the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An appraisal of the value of simulated weather data for quantifying coastal flood hazard in the Netherlands
Abstract. With recently updated safety norms, assessment of flood safety in the Netherlands requires return values for coastal sea level and surface stress for a wide range of return periods up to 107 years. Estimates from measurements are highly uncertain. To reduce the uncertainty, a possible solution could be to replace measurements by simulated weather datasets much larger than a typical measurement record. However, systematic errors in simulations can easily outweigh any gains in precision. Combining insights from physics and extreme value theory with evidence from data, we argue that even as stress from present-day weather prediction models may be too high or too low, these data are suitable for estimating the shape of the upper tail of the distribution function of stress, and that this extends to simulated data of water level along the Dutch coast. As scale and location parameters can be estimated with sufficient precision from relatively short measurement records, we estimate return values from a combination of measurements (for scale/location of water level) and simulated data (for shape), assess their uncertainty, and discuss strengths and limitations of the approach and prospects for further exploiting simulated weather data to assess flood risk.
- Preprint
(7226 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1541 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 15 Jul 2024)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-912', Agustín Sánchez-Arcilla, 17 Jun 2024
reply
The paper touches an interesting topic but it should improve the format (the reading is a bit cumbersome with lots of geographical names not located) and internal cross references (e.g. line 395 to the same section when looking for further information).
In more detail, the paper should address:
- Whether the shape of the probability distribution and the characteristics of the tale will be the same under future climates, particularly in the case of disruptions.
- The analysis of tail shape differences using the Gamma parameter or the Beta parameter should be better explained, not only making reference to the data source or probability distribution but also to the underlying physics.
- The assumptions that the development of extra tropical cyclones will constitute a continuum under future climates and that tail anomalies will not be affected by different extreme populations, should also be discussed making reference to future climate projections, particularly depending on scenario and horizon.
- The discussion about the benefits of increasing resolution should also make reference to the level of numerical diffusivity that is associated to resolution. This is an important point for all the following discussion on the shear stress which is directly related to the energetic transfer between air and sea.
- The difference in stress tail shape depending on resolution (e.g. figure 5 and associated paragraph) should also be discussed in more detail, explaining the large difference in scale and relating that to the underlying physics.
- The assumption that the extremal index for stress should be the same as for wind speed (line 320 and following) should also be discussed considering the non linear relationship and the reasons to question a single extremal index for both variables.
- The conclusion that large spatial variations in return values, from measurement analysis, is due to sampling variability is rather questionable (line 345 and following). This should be discussed considering sources of spatial variability and the dynamic evolution of the storm event over different spatial positions.
- The same discussion should be carried out for the limited universality of U10 tail shapes when compared to stress tail shapes. A physical based discussion on how the variability from the wind speed is transferred to the stress field, considering their non linear relation would greatly benefit that paper. The scale ratios from a number of positions along the coast (line 375 and following) should also be discussed considering the specific geographical constraints of each of those locations, particularly when in some of the locations larger ratios are found (line 380). I think that finding there is no large systematic impact of resolution is probably too strong a conclusion since very little is said about the conditions applied for that assessment.
- The systematic over estimation of stress from land sectors appears to be attributed to limited resolution of SEAS5 (line 390 and following). I wonder if that is the main reason since land roughness could also play a role in here.
In summary, the paper presents a lot of solid and well executed work and I think with some extra effort it could become an interesting publication in this field.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-912-CC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
117 | 33 | 11 | 161 | 13 | 9 | 8 |
- HTML: 117
- PDF: 33
- XML: 11
- Total: 161
- Supplement: 13
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1