On Surface Waves Generated by Extra-Tropical Cyclones—Part II: Simulations
, Vladimir Kudryavtsev 1,2, Maria Yurovskaya 1,2, Fabrice Collard 3 and Bertrand Chapron 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
On Surface Waves Generated By Extra-Tropical Cyclones. Part II: Simulations
Version March 14, 2023 submitted to Remote Sensing
General overview
This manuscript presents a high quality research paper about extreme marine conditions of surface waves generated by extra-tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic. The use of a 2D parametric wave-ray model was very successful to represent huge values of observed amplitudes and wavelengths.
The structure follows the standards, the text is clear and well-written and the conclusions are fully supported by the obtained results. I have only few comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. My opinion is accepted with minor revisions.
Specific comments
Line 85: I think authors should not refer to the animations at this part of the text. Instead of it, I do believe that a single figure with the tracks of both ETCs could be inserted at this point. Different markers for each track (representing time evolution) could follow the same sequence of colors to make evident the appearance of ETC#2 while ETC#1 was decaying.
Lines 147-150: Phrase should appear only once in the beginning of section 3
Figure 1: Some mention to the specific period of comparison is absolutely necessary, as well as the coverage area: “… from 11-Feb-2020 00:00 to 15-Feb-2020 23:00 in the region 50N-60N 50W-20W…” or something like that.
Lines 170 and 173: Authors should refer to Figure 1, isn’t it? Maybe Figure 2 following my first specific comment above…
Lines 182-184: Phrase must remain only at the caption of the figure
Caption of Figure 2, last phrase: kilomenter (km) not meter (m) Aare there six intervals in 1000Km? Is 200km right?
Line 211: illustrated in Fig.3
Line 212: I can see 30 and 110 angles in a trigonometric circle centered in the cyclone center, am I right? Some confusion may rise if trying to relate to the compass, so it is better to clarify the description of these angles
Lines 238-239: Tough to observe, maybe authors should give more explanation if they really want to highlight this fact. I see a light core of SWH in the second column and the propagation direction seems southward. Are these ones? It is a bit hard because the figure orientation respect to North varies from row to row...
Line 248: are shown in Fig.4
Line 284: I suggest to standardize date-time: 14-Feb-2020 09:00; 15-Feb-2020 20:00
Line 287: box I in the first row of Fig.6; box II in the third row of Fig.6
Line 289: The second column of Fig.7 displays
Line 310: mention to seconds not necessary; 14-Feb-2020 09:00
Line 317: why east-north instead of northeast?
Line 348: I believe authors are refering to Fig.5 instead of Fig.9
Caption of Fig.10: authors should include mention to circles in (c) and (e) which indicates wavelenghts, according to labels
Line 372: box IV in the last row of Fig.9
Line 375: again east-north... I can't understand why not northeast or even east-northeast
Lines 388-389: in order to standardize: 11-Feb-2020 12:00 to 15-Feb-2020 23:00
Lines 407-416: I suggest to standardize date-time as mentioned above
Line 421: disapparition
Author Response
General overview
This manuscript presents a high quality research paper about extreme marine conditions of surface waves generated by extra-tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic. The use of a 2D parametric wave-ray model was very successful to represent huge values of observed amplitudes and wavelengths.
The structure follows the standards, the text is clear and well-written and the conclusions are fully supported by the obtained results. I have only few comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. My opinion is accepted with minor revisions.
Response: Thank you, we are sincerely grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of our article. All the comments and suggestions are taken into account and helped us to improve the manuscript.
Specific comments
Line 85: I think authors should not refer to the animations at this part of the text. Instead of it, I do believe that a single figure with the tracks of both ETCs could be inserted at this point. Different markers for each track (representing time evolution) could follow the same sequence of colors to make evident the appearance of ETC#2 while ETC#1 was decaying.
Response: We believe that a new figure with the trajectory of ETCs is not necessary here. The trajectories are illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4 of PART I which is now published (https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/7/1940), but was not probably available to the reviewer at the time of writing the review report.
Lines 147-150: Phrase should appear only once in the beginning of section 3
Response: Done.
Figure 1: Some mention to the specific period of comparison is absolutely necessary, as well as the coverage area: “… from 11-Feb-2020 00:00 to 15-Feb-2020 23:00 in the region 50N-60N 50W-20W…” or something like that.
Response: Done.
Lines 170 and 173: Authors should refer to Figure 1, isn’t it? Maybe Figure 2 following my first specific comment above…
Response: The reference to the Figure 3 changed into Figure 1. (lines 178, 179, and 181).
Lines 182-184: Phrase must remain only at the caption of the figure
Response: Done.
Caption of Figure 2, last phrase: kilomenter (km) not meter (m) Aare there six intervals in 1000Km? Is 200km right?
Response: The unit is corrected to the km.
Line 211: illustrated in Fig.3
Response: Done.
Line 212: I can see 30 and 110 angles in a trigonometric circle centered in the cyclone center, am I right? Some confusion may rise if trying to relate to the compass, so it is better to clarify the description of these angles
Response: The sentence “The movement direction of ETC#2, shown by red arrows, is changing from 30°, to 110°, between initial hours and last hours of its life, respectively.” is modified to “The movement direction of ETC#2, shown by red arrows, is changing from 30°, to 110°, with reference to a trigonometric circle centered in the cyclone’s eye, between initial hours and last hours of its life, respectively.” (line 222)
Lines 238-239: Tough to observe, maybe authors should give more explanation if they really want to highlight this fact. I see a light core of SWH in the second column and the propagation direction seems southward. Are these ones? It is a bit hard because the figure orientation respect to North varies from row to row...
Response: For better understanding, explanation based on fields of wavelength and inverse wave age is added. (lines 248 ̶ 257)
Line 248: are shown in Fig.4
Response: Done.
Line 284: I suggest to standardize date-time: 14-Feb-2020 09:00; 15-Feb-2020 20:00
Response: The Date-time format is standardized all over the text, e.g., 14-FebT09/14-Feb-2020 09:00 is changed into 14 February 2020 09:00.
Line 287: box I in the first row of Fig.6; box II in the third row of Fig.6
Response: Done.
Line 289: The second column of Fig.7 displays
Response: Done.
Line 310: mention to seconds not necessary; 14-Feb-2020 09:00
Response: Done.
Line 317: why east-north instead of northeast?
Response: east-north changed into northeastward.
Line 348: I believe authors are refering to Fig.5 instead of Fig.9
Response: Modified.
Caption of Fig.10: authors should include mention to circles in (c) and (e) which indicates wavelengths, according to labels
Response: The explanation on the circles is added to the caption of Figure 10.
Line 372: box IV in the last row of Fig.9
Response: Done.
Line 375: again east-north... I can't understand why not northeast or even east-northeast
Response: east-north changed into northeast.
Lines 388-389: in order to standardize: 11-Feb-2020 12:00 to 15-Feb-2020 23:00
Response: The time format is standardized.
Lines 407-416: I suggest to standardize date-time as mentioned above
Response: Done.
Line 421: disapparition
Response: Corrected.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper reports the results of modeling and experimental observations of waves in extra-tropical cyclones. The cases of the two cyclones are studied; maps and even animations of integral and peak wave parameters are presented. Comparison between satellite and model data confirms that they both can be used as a powerful tool for study of extreme wave events.
The most interesting results, to my opinion, are the information on wave age distribution in the area of the cyclone and the dependence for time evolution of swell energy.
The paper reads well, however there are several minor comments:
1. Line 164: please, indicate how the bias was normalized (several options are possible).
2. Line 139: why the largest wave length corresponds to the dominant system?
3. Please, specify, how swell waves are defined. What are the values of wave age for swell?
4. Reword the sentence: Very this quantity is shown in Fig.13...
5. In the figure 8 the meaning of red dashed line is not reported.
6. Typo at the line 57.
Author Response
The paper reports the results of modeling and experimental observations of waves in extra-tropical cyclones. The cases of the two cyclones are studied; maps and even animations of integral and peak wave parameters are presented. Comparison between satellite and model data confirms that they both can be used as a powerful tool for study of extreme wave events.
The most interesting results, to my opinion, are the information on wave age distribution in the area of the cyclone and the dependence for time evolution of swell energy.
Response: Thank you for high evaluation of our paper. All the comments and suggestions are taken into account and helped us to improve the manuscript.
The paper reads well, however there are several minor comments:
- Line 164: please, indicate how the bias was normalized (several options are possible).
Response: The explanation on normalized bias is added. (lines 171 ̶ 176)
- Line 139: why the largest wave length corresponds to the dominant system?
Response: The text was modified to “As an option, following [35], the wave-train with maximal wavelength (or optionally with maximal SWH) can be chosen and treated as the primary (dominant) wave system, while other trains falling into the given cell were not taken into account. Here, unlike [35], wave-train with maximal SWH is addressed as the primary wave. (lines 142 ̶ 146)
- Please, specify, how swell waves are defined. What are the values of wave age for swell?
Response: The phrase “Based on inverse wave age fields, waves can be divided into the waves developing under wind, α|| > 0.85, fully developed, α|| = 0.85, and swells, α|| < 0.85.” is added to the text in the first paragraph of section 3.1 (lines 201 ̶ 203).
- Reword the sentence: Very this quantity is shown in Fig.13...
Response: Done.
- In the figure 8 the meaning of red dashed line is not reported.
Response: Done.
- Typo at the line 57.
Response: Corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presents extensive data on extreme wave events during two extra-tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic. The data recorded by different satellite-based sensors are compared with in situ measurements, as well as with prediction of a theoretical model. Regretfully, the model that was suggested in Part I of the present manuscript in which all details presumably are given, was not available to me. Nevertheless, the manuscript contains new and important information on waves excited by strong storms, and the model seems to describe adequately the observations. The accumulated data are carefully analyzed; important and sometimes unexpected conclusions are presented. The manuscript certainly should be published, after some minor errors are corrected.
First, I suggest that the manuscript be read again carefully, and the English presentation improved. Just a few examples from p. 1: The sentence in lines 21-22 is not completed. Sentences starting in lines 27 and 28 begin with [6], this should be corrected.
The fact that this manuscript constitutes just the 2nd part of the study is mentioned in line 55 and then again in line 72, but it seems that it has not been published yet as the ref. [39] in not complete. As already noted, it would be helpful to attach a copy of the companion Part 1 for review to assess the difference between those manuscripts.
It seems that there is a misprint in lines 170, 171 and 173, where the references apparently are made to panels of Fig. 1.
Author Response
The manuscript presents extensive data on extreme wave events during two extra-tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic. The data recorded by different satellite-based sensors are compared with in situ measurements, as well as with prediction of a theoretical model. Regretfully, the model that was suggested in Part I of the present manuscript in which all details presumably are given, was not available to me. Nevertheless, the manuscript contains new and important information on waves excited by strong storms, and the model seems to describe adequately the observations. The accumulated data are carefully analyzed; important and sometimes unexpected conclusions are presented. The manuscript certainly should be published, after some minor errors are corrected.
Response: Thank you for high evaluation of our paper. All the comments and suggestions are taken into account and helped us to improve the manuscript.
First, I suggest that the manuscript be read again carefully, and the English presentation improved. Just a few examples from p. 1:
The sentence in lines 21-22 is not completed.
Response: Corrected.
Sentences starting in lines 27 and 28 begin with [6], this should be corrected.
Response: Corrected.
The fact that this manuscript constitutes just the 2nd part of the study is mentioned in line 55 and then again in line 72, but it seems that it has not been published yet as the ref. [39] in not complete. As already noted, it would be helpful to attach a copy of the companion Part 1 for review to assess the difference between those manuscripts.
Response: In the abstract, it is mentioned that this paper and PART I are companion papers. The manuscript of PART I was attached to the present manuscript as an unpublished work in the submission stage, however, it was somehow unavailable for the reviewers, unfortunately. At the present time, the PART I is published, and full link is added to the REFERENCES. (https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/7/1940)
It seems that there is a misprint in lines 170, 171 and 173, where the references apparently are made to panels of Fig. 1.
Response: The reference to the panels of Figure 3 changed into Figure 1 (lines 178, 179, and 181).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
