your comments! We will indeed withdraw the paper and make all the necessary adjustments so that the resubmission has a better explanation of the method and more testing applications.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1601-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Krešimir Ruić, 27 Sep 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Krešimir Ruić, 19 Jul 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1601', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Sep 2024
The manuscript by Ruic et al. presents interesting and novel results on the sea-level extremes in the Adriatic Sea. Nevertheless, the manuscript is too long and there is a lot of presentation of the results just by giving out numbers. Instead, I propose the authors shorten the paper by presenting results only for two tide gauges, and moving one tide gauge to the supplement, containing then four tide gauges. I leave for the authors to decide which tide gauge to move to the supplement. The authors should concentrate on analysing the results and placing them in a context, making the manuscript more concise. Introduction chapter is too long, it should be shortened. For example, the authors should explain the reasons why the heights of HF and compound extremes differ at the tide gauges (Paragraph starting on line 273).
Some minor comments:
Line 184 Winderlich et al. is already published (https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-607-2024)
Figure 9 Please explain differences between a) and b) in the caption text. Reader should not have to read the main text to understand the Figure.
Line 560 I suppose you refer to Fig. 11, not Fig.12
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1601-RC3 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Krešimir Ruić, 27 Sep 2024
Thank you for your constructive comments! I would like to let you know that we will take them all into account, we will withdraw the manuscript and make necessary changes so that the article becomes more concise and straight forward.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1601-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Krešimir Ruić, 27 Sep 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1601', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jul 2024
This paper concerns a method to categorize the types of extreme sea level events in the Adriatic. Although the technique is quite original, the paper presents too many shortcomings and cannot be considered for publication. The scope of the paper is weak and the method is badly explained. It is not clear how data are used, or what are the clusters and the groups. The categories are based on the division between storm surges and HF components, but no filtering method to do this is explained. Also, I don't understand the division between good weather, bad weather, and Bora events. The performances cannot be deduced well by the results and the application to real forecasts is only hypothesized. I suggest explaining the technique and results better before submitting this work again.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1601-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Krešimir Ruić, 19 Jul 2024
Thank you for your comments. We will greatly improve:
- the description of the methodology, including the use of data, terminology, selection of events, filtering process, etc.
- the evaluation of the performance
- parts of the manuscript where we discuss the application to real-time forecast
We will describe in detail how we will make the proposed changes once we have received the second review.
Also could I ask what do you specifically mean by "scope is weak"?
Best regards, Kresimir Ruic
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1601-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Jul 2024
Dear Authors,
I think the changes are too many and a new submission is needed. Anyway, it's only my idea, so wait for the other reviewer's comments and the Editor will decide.
About my last comment: you don't provide a forecast tool and you don't use it to find something interesting on the events that you analyse. Maybe you could give a more rigorous definition of the method and its applicability to other locations. Or to test it in the forecast.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1601-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Krešimir Ruić, 27 Sep 2024
Thank you for all your comments! We will indeed withdraw the paper and make all the necessary adjustments so that the resubmission has a better explanation of the method and more testing applications.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1601-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Krešimir Ruić, 27 Sep 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Krešimir Ruić, 19 Jul 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1601', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Sep 2024
The manuscript by Ruic et al. presents interesting and novel results on the sea-level extremes in the Adriatic Sea. Nevertheless, the manuscript is too long and there is a lot of presentation of the results just by giving out numbers. Instead, I propose the authors shorten the paper by presenting results only for two tide gauges, and moving one tide gauge to the supplement, containing then four tide gauges. I leave for the authors to decide which tide gauge to move to the supplement. The authors should concentrate on analysing the results and placing them in a context, making the manuscript more concise. Introduction chapter is too long, it should be shortened. For example, the authors should explain the reasons why the heights of HF and compound extremes differ at the tide gauges (Paragraph starting on line 273).
Some minor comments:
Line 184 Winderlich et al. is already published (https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-607-2024)
Figure 9 Please explain differences between a) and b) in the caption text. Reader should not have to read the main text to understand the Figure.
Line 560 I suppose you refer to Fig. 11, not Fig.12
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1601-RC3 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Krešimir Ruić, 27 Sep 2024
Thank you for your constructive comments! I would like to let you know that we will take them all into account, we will withdraw the manuscript and make necessary changes so that the article becomes more concise and straight forward.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1601-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Krešimir Ruić, 27 Sep 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
209 | 54 | 92 | 355 | 22 | 22 | 17 |
- HTML: 209
- PDF: 54
- XML: 92
- Total: 355
- Supplement: 22
- BibTeX: 22
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Krešimir Ruić
Jadranka Šepić
Marin Vojković
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(2663 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2124 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote