Assessing extreme total water levels across Europe for large-scale coastal flood analysis
Abstract. Coastal storm-induced flooding threatens millions of people and infrastructures, highlighting the need for comprehensive flood risk assessments. A key component of these assessments is the spatial characterization of total water level (TWL), the primary driver of coastal impacts. We propose a homogeneous methodology for developing large-scale TWL hindcasts to estimate extreme events, considering possible spatial variabilities in marine dynamics. This methodology is applied to the European coastline, integrating downscaled nearshore waves, storm surges, and tides. The resulting hourly time series of the TWL have a spatial resolution of 1 km and covers the period from 1985 to 2021. Spatial variability is considered in foreshore slopes and extreme value detection thresholds, addressing common simplifications in large-scale studies. In addition to a characterization of extreme events based on the relative contributions of TWL components, sensitivity analyses of the wave contribution, wave data resolution, foreshore slopes, and wave setup formulations are conducted. The tide-dominated Atlantic coast is most affected by the wave dataset. The storm surge-dominated Baltic region exhibits the lowest confidence in estimating TWL return levels, partially due to the data and methods used. The Mediterranean Sea, characterized by a mixed environment, is the most sensitive to the inclusion of wave contribution. A classification of TWL extremes revealed that no regions have extreme events dominated by wave setup, while those dominated by tides show the highest return levels.
The manuscript presents results from developing and analyzing a high resolution hindcast of total water levels for Europe. The authors address the important topic of including wave contributions into TWL calculations and subsequent flood impact/risk analysis. They use different approaches to derive wave setup estimates and quantify the effect of the methodological choice on the resulting flood extent. They also test the effect of using different thresholds in the extreme value analysis that is applied to derive the 100-year TWL levels, which are then used for the static flood mapping. The manuscript is very well written and I commend the authors for the comprehensive analysis. I have few general comments and some minor ones listed below which I believe should be addressed to further improve the quality of the paper.
General comments:
Specific comments:
31 river discharge effects are not included, something worth mentioning somewhere, maybe when discussion limtations
75-105 This part includes a lot of basic information that can be found in text books. At the same time it doesn’t touch on more recent developments in extreme value modelling (for example, the approach proposed by Calafat and Marcos: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1913049117, or approaches where distributions are fitted to the stochastic components of TWL after removing deterministic tides).
157-159 something is wrong with this sentence
166 “global median beach slopes reported locally” sounds very strange and I am not sure what it is supposed to mean
205-210 I got very confused here because the same numbering style is used for the list and the equations; I suggest switching to i, ii, iii or a, b, c for the list and keep (1) (2) style for the equations
215 Refer to table 1 when mentioning approach A. I was wondering what it is and only realized on the next page.
235 “two extreme events per year”
242 “reconstructed…hindcast”; I would drop one
277 “Elbe Estuary”
310-315 (and other places) When the tides are the main driver, does it make sense to fit an extreme value distribution because its assumptions are not met? I know it’s a commonly used approach, but that doesn’t make it necessarily right.
348 delete “the”
Figure 7 (and related text) How does it look when no wave contributions are included (which is still often the approach used for large-scale assessments)
392-403 This and other parts of the results section read more like Discussion.
492 delete “an”
506 “applying a specially variable” (or “thresholds”)
Supp. Fig. 8 “significancy” should be “significance” in the title