the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assessing Subseasonal Forecast Skill for Use in Predicting US Coastal Inundation Risk
Abstract. Developing predictions of coastal flooding risk on subseasonal timescales (2–6 weeks in advance) is an emerging priority for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In this study, we assess the ability of two current operational forecast systems, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Integrated Forecasting System (IFS) and the Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques climate model (CNRM), to make subseasonal ensemble predictions of the non-tidal residual component of coastal water levels at United States coastal gauge stations for the period 2000–2019. These models were chosen because they assimilate satellite altimetry at forecast initialization and attempt to predict the mean sea level, including a global mean component whose absence in other forecast systems complicates assessment of tide gauge reforecast skill. Both forecast systems have skill that exceeds damped persistence for forecast leads through 2–3 weeks, with IFS skill exceeding damped persistence for leads up to six weeks. Post-processing forecasts to include the inverse barometer effect, derived from mean sea level pressure forecasts, improves skill for relatively short forecast leads (1–3 weeks). Accounting for vertical land motion of each gauge primarily improves skill for longer leads (3–6 weeks), especially for the Alaskan and Gulf Coasts; sea-level trends contribute to reforecast skill for both model and persistence forecasts, primarily for the East and Gulf Coasts. Overall, we find that current forecast systems have sufficiently high levels of deterministic and probabilistic skill to be used in support of operational coastal flood guidance on subseasonal timescales.
-
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
(3504 KB)
-
Supplement
(4562 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3504 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4562 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Providing early warning of coastal flooding is an emerging priority for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We assess whether current operational forecast models can provide the basis for predicting the risks of higher-than-normal coastal sea level values up to 6 weeks in advance. For many United States coastal locations, models have sufficient prediction skill to be used as the basis for the development of a high tide flooding prediction system on subseasonal timescales.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-897', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 May 2025
The ability to predict water levels on a sub seasonal scale is obviously desirable in terms of coastal flood inundation risk. This paper is partly a follow on from the 2022 paper “A novel statistical approach to predict seasonal high tide flooding” by Dusek et al Whereas in that paper they used damped persistence derived from monthly non-tidal residuals to predict seasonal flooding, in this paper they use two operational forecast systems to make predictions of the non-tidal residual component of coastal water levels on United States coasts. They find that the skill of the forecasts exceed that of damped persistence but also important is the inclusion of sea level trends themselves.
Overall the paper is well written, the work scientifically sound and the conclusions appropriate. The figures are good but perhaps take a little bit of time to understand and interpret.
Minor questions/comments
Page 2 Line 50 Sweet and Zervas 2011 is not in the references.
Page 3 can you explain the forecast models a little more. For example what are their time resolution, how many forecast steps are there or how far ahead do they predict. Later on we see that its up to six weeks.
Page 4. Line 113
You say that “All reforecast and verification datasets are determined using seven day running mean anomalies” This to me is not very clear. What is you basic time step in this. The water level data is generally 6 minute or 1 hour or have you gone to daily values? Are you taking these values ad producing a seven day running mean or are you removing a seven-day running mean?
Line 114. What do you exactly mean by 20- or 25- year climatologies? You say in the supplement the first four harmonics (plus the mean). So I would assume that would mean Sa and Ssa but what is generally the other two?
Page 9, Line 151. Sweet et al 2022 seems to be missing in the references
Page 10. Equation 2. You talk about IBE and VLM corrected but I think you should be clearer on what you mean. Are you adding them on to one thing or removing them from another. I presume you are adding on to the forecasts to make the predicted NTR as close to the observed NTR as possible.
Page 16. Line 278. I don’t know “increase from north to south” seems better than “decrease from south to north”! Or even just “increase towards the south” or “decrease to the north”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-897-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', John Albers, 20 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-897/egusphere-2025-897-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', John Albers, 20 May 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-897', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-897/egusphere-2025-897-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', John Albers, 20 May 2025
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC3 and its content was therefore removed on 26 May 202516 August 2024.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-897-AC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', John Albers, 20 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-897/egusphere-2025-897-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', John Albers, 20 May 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-897', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 May 2025
The ability to predict water levels on a sub seasonal scale is obviously desirable in terms of coastal flood inundation risk. This paper is partly a follow on from the 2022 paper “A novel statistical approach to predict seasonal high tide flooding” by Dusek et al Whereas in that paper they used damped persistence derived from monthly non-tidal residuals to predict seasonal flooding, in this paper they use two operational forecast systems to make predictions of the non-tidal residual component of coastal water levels on United States coasts. They find that the skill of the forecasts exceed that of damped persistence but also important is the inclusion of sea level trends themselves.
Overall the paper is well written, the work scientifically sound and the conclusions appropriate. The figures are good but perhaps take a little bit of time to understand and interpret.
Minor questions/comments
Page 2 Line 50 Sweet and Zervas 2011 is not in the references.
Page 3 can you explain the forecast models a little more. For example what are their time resolution, how many forecast steps are there or how far ahead do they predict. Later on we see that its up to six weeks.
Page 4. Line 113
You say that “All reforecast and verification datasets are determined using seven day running mean anomalies” This to me is not very clear. What is you basic time step in this. The water level data is generally 6 minute or 1 hour or have you gone to daily values? Are you taking these values ad producing a seven day running mean or are you removing a seven-day running mean?
Line 114. What do you exactly mean by 20- or 25- year climatologies? You say in the supplement the first four harmonics (plus the mean). So I would assume that would mean Sa and Ssa but what is generally the other two?
Page 9, Line 151. Sweet et al 2022 seems to be missing in the references
Page 10. Equation 2. You talk about IBE and VLM corrected but I think you should be clearer on what you mean. Are you adding them on to one thing or removing them from another. I presume you are adding on to the forecasts to make the predicted NTR as close to the observed NTR as possible.
Page 16. Line 278. I don’t know “increase from north to south” seems better than “decrease from south to north”! Or even just “increase towards the south” or “decrease to the north”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-897-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', John Albers, 20 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-897/egusphere-2025-897-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', John Albers, 20 May 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-897', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-897/egusphere-2025-897-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', John Albers, 20 May 2025
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC3 and its content was therefore removed on 26 May 202516 August 2024.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-897-AC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', John Albers, 20 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-897/egusphere-2025-897-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', John Albers, 20 May 2025
Peer review completion


Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Providing early warning of coastal flooding is an emerging priority for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We assess whether current operational forecast models can provide the basis for predicting the risks of higher-than-normal coastal sea level values up to 6 weeks in advance. For many United States coastal locations, models have sufficient prediction skill to be used as the basis for the development of a high tide flooding prediction system on subseasonal timescales.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
335 | 71 | 21 | 427 | 25 | 13 | 30 |
- HTML: 335
- PDF: 71
- XML: 21
- Total: 427
- Supplement: 25
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Matthew Newman
Magdalena A. Balmaseda
William Sweet
Yan Wang
Tongtong Xu
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3504 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4562 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper