Hurricanes that haven’t happened, yet: Identifying unprecedented tropical cyclone scenarios
Abstract. Tropical cyclones (TCs) can be unprecedented in many dimensions and can result in disasters when they are unforeseen. We conduct an intercomparison of four TC databases to identify plausible synthetic events that would exceed observational records, and argue that these provide robust and evidence-based scenarios for disaster management use. We compare datasets produced by two statistical TC track models and a newly published TC track hindcast archive from numerical weather predictions: STORM (n = 712,800), IRIS (n= 472,162), and WATTCH (n= 36,793). For all six TC basins, we explore how each dataset characterises unprecedented extreme events in terms of lifetime maximum intensity, 24 h changes in wind speed, monthly frequency of Category 4 and 5 storms, and latitude at first landfall. We assess how each dataset represents the basin-level observational record from IBTrACS by conducting a series of fidelity tests (mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, and skewness) to assess whether their most extreme events could be considered plausible in the current climate. Between 50 % and 89 % of dataset-basin combinations pass at least 2/4 fidelity tests if we include where models indicate underestimation. From this, we identify several hundreds of plausible simulated TCs that exceed historical records in different ways. Where datasets show good fidelity, we illustrate the potential use of these datasets by extracting unprecedented scenarios such as a Category 5 TC hitting southern Madagascar or a TC making landfall on the city of Xai-Xai in Mozambique south of the country's most southerly landfall. Based on this work, we underscore an opportunity for disaster management practitioners to access unprecedented TC scenarios relevant to their work and that would be both robust and imaginative, going beyond current practice.
Summary
The author team uses several datasets to explore different characteristics of unprecedented TC events. Thereby they tested the fidelity of the datasets in realistically representing their most extreme TC events. Further they showed in some examples how the data set can be used, underscoring the opportunity for disaster management.
General
The author team present an interesting study which certainly fits NHESS. Still, the structure lacks clarity and the quality of the figures does not meet the standard for publication. Also, the results are in a stage of the zero-order draft so I recommend major revision.
Major
Minor
Title: The title is a bit repetitive, so I suggest to use the second part: “Identifying unprecedented tropical cyclone scenarios”
L15: TCs can also result in disaster when they are foreseen, so remove “when they are unforeseen”.
Introduction: It is rather uncommon the use subsections in the introduction (except in review articles), please make one flow text.
L58: “Hodges et al. (2017) used the “
L85: Please cite studies which assess TCs in past present and future, one example is DOI: 10.3402/tellusa.v64i0.15672 but there is certainly more work which could be cited.
L96: “such as Philip et al. (2022) who derived “
L99: “who modelled”
L106: For convection permitting models you can cite DOI: 10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0472
L146 Missing dot
L151: “who argued that scientists “
L204: It remains unclear how the matching is done. The authors need to be specific about this.
L204: “. Tropical cyclones”
L209-213: This is a kind of repetition of the paragraph before and again no proper explanation of how the matching is done is presented.
Fig. 1: too small
256: Please change methodology to method.
L261: “then the models produce “
L270: Two sentences for a sub-subsection are not enough, maybe avoid sub-subsections.
Fig.2: Resolution is not sufficient and labels too small.
L323-326: This is a repetition.
Fig. 3: too small, low resolution
L360-366: This bullet list contains a lot of speculations and draws conclusions, I suggest avoiding this a move the conclusions to section 5
Fig.4,5,6,8 too small, axes labels missing, resolution bad.
L394-399: This bullet list contains a lot of speculations and draws conclusions, I suggest avoiding this a move the conclusions to section 5
L427-437: This bullet list contains a lot of speculations and draws conclusions, I suggest avoiding this a move the conclusions to section 5
Fig.7 bad quality
L486-497: This bullet list contains a lot of speculations and draws conclusions, I suggest avoiding this a move the conclusions to section 5
Fig.9: Is this really needed as a figure, I have the feeling that a description is sufficient. Also is it mm per day ?
L525: “Archer et al. (2024) identified”
Fig.10: axes labels missing in a, (a), (b) labels missing and (b) is unclear what we see and what the shading means.
L591: “Kelder et al. (2025) who advocated “
L639: You may cite DOI: 10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0472 here
L646: The publication of Jeffries seems to be quiet important but it is still not accepted, so I suggest to remove submitted publications and find published works which supports your statements.
L648: The third aim of this study”
Conclusion: This section is more a summary/abstract than a conclusion, so please draw conclusions.
L659-662: Avoid asking rhetorical questions, so I suggest removing this paragraph.