Wave–Tide Interaction by Typhoon Ampil on Wave and Storm Surge in the Changjiang River Estuary and Its Adjacent Coastal Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The abstract needs some quantitative measures of the findings. It also needs to highlight the key results of this study.
2. Format issues:
(1) Formatting issues with all equations and their numbering. Please follow the journal format.
(2) Throughout the manuscript, add a space between values and their units
(3) Formatting issues L222-L232. The text could not be read.
(4) Figure 8 labels/axis fonts are a bit too small.
(5) Figure 9 and Figure 12: Increase the font sizes, especially the axis labels.
3. L297-L307 The explanations need to be supported with quantitative measures. Only providing qualitative descriptions is not sufficient for a scientific manuscript.
4. The conclusion needs more quantitative analysis-based results to support the claims made. Also, the authors need to mention the impacts of the assumptions made on the overall findings
5. My main concern is the underprediction of wave heights, especially those above 6.0 m. The under-predictions are not trivial, and it has significant implications for the study's overall results, as the whole focus is on the impacts of wave-tide interactions on the wave heights/storm surges. The authors have not attempted to rectify this shortcoming and conclude it as an excellent agreement (L402).
6. My other concern is that the findings are specific to this location and typhoon. I doubt the same can be observed under any other circumstances. Hence, it is very difficult to conclude any general behaviour under the results obtained from this study. However, then I realised other articles are available under similar circumstances.
Please refer to the attached file for detailed comments/suggestions
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
- It is suggested to undertake a comprehensive English language review/edit before submitting the revised version of the manuscript
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find my comments attached. Thanks.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of the English language can be done.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for updating the manuscript by addressing most of the comments given. However, according to the responses given by the authors, it is understood that the main issue of wave height underprediction is yet to be resolved. Please request additional time from the editor and provide with a complete version of the manuscript, rather than a partially completed version. That will make the review process much more efficient.
Authors are encouraged to undertake a thorough English language revision prior to submitting the updated version.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I want to congratulate the authors on what has turned out to be an interesting and useful paper. The authors have adequately responded to my previous comments.
I only have new minor comments:
(1) The limitations of ERA5 and possible improvement in future research (authors already described in the response sheet) can be added to the conclusion.
(2) I still can not see Typhoon Ampil explicitly mentioned in the conclusion section. Please note that various typhoon conditions that experimented stemmed from Typhoon Ampil and it is necessary to be declared.
Revised and added sentences after the first round review have several English language problems. Please refine those sentences appropriately so that they can reflect your original intention properly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for addressing the main issue related to model underprediction of SWH > 6.0 m. Model results with CFSv2 data show much better performances.
I have one minor comment:
In L306 of the latest version of the manuscript, indicate the most important model settings that may contribute to improve the wave height predictions. This will help other researches in their future studies. Also, indicate the same in the conclusions, so that the readers are aware of the limitations in interpreting the results presented in this manuscript.
Authors have improved the use of language in the updated version. Suggest undertaking one round of thorough assessment before the final submission to further improve the quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
