the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 25 Oct 2023
Development and performance of a high-resolution surface wave and storm surge forecast model (COASTLINES-LO): Application to a large lake
Abstract. An automated real-time forecast model of surface hydrodynamics in Lake Ontario (Coastlines-LO) was developed to predict storm surge and surface waves. The system uses a dynamically coupled Delft3D – SWAN model with a structured grid to generate 48 h predictions for the lake that are updated every 6 h. The lake surface is forced with meteorological data from the High Resolution Deterministic Prediction System (HRDPS). The forecast model has been running since May 2021, capturing a wide variety of storm conditions. Good agreement between observations and modelled results is achieved, with root mean squared errors (RMSE) for water levels and waves under 0.02 m and 0.26 m, respectively. During storm events, the magnitude and timing of storm surges are accurately predicted at 9 monitoring stations (RMSE < 0.05 m), with model accuracy either improving or remaining consistent with decreasing forecast length. Forecast significant wave heights agree with observed data (1–12 % relative error for peak wave heights) at 4 wave buoys in the lake. Coastlines-LO forecasts for storm surge prediction for two consecutive storm events were compared to those from the Great Lakes Coastal Forecasting System (GLCFS) to further evaluate model performance. Both systems achieved comparable results with average RMSEs of 0.02 m. Coastlines-LO is an open-source wrapper code driven by open-data and has a relatively low computational demand, compared to GLCFS, making this approach suitable for forecasting marine conditions in other coastal regions.
- Preprint
(3454 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(717 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-151', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Dec 2023
It is a pretty nice work, and I only have some minor comments for authors to clarify them:
For the wave-current coupling, have the authors used the radiation stress method? I would like authors to have a look at the comparison between radiation stress method and vortex force method, and maybe authors need list this one as one of limitation or uncertainty:
Kumar, N., Voulgaris, G., Warner, J.C., 2011. Implementation and modification of a three dimensional radiation stress formulation for the surf zone and rip-current applications. Coast. Eng. 58, 1097–1117.
Xia, M., Mao, M., Niu, Q. (2020). “Implementation and comparison of the recent three-dimensional radiation stress theory and vortex force formulism in an unstructured-grid coastal model,” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Sciences, 189, 1-16.
What kinds of wind stress formula did authors used? Please have a look at Niu and Xia, 2016 in their studies at Lake Erie.
Line 77-82, Niu et al, 2015 compared the various resolution grid mesh and wind forcings to the Lake Erie circulation.
Line 373-374, Kang and Xia, 2020 discussed how to improve the surge simulation under various wind forcing in an application to Maryland Coastal Bays under hurricane Sandy, just in case if helpful
Line 430-432, Peng, Xie and Pietrafesa, 2004; Xia, Xie, Pietrafesa, Peng et al, 2008 already mentioned the importance of 3-D V.S 2-D in their North Carolina surge application.
Line 439-441: Lake Erie model by Niu and Xia, 2015; 2016 did consider the high resolution to simulate the wave and surge, while use FVCOM.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC1 -
RC5: 'Reply on RC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
This paper has a lot of overlaps with published Lake Erie/Michigan papers which my group published and have little new value, and they don’t clarify the differences with existing works, so make no major impacts to Lake community. Authors try to avoid the question for wave-current coupling between Vortex Force and Radiation Stress formula, and only push for a publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC5 -
EC2: 'Reply on RC5', Andrew Wickert, 01 Mar 2024
Dear Anonymous Referee;
Thank you for adding your concerns to this debate. As topical editor, I will add a couple of short notes.
Regarding the scientific integrity of the process, please be assured that this is of utmost importance. Within this theme, building upon the prior literature (where relevant) to be important. Relevance here is determined by the context of modeling large lakes and the simulation that lead author Swatridge & co-authors developed.
We must also respect integrity in the editorial and review process. Your initial review did not address the comprehensive review criteria given by GMD (https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/peer-review_process/review_criteria.html), but rather was a very short request that these authors address topics from (if I count correctly) four of your papers. This does not seem to me to be an appropriate use of the review process. When the authors declined, your opinion changed from "a pretty nice work" to "little new value". This also causes concern.
As topical editor, I will ensure that papers, including yours, are cited by the authors as appropriate. I invite the authors to respond to the comments that you have posted elsewhere in the interactive discussion.
With hopes for a smoother process onwards,
Andy WickertCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-EC2 -
RC10: 'Reply on EC2', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
Yes, I agree with Editor to question this group. For example, https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/15/1331/2022/gmd-15-1331-2022-discussion.html This Lake Erie paper is also published by your journal, and a series of FVCOM based modeling work has been published to Lake Erie (Niu et al, 2015, Niu and Xia, 2016, Niu and Xia, 2017, Niu et al., 2018, Jiang et al. 2015), and they totally ignored the results. They also tried to mislead the community when mentioning FVCOM’s application to Lakes by citing FVCOM’s application to Lake Michigan instead of Lake Erie's FVCOM papers which that paper discussed.
I hope community ensure this group to follow the scientific rule now and in the future.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC10 -
RC11: 'Reply on RC10', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
Publisher’s note: the content of this comment was adjusted on 4 March 2024 after approval of the GMD executive editors since some formulations were inappropriate.
Yes, this paper could be a nice paper if they addressed the difference with published paper, and I assume they didn't know other published papers, and I do agree that they did have some nice modeling results. I personally don't think this paper can be accepted by the majority of journals, like JGR-Ocean, Ocean Modeling, while it can be a nice paper for the modeling discussion at the first round. However, if authors keep ignoring the current published work, then the version will be extremely misleading when they already know existing published works and try to ignore them. Another reviewer also questioned the novelty in the second round, just after my second round comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC11
-
RC11: 'Reply on RC10', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
-
RC12: 'Reply on EC2', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
I agree with the importance of building on existing results, so I listed the model development for Lake Erie and Lake Michigan, also a large lake for their reference, more detailed comments will come shortly. Like my words, I completely understand if authors didn't see these papers, while I will disagree or against if you try to claim their novelty after knowing them and ignoring some of them. This is the reason for me to change from "support" to "against" . Please note that I have no conflicts with this group, otherwise I won't offer "support" at the first round and let them to make clarification with exiting knowledge.
- Sun, , Liang, X, Xia, M. (2020). “Developing the Coupled CWRF-FVCOM Modeling System to Understand and Predict Atmosphere-Watershed Interactions over the Great Lakes Region,” Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002319
- Xia, M., Mao, M., Niu, Q. (2020). “Implementation and comparison of the recent three-dimensional radiation stress theory and vortex force formulism in an unstructured-grid coastal model,” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Sciences, 189, 1-16.
- Sahoo, B., Mao, M., & Xia, M. (2021). “Projected climatological circulation in Lake Michigan under RCP scenarios” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JC016651
- Mao, , & Xia, M. (2020). “Particle dynamics in the nearshore of Lake Michigan revealed by an observation-modeling system,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JC015765
- Mao, M. , & Xia, M. (2020). “Monthly and episodic dynamics of summer circulation in Lake Michigan,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JC015932
- Mao, M., & Xia, M. (2017). “Dynamics of wave-current-surge interactions in Lake Michigan: A model comparison,” Ocean Modelling, 110, 1-20.
- Mao, M., Andre Van der Westhuysen, Xia, M., David J. Schwab, Arun Chawla (2016). “Modeling wind waves from deep to shallow waters in Lake Michigan using unstructured SWAN,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 121, 3836-3865.
- Niu, Q. , Xia, M. (2021) “The behavior and wind-driven dispersions of two dynamically distinctive limnetic river plumes in a semi-enclosed basin,” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Sciences. 258(C9):107408 DOI:1016/j.ecss.2021.107408
- Niu, Q., Xia, M., Ludsin, S.A., Chu, P.Y., Mason, D.M., Rutherford, E.S. (2018). “High‐turbidity events in Western Lake Erie during ice-free cycles: Contributions of river-loaded vs. resuspended sediments,” Limnology and Oceanography, 00, 1-18.
- Niu, Q., & Xia, M. (2017). “The role of wave-current interaction in Lake Erie's seasonal and episodic dynamics,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 122.
- Niu, Q., & Xia, M. (2016). “Wave climatology of Lake Erie based on an unstructured-grid wave model,” Ocean Dynamics, 66(10), 1271-1284.
- Niu, Q., Xia, M., Rutherford, E.S., Mason, D.M., Anderson, E.J., Schwab, D.J. (2015). “Investigation of interbasin exchange and interannual variability in Lake Erie using an unstructured‐grid hydrodynamic model,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 120, 2212-2232.
- Jiang, L., Xia, M., Ludsin, S.A, Rutherford, E.S., Mason, D.M., Pangle, K.L., Marin Jarrin, J.R. (2015). “Biophysical modeling assessment of the drivers for plankton dynamics at western Lake Erie,” Ecological Modelling, 308, 18-33. (Best Paper Award)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC12
-
RC10: 'Reply on EC2', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
-
EC2: 'Reply on RC5', Andrew Wickert, 01 Mar 2024
-
RC5: 'Reply on RC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-151', Juan Antonio Añel, 19 Dec 2023
Dear authors,
I am aware that your manuscript has already suffered some delays because of editorial issues. However, unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.htmlYou have archived your code and data (Python and Matlab scripts, output data and Delft3D) in repositories that does not comply with our trustable permanent archival policy. Therefore, you must publish your all of them in one of the appropriate repositories according to our policy. Also we can not accept embargoes such as registration or previous contact with the authors.
In this way, you must reply to this comment with the link to the repositories used in your manuscript for both code and data, with their DOIs. The reply and the repository should be available as soon as possible, and before the Discussions stage is closed, to be sure that anyone has access to it for review purposes.Also, you must include in a potential reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section and the DOI of the code. Also, note that if you do not include a license, the code continues to be your property and can not be used by others, despite any statement on being free to use. Therefore, when uploading the code to the repository, you could want to choose a free software/open-source (FLOSS) license. We recommend the GPLv3. This is the same used by Delft3D, for example. You only need to include the file 'https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt' as LICENSE.txt with your code. Also, you can choose other options: e.g., GPLv2, Apache License, MIT License, etc.
if you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal. I should note that, actually, your manuscript should not have been accepted in Discussions, given this lack of compliance with our policy. Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular.
Regards,
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Laura Swatridge, 19 Dec 2023
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you for informing me of this mistake. The following text is the updated 'Code and Data availability' section for the manuscript, containing the links to the update repository for model code and data, and model source code availability.
Real-time model results are available at https://coastlines.engineering.queensu.ca/lake-ontario/, and archived on the local server, to be made available by contacting the corresponding author. HRDPS input data is available from the Meteorological Service of Canada Datamart and observed data is openly accessible online, as cited in the text. The source code and documentation of the open source numerical model (Delft3D 4.01.01) can be accessed on their online repositories (https://oss.deltares.nl/web/delft3d/source-code, last access: 19 December, 2023). The Python and MATLAB scripts, supporting files used in the automated workflow, and data and scripts used to generate the plots presented in this paper are archived on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10407863, Swatridge, 2023).
Thank you,
Laura Swatridge and co-authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Laura Swatridge, 19 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2023-151', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Jan 2024
Review of ‘Development and performance of a high-resolution surface wave and storm surge forecast model (COASTLINES-LO): Application to a large lake’ by L.L. Swatridge et al. submitted to the journal Geoscientific Model Development.
This is the coupled wave-current model’s application to the Great Lakes, specifically Lake Ontario, and the parameters focusing on is the significant wave height and water level. The authors have done a lot of efforts in the numerical model development and the forecasting system, which is tested under both normal and storm conditions. The model performance has been validated by comparing with another popular forecasting system in the Great Lakes (i.e., Great Lakes Forecasting System, GLCFS) and NDBC (National Data Buoy Center) and ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada) observations. The authors conclude that their coupled 2D Deltft3D-SWAN model has a comparable ability with the GLCFS 3D FVCOM model, while it is more computationally efficient. Based on the reviewer judgement, the manuscript is interesting and nice, while it needs major revisions before being proceeding further. The following are my specific comments.
- In 2 Method – 2.1. Modeling Approach. At Page 5 in Lines 135 – 138. ‘The Delft3D simulations uses a curvilinear grid with a horizontal resolution gradually ranging from 250 – 450 m …… 350 – 600 m for the wave model’. Why do authors do not use the same grid for both the storm surge model and the wave model?
- At Page 5 in Line 140, please add a space between ‘0.07’ and ‘m’.
- At Page 5 in Lines 144-146, ‘Simulations use a time step of 120 s to satisfy ……’. Is the 120 s time step for the storm surge or wave model setting? What is the time step for another model?
- At Page 6 in Fig. 1, please add the title of the colorbar, maybe ‘Bathymetry (m)’?
- At Page 6 in Lines 160-163: ‘No lateral open boundary ……’. As far as the reviewer understand, the Niagara River is a river with larger river discharges. By not including it, the coastal circulation and wave dynamics maybe influenced. Could the authors show the influence or the difference by including the Niagara River (and the St. Lawrence River) for storm surge and wave simulations?
- At Page 7 in Fig. 2, what do MDF and MDW stand for?
- At Page 8 in Lines 201-203: ‘Hourly surface waves and winds are measured in Lake Ontario at one US Natioal Data Buoy Center (NDBC) buoy and ECCC buoys ……’. Based on Table 1, it shows 3 NDBC + 1 ECCC buoys. Please double check and be consistent between the descriptions and table.
- At Page 9 in Table 1, why do the water levels stations add no information on the location depths?
- In the Method section, the reviewer considers that it is better adding the mathematical expressions for the statistics definition. For example, the (normalized) root mean square error, correlation coefficient, relative error etc.
- There are some mismatches between the texts and the Figure at Page 10. I suggest delete Fig. 3i in Line 228, change the Fig. 3c to Fig. 3e in Line 231. By doing so, the contents and the figure can be consistent with each other.
- At Page 10 in Line 229, please add ‘the’ between ‘overpredict’ and ‘maximum’.
- At Page 11 in Lines 245-246, based on the Fig. 1, I think station ‘East Lake Ontario’ in the east of the lake not northeast.
- At Page 11 in Lines 245-247, ‘Stations in the northeast region of the lake …… generally experienced the largest waves, due to the prominent northeasterly direction of storms over the lake resulting in a larger fetch at these locations.’ Could you show me the wind map and time series?
- At Page 12 in Fig. 4, why the simulations have a data gap in about Feb. 2022?
- At Page 13 in Section 3.2. Storm event forecasts. The authors select the November 11, 2021, storm event to check the model performance. Why the authors choose this event to study? In addition, it would be better to choose more storm events to examine the model performance under storm conditions, e.g., more than 2.
- At Page 13 in Lines 271-272, ‘A setdown of about 0.10 m was recorded at the Burlington station, which was underpredicted by the model by up to 0.05 m’. The under-prediction for this station is large (e.g., 50%), could they explain the reason for this bias and can it be improved? The reviewer is not sure that why the 50% error here, but it is 0-20% error in Figure 6c for the same station and event?
- Figures 5, 7, 9, 10 needs improvements since there are so many solid lines in one figure, which make the reviewer hard to identify it.
- At Page 12 in Figure 4, the authors show the comparison of the Hs between the simulation and observations. How about the peak wave period (Tp)?
- Figures 6, 8, 10: Usually, the RE and RMSE could be improved as the length time for prediction decreases, why not all points follow this trend? For example, could the authors explain Page 19 Lines 360-361 ‘However, after the 18 h forecast there was a slight increase in RE from less than 1 % to about 5 % (Fig. 10b)’?
- At Page 15 in Lines 300-302, ‘Measured waves during …… due to the shift in wind direction during the storm’. Could the authors more specifically point out the wind direction shift from which to which?
- At Page 17 in Figure 8, what do these arrows stand for in panels a and b?
- At Page 19 in Line 347, ‘select stations’ maybe changed to ‘selected stations’?
- At Page 23 in Line 455, pleas add ‘to’ after ‘In order’.
- The authors emphasis that the Delft3D-SWAN (COASTLINES-LO) is highly computational efficient and can be easily applied to other lake systems. The reviewer would suggest they add a Table to compare the computational information between their system and GLCFS (e.g., computational nodes, elements, time step, total time, computational cores, parameter information etc.)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Laura Swatridge, 01 Mar 2024
Thank you for the detailed review and suggestions on ways we can improve the manuscript. Your feedback is very much appreciated! The following text includes a point by point response to each comment (shown in bold), and outlines how the manuscript has been modified to address the feedback
1. In 2 Method – 2.1. Modeling Approach. At Page 5 in Lines 135 – 138. ‘The Delft3D simulations uses a curvilinear grid with a horizontal resolution gradually ranging from 250 – 450 m …… 350 – 600 m for the wave model’. Why do authors do not use the same grid for both the storm surge model and the wave model?
Response: The wave model grid resolution was relaxed to reduce the computational requirements needed to run a simulation. When using the original grid (same as the circulation model), the computational time was increased to above 6 hours, as the number of computational cells is almost doubled in the higher resolution grid (333216 for circulation; 169400 for wave). To further justify this decision, the text has been updated as: Line 135: “The Delft3D simulation uses a curvilinear grid with a horizontal resolution gradually ranging from 250-450 m. The wave grid has a coarser resolution, ranging from 350-600 m, thus reducing the computational time required to complete a wave simulation while still achieving higher resolution in nearshore areas.”
2. At Page 5 in Line 140, please add a space between ‘0.07’ and ‘m’.
Response: Corrected
3. At Page 5 in Lines 144-146, ‘Simulations use a time step of 120 s to satisfy ……’. Is the 120 s time step for the storm surge or wave model setting? What is the time step for another model?
Response: Text updated to add more details regarding time steps, as follows: “Hydrodynamic simulations use a time step of 120 s to satisfy the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy stability criterion, and the wave model uses a stationary computational approach”
4. At Page 6 in Fig. 1, please add the title of the colorbar, maybe ‘Bathymetry (m)’?
Response: Figure updated with label on the legend.
5. At Page 6 in Lines 160-163: ‘No lateral open boundary ……’. As far as the reviewer understand, the Niagara River is a river with larger river discharges. By not including it, the coastal circulation and wave dynamics maybe influenced. Could the authors show the influence or the difference by including the Niagara River (and the St. Lawrence River) for storm surge and wave simulations?
Response: While the Niagara and St. Lawrence rivers are the major inflows/outflows to the lake, we have concluded that including this influence in the model is not necessary, and outside of the scope of a real-time forecast model. Based on previous modelling studies in Lake Ontario (i.e. Prakash et al. 2007; McCombs et al. 2014), the influence of river flows only extends to approximately 10 km of the river inlet, thus for the large scale simulations in the current work, which focuses on lake-wide water levels and waves, this can be ignored, and is now justified in the text as:
Line 161: “No lateral boundary conditions are applied to account for the influence of the riverine flows (Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers), as previous works have found the hydrodynamic influence of river flows is limited to within 10 km of the river inlet, and therefore have a negligible impact on large-scale circulation and water levels over event-based timescales (Prakash et al., 2007; McCombs et al. 2014a).”
The other major impact of the river flows is their influence on mean water levels in the lake. In the real-time system, this is included by updating water levels in the lake in the post processing stage based on observed data.
Line 186: “Seasonal changes in water levels due to inflows, outflows, and evaporation are not included, but are accounted for in post-processing.”.
6. At Page 7 in Fig. 2, what do MDF and MDW stand for?
Response: Figure updated to say ‘Model Definition Files’ instead of MDF and MDW, to make workflow diagram more easily understood for readers
7. At Page 8 in Lines 201-203: ‘Hourly surface waves and winds are measured in Lake Ontario at one US National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) buoy and ECCC buoys ……’. Based on Table 1, it shows 3 NDBC + 1 ECCC buoys. Please double check and be consistent between the descriptions and table.
Response: Thank you, table 1 was updated with the correct information, and checked to ensure this is consistent with the text.
8. At Page 9 in Table 1, why do the water levels stations add no information on the location depths?
Response: Depth information for water level gauges is not available, likely as these stations are located around the perimeter of the lake in relatively shallow depths. We agree that this data gap in Table 1 is confusing, so to correct this, table 1 has been separated into two tables (one for wave buoys, one for water level gauges) and referenced in the text accordingly. Additionally, the text describing the water level gauges has been updated:
Line 199: Near real-time observations of water surface elevation (η) data are available at 9 water level gauges around the perimeter of Lake Ontario.
9. In the Method section, the reviewer considers that it is better adding the mathematical expressions for the statistics definition. For example, the (normalized) root mean square error, correlation coefficient, relative error etc.
Response: Expressions for each error metric have been added in the text, and referenced accordingly
10. There are some mismatches between the texts and the Figure at Page 10. I suggest delete Fig. 3i in Line 228, change the Fig. 3c to Fig. 3e in Line 231. By doing so, the contents and the figure can be consistent with each other.
Response: Thank you, text has been corrected as suggested.
11. At Page 10 in Line 229, please add ‘the’ between ‘overpredict’ and ‘maximum’.
Response: Corrected
12. At Page 11 in Lines 245-246, based on the Fig. 1, I think station ‘East Lake Ontario’ in the east of the lake not northeast.
Response: Yes, that’s true. The text has been updated as: “Stations in the eastern end of the lake (Prince Edward Point, East Lake Ontario)…”
13. At Page 11 in Lines 245-247, ‘Stations in the northeast region of the lake …… generally experienced the largest waves, due to the prominent northeasterly direction of storms over the lake resulting in a larger fetch at these locations.’ Could you show me the wind map and time series?
Response: References have been added to support the statement describing the dominant wind patterns over Lake Ontario (ie. Lacke et al. 2007; McCombs et al. 2014a). In addition, the reviewer can refer to Figure S2 in the supplementary material for an example of a wind field/time series validation of wind speeds over Lake Ontario for the first selected storm event.
Lacke, M. C., Knox, J. A., Frye, J. D., Stewart, A. E., Durkee, J. D., Fuhrmann, C. M., & Dillingham, S. M. (2007). A climatology of cold-season non convective wind events in the Great Lakes region. Journal of Climate, 20(24), 6012-6022. https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1750.1
14. At Page 12 in Fig. 4, why the simulations have a data gap in about Feb. 2022?
Response: Thank you, good catch. The model was offline for a period between February 9 – 27, 2022 as a result of a service change in the HRDPS meteorological system. The modelling system had to be updated to account for the new delivery format for the atmospheric inputs. This explanation has been added into the Figure 4 caption as follows: “Note that the model was offline and unavailable between February 9 – 27 (2022) due to a change of is delivery format for the meteorological inputs.”
15. At Page 13 in Section 3.2. Storm event forecasts. The authors select the November 11, 2021, storm event to check the model performance. Why the authors choose this event to study? In addition, it would be better to choose more storm events to examine the model performance under storm conditions, e.g., more than 2.
Response: This event was selected as this is the largest event with available observed data at all wave buoys, thus allowing for the most complete validation possible. The second event selected had limited available wave data but was the strongest event over the operational period. Both events had distinct wind fields, thus representing model results over a wide range of conditions. The text has been updated as: Line 270: “The performance of the model was evaluated over an event on November 11, 2021, which generated the largest waves and storm surge over the 20-month operational period with available observed water level and wave data.”
16. In the scope of this paper, the authors feel analysis of these events is sufficient to validate model performance. However, it is also noted that in the long time series comparison of results, many storm events are included and simulated with good agreement.
We do agree that further investigation into storm events would be valuable and suggest this as a recommendation.
Line 455: “Additional investigation of real-time model performance during storm events, when the lake is stratified, is recommended for further model validation.”
17. At Page 13 in Lines 271-272, ‘A setdown of about 0.10 m was recorded at the Burlington station, which was underpredicted by the model by up to 0.05 m’. The under-prediction for this station is large (e.g., 50%), could they explain the reason for this bias and can it be improved? The reviewer is not sure that why the 50% error here, but it is 0-20% error in Figure 6c for the same station and event?
Response: Yes, the relative error at this station that was computed remains below 20% over the storm duration, despite a maximum observed and modelled set down of 10 and 5 cm. . This is because the calculation of relative error in Figure 6 is in reference to the mean water level in the lake at the beginning of the event, not to the zero datum. We agree this is unclear and creates misleading error statistics in Figure 6, but this decision was made to allow for consistency in storm surge values for consecutive forecasts. To clarify this, the relative error mathematical expression has been added, as referenced above to show how this is calculated (Eq. 4). In addition, the text has been updated: Line 223: “For each forecast, the relative error (RE; eq. 4), between observed and simulated maximum storm surge relative to the mean water level at water level gauge locations, and between observed and modelled maximum wave heights at buoy locations was computed.”
18. Figures 5, 7, 9, 10 needs improvements since there are so many solid lines in one figure, which make the reviewer hard to identify it.
Response: We agree that these figures show too many lines, making them difficult to understand. To improve the plots, the number of overlapping forecasts in Figures 5 and 7 has been decreased, from 16 forecast to 9, and the x-limits of the figure have been reduced so the forecasts of the storm event are larger and easier to see.
Figure 9 has been updated in a similar way, now only showing 8 forecasts over a shorter time period.
In Figure 10, all forecast lines were kept, as each one corresponds to a point on the scatter plots on the right, and therefore we feel it is important to show all the information. To improve the clarity of this plot, the colormap has been updated to improve the contrast between the different forecasts, and the limits of the plot have been shortened.
19. At Page 12 in Figure 4, the authors show the comparison of the Hs between the simulation and observations. How about the peak wave period (Tp)?
Response: Plots showing period results are now included in Figure S2 in the supplementary material, and referenced in the text as: Line 250: “Results showing forecasted wave period compared to observations are shown in Fig S2 in the supplementary material.”
20. Figures 6, 8, 10: Usually, the RE and RMSE could be improved as the length time for prediction decreases, why not all points follow this trend? For example, could the authors explain Page 19 Lines 360-361 ‘However, after the 18 h forecast there was a slight increase in RE from less than 1 % to about 5 % (Fig. 10b)’?
Response: We agree that that would be the expected trend, based on how atmospheric predictions tend to increase in accuracy with reduced lead time. However, there are other factors contributing to uncertainties in the results, such as model resolution, initial conditions, and background hydrodynamic processes that are not included/resolved in the model.
We note that the change from 1% error to 5% error observed in Figure 10b only corresponds to about 5 cm difference between forecasted water levels. The increased RE may be due to error in the magnitude and direction of the wind fields. This could also be an issue with the model setup, as calibrated parameters (i.e. friction, viscosity) can influence results. These were tuned to try to achieve optimal performance for a range of conditions, however it is not feasible to be able to account for all possible storm conditions. As this is a real-time model, additional calibration/adjustments could not be made to improve results for specific events, and the response of the lake to the unique conditions for each storm event is different. Some discussion on this was added: Line 391: “Cases where the error increases (Fig 10b) or remains constant (Fig. 8), may result from sources of uncertainty in model calibration and/or neglecting additional hydrodynamic processes in the model setup (e.g., 3-dimensional circulation, density stratification).
21. At Page 15 in Lines 300-302, ‘Measured waves during …… due to the shift in wind direction during the storm’. Could the authors more specifically point out the wind direction shift from which to which?
Response: The text has been updated to give a more detailed description of wind direction over the event: “Measured waves during this event reached up to 2.10 m, with the buoys in the western region of the lake (Fig. 7c, d) experiencing peak wave heights about 12 h earlier than the buoys in the eastern region of the lake (Fig. 7a, b). This is explained by the shift in wind direction over the storm duration, with winds originally from the southeast, rotating clockwise, then blowing dominantly from the west along the axis of the lake (Fig. S2 in the supplementary material) .”
22. At Page 17 in Figure 8, what do these arrows stand for in panels a and b?
Response: The figure caption has been updated with additional details explaining the plot, as follows: “Contour plots showing maps of modelled waves with vectors indicating wave direction at the peak of the storm event from two forecasts, starting a) November 11, 00:00 UTC and b) November 12, 00:00 UTC with observed data plotted at the observation locations in black circles. Note that every 10th vector is plotted for clarity.|”
23. At Page 19 in Line 347, ‘select stations’ maybe changed to ‘selected stations’?
Response: Corrected
24. At Page 23 in Line 455, pleas add ‘to’ after ‘In order’.
Response: Corrected
25. The authors emphasis that the Delft3D-SWAN (COASTLINES-LO) is highly computational efficient and can be easily applied to other lake systems. The reviewer would suggest they add a Table to compare the computational information between their system and GLCFS (e.g., computational nodes, elements, time step, total time, computational cores, parameter information etc.)
Response: A table summarizing the key differences between the modelling systems has been added to the supplementary material, and references in the text as follow: Line 399: “ Differences between predictions from these models can be explained according to the setup of each system, including different hydrodynamic models, grid resolutions, and atmospheric forcing inputs, which are summarized in table S2 in the supplementary material.”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-AC2 -
RC14: 'Reply on AC2', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Mar 2024
Dear Authors,
Thanks for your point-by-point reply to my comments. In general, I would first suggest authors uploading a new version of the manuscript and its with track of change, so that I could check what changes they have made during the first round of the review. This manuscript needs at least substantially major revisions before being reviewed again. The following is my concern to their reply:
- It can be added a Table to explain it more clearly. What is the original grid number and calculation time for the circulation model and wave model, and these information after the wave model is relaxed? Why not relaxing both models? For the modeling paper, I consider it is necessary to show us in a more detailed way of the model grid, e.g., showing a map.
- As I mentioned, a new version of the manuscript is needed to be uploaded, so that I can check their statements.
- The authors still do not show us the time step for the wave model. Even for the stationary mode, it still has the time step to calculate. While is it fine to use the stationary mode for the realistic forecast with a lot of variables changing (e.g., wind field)?
- Same as 2.
- Not satisfied. The reviewer asks for authors showing the hydrodynamic results with and without two major river flows into Lake Ontario, while they avoid doing so. And indicate that it is not important for their forecasting system. Coastal circulation is one important part for the lake circulation, and the reviewer holds the opinion that major river flows better being considered.
- Same as 2.
- Same as 2.
- Please add a new version of the manuscript for the reviewer to read and check the comments and responds better.
- Same as 2.
- Same as 2.
- Same as 2.
- Same as 2.
- Not satisfied. First, this expression is ambiguous of the time period for the storm event, it is needed to mention during which time period for the largest winds and waves. Moreover, by referring to the right spatial maps of winds in Figure S2, neither of them shows northeasterly winds as stated by the texts.
- Please be careful when revise the manuscript, “…… due to a change of is delivery format ……”, it is obviously wrong in grammar. Please revise it.
- Based on Figure 4, it seems the largest wave event is around 10-Dec-2021, not November 11, 2021 as described by the authors. Please double check it. Again, why not choosing more than 2 events for this study?
- It is still unclear to me. And I think 50% error is too large and the model needs to be improved for storm surge prediction skill.
- Again, please upload the revised and updated manuscript.
- I cannot find the added peak wave period comparison.
- Again, please upload the revised and updated manuscript.
- I am still very confused with the explanation. The west winds are after November 12 (e.g., 11/12 16:00), why they are used to explain the results before November 12 (e.g., 11/11)?
- Again, please upload the revised and updated manuscript.
- Again, please upload the revised and updated manuscript.
- Again, please upload the revised and updated manuscript.
- Again, please upload the revised and updated manuscript.
I go to the forecast website (https://coastlines.engineering.queensu.ca/lake-ontario/), while it only shows the station location and information, I could not find the realistic and forecast simulations of winds, waves and water levels on this website.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC14 -
EC5: 'Reply on RC14', Andrew Wickert, 02 Mar 2024
Dear Anonymous Referee #2;
Thank you for your detailed initial review and these further comments. After the end of the open review period, which closes 03 March, the authors will be expected to respond to all all points (those above as well as those indicated here) and to prepare a revised manuscript.
We appreciate your attention and responses here.
Andy Wickert
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-EC5
-
RC14: 'Reply on AC2', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Mar 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on gmd-2023-151', Anonymous Referee #3, 01 Feb 2024
I am happy to provide feedback on this manuscript. The manuscript presents a script written in Python/Matlab that performs pre-processing, running, and post-processing of a depth-averaged Delft3D+SWAN model to forecast water levels and waves in Lake Ontario for 48 hours. The manuscript is well-written and easy to understand. This study has the potential to make a valuable contribution to water management in Lake Ontario. However, the scientific/operational contributions of the proposed modeling framework and better discussion would benefit from improvement. Therefore, I recommend a "moderate revision" of this manuscript before it is published.
Please find below some specific comments:
The term "automated prediction" is used ambiguously in the abstract and several parts of the manuscript. It is recommended to provide a detailed explanation or use a different term altogether.
The reason for the low computational demand of the proposed modeling framework is due to the lower spatial resolution used in the Delft3D/SWAN grid, as well as the depth average configuration which turns the 3D model into a 2D model. Additionally, the GLCFS is currently operational on NOAA’s computational system, which means that its computational cost is affordable. Therefore, it is important to clearly state the operational and scientific contributions of the proposed modeling framework.
Please provide the source for the measurements and observations mentioned in Figure 1.
Could you confirm if the Python/Matlab scripts are currently being used for operations? Also, are these scripts available to the public?
It is suggested to also include metrics such as RMSE and RE (%) in Figure 11, and to add a table to clearly indicate the differences between the proposed model and GLCFS.
It is recommended to include the different viewpoints and angles in the proposed modeling framework.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Laura Swatridge, 01 Mar 2024
Thank you for the feedback! Your comments have been addressed to improve the clarity of manuscript. Below, please find a point - by -point response to each comment. (Original comments included in bold)
1. The term "automated prediction" is used ambiguously in the abstract and several parts of the manuscript. It is recommended to provide a detailed explanation or use a different term altogether.
Response: The term “automated” in the abstract has been removed, and rephrased as “A real-time forecast model of surface hydrodynamics in Lake Ontario (Coastlines-LO) was developed to automatically predict storm surge and surface waves…”
We feel the use of the phrase throughout the manuscript accurately describes how the prediction system continuously runs without the need for any human inputs. Section 2.2 has been updated to make it more clear that all workflows are automated:
Line 170: “For pre-processing, initiation of the modelling system is scheduled to occur when a new HRDPS forecast becomes available”
2. The reason for the low computational demand of the proposed modeling framework is due to the lower spatial resolution used in the Delft3D/SWAN grid, as well as the depth average configuration which turns the 3D model into a 2D model. Additionally, the GLCFS is currently operational on NOAA’s computational system, which means that its computational cost is affordable. Therefore, it is important to clearly state the operational and scientific contributions of the proposed modeling framework.
Response: Yes, to run this system on a local desktop computer, the resolution was limited and certain processes had to be neglected. Despite this, results compare well with the operational system developed by NOAA, which while operational, we doubt can be run on a desktop PC and easily adapted to a different waterbody or to simulate different state variables (e.g., surface water quality). We have highlighted the novelty of our workflow finding in the discussion and conclusion sections.
3. Please provide the source for the measurements and observations mentioned in Figure 1.
Response: A reference to table 1 has been added in the caption for Figure 1, to provide information about the observation points. The bathymetry source has also been added in the caption, and we refer the reviewer to Line 142 for a detailed description of the bathymetric dataset.
4. Could you confirm if the Python/Matlab scripts are currently being used for operations? Also, are these scripts available to the public?
Response: Yes, the model is currently operational, and the results are updated in real time on the project webpage: (https://coastlines.engineering.queensu.ca/lake-ontario/).
All model scripts, and input files, as well as results referenced in the manuscript are archived on Zenoda and made available for viewing through the link: (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10407863, Swatridge, 2023), as described in section 6. Code and Data Availability Statement.
5. It is suggested to also include metrics such as RMSE and RE (%) in Figure 11, and to add a table to clearly indicate the differences between the proposed model and GLCFS.
Response: A table summarizing the key differences between the modelling systems has been added to the supplementary material, (Table S2) and references in the text. Summary error statistics from the comparison of the two models has been added in table S3 in the supplementary material and is referred to in section 4.2.
6. It is recommended to include the different viewpoints and angles in the proposed modeling framework.
Response: Through the development of this modelling system, a balance between computational efficiency and accuracy had to be achieved to allow the model to run in the required timeframe. We recommend in future work to expand the analysis to include an investigation on the effects of adding an ice model (there is presently not an ice model in DELFT3D), or different wind field inputs, and applying the modelling system to other large water bodies with open boundaries where connected to the ocean.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-AC3 -
RC8: 'Reply on AC3', Anonymous Referee #3, 01 Mar 2024
Thank you for your effort in revising the manuscript. Overall, the authors have responded well to most of my comments.
However, I am still not entirely convinced about the novelty of the proposed workflow. For instance, it is unclear why running the model on a desktop PC is essential for operational applications, and there is no evidence that this workflow can be easily adapted for different lakes. Therefore, I kindly request you reconsider this reply and modify the manuscript accordingly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC8 -
RC9: 'Reply on RC8', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
Publisher’s note: the content of this comment was removed on 4 March 2024 after approval of the GMD executive editors since the formulations were inappropriate.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC9
-
RC9: 'Reply on RC8', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
-
RC8: 'Reply on AC3', Anonymous Referee #3, 01 Mar 2024
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Laura Swatridge, 01 Mar 2024
-
EC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-151: Encouragement to proceed', Andrew Wickert, 06 Feb 2024
I thank the referees for their comments. Based on these, I encourage Laura Swatridge and co-authors to respond to these comments and to prepare a revised manuscript for submission.
With good wishes,
Andy Wickert
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-EC1 -
AC4: 'Reply on EC1', Laura Swatridge, 01 Mar 2024
We thank the Editors and the anonymous reviewers for taking the time to read and provide comments and suggestions on how to improve the manuscript. All reviewer feedback has been addressed, by updating figures, clarifying details in the text, and improving the discussion of the results.
This attached document provides a point-by-point description of modifications that were made to the manuscript based on the reviewer’s feedback. These details are provided using indented blue text underneath each comment.
-
RC4: 'Reply on AC4', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
This paper has a lot of overlaps with published Lake Erie/Michigan papers which other group already published and have little new value, and they don’t clarify the differences with existing works, so make no major impacts to Lake community. Authors try to avoid the question for wave-current coupling between Vortex Force and Radiation Stress formula, and only push for a publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC4 -
RC6: 'Reply on RC4', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
A series of wave and storm surge coupling papers including Lake Erie and Lake Michigan were published at Ocean Modeling, AGU JGR-Oceans, while authors try to say they are unhelpful to this paper, even many confusion overlap the existing conclusion. Authors even didn't clarify the wave-current coupling for this model, more like a blackbox, and make the community to questions this model.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC6 -
RC7: 'Reply on RC6', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
A series of wave and storm surge coupling papers including Lake Erie and Lake Michigan were published at Ocean Modeling, AGU JGR-Oceans, while authors try to say they are unhelpful to this paper, even many conclusion overlap the existing conclusion. Authors even didn't clarify the wave-current coupling for this model, more like a blackbox, and make the community to question this model setup.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC7
-
RC7: 'Reply on RC6', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
-
RC6: 'Reply on RC4', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
-
RC4: 'Reply on AC4', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
-
AC4: 'Reply on EC1', Laura Swatridge, 01 Mar 2024
-
EC3: 'A note on inappropriate comments left by Anonymous Referee #1', Andrew Wickert, 02 Mar 2024
Dear authors, editors, referees, and broader audience;
Anonymous Referee #1 has recently added a large number of comments. Many comments within this flurry are concerning on grounds of professionalism, and those accusing the authors of misconduct are inappropriate.
With regrets,
Andy WickertCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-EC3 -
RC13: 'Reply on EC3', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Mar 2024
Andy,
I totally disagree with you. If authors won't clearly show the public what kind of wave-current coupling their model using, and what kinds of the wind stress formula they used for this paper, this paper will be questioned by the public.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC13 -
EC4: 'Reply on RC13', Andrew Wickert, 02 Mar 2024
Dear Anonymous Referee #1 (and as a clarifying point to those reading this conversation);
As has been explained to you via multiple emails, the validity of the scientific research will be ensured during the review process. This includes the approach taken by the authors in context of the underlying models and their capabilities and assumptions.
The editors' concern here is that of your professional conduct throughout the peer-review process.
Andy Wickert
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-EC4 -
RC15: 'Reply on EC4', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Mar 2024
Andy,
I just requested authors to address my concerns:
1) Is Delft 3D the best model for Lake simulation?2) Should we provide a detailed wave-current coupling process in the wave-current model?3) Is the wind stress formula important or can it be ignored during the storm surge simulation.4) If another group already drew the conclusion, can the new paper totally ignore them in any journals?Why you and authors kept attacking me instead of addressing these concerns?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC15 -
EC6: 'Reply on RC15', Andrew Wickert, 02 Mar 2024
Dear Anonymous Referee #1;
The GMD peer-review process and editorial team will ensure that the authors will prepare a scientifically sound manuscript, as I have noted previously. You may let your concerns on this topic rest. Additionally, I will clarify in response to your points here.
- The choice of Delft3D as a model is an important question. However, contrary to what you state here, this is not a concern that you have brought up prior to this.
- This and #3 were brought up in your original comment to the referees, but as the editors have repeated to you, these were raised in your review that did little more than suggest that the authors look into a large number of your papers. The peer-review process is not a place to advertise or solicit citations to our own work. The scientific content is of course critical and will be addressed during the peer-review process. The authors' decision to not engage with you, on the other hand, is because of your misappropriation of the peer-review process -- though I appreciate that you might not see it this way -- which is continuing through these comments.
- See (2).
- Naturally, scientific papers should respect and cite, where appropriate, the scientific literature.
Throughout this process, the editors have stated your actions and the concerns with them, in as impartial a way as we can. On the other hand, you have cast professional allegations against the authors and editors across this public review process and over email. Furthermore, you have now added a list of 13 of your own papers that you would like the authors to consider/cite in order to receive your support in the review process. A referee may not demand citation of their own work in the peer-review process in order for the authors to receive a positive review response. Please be assured that the scientific content, including all appropriate citations (yes, including those to papers of yours that are relevant to this article), will be ensured through the peer-review and editorial process.
I would ask you to (a) please understand the difference between the value and inclusion of your work and the concerns over your behavior in this forum, which are fully separate questions, and (b) please consider ending this public debate at this point.
Andy Wickert
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-EC6 -
RC16: 'Reply on EC6', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Mar 2024
Andy,
There are citations both from all kinds of sources in the first round, however authors declined to address in the first round, and then I noted all current works to argue back to them. I can end the discussion with this journal and won't provide any future reviews to this journal, and please remove me from your reviewer list. In addition, I won't submit any paper or co-author papers to your journal. Hope it helps.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC16
-
EC6: 'Reply on RC15', Andrew Wickert, 02 Mar 2024
-
RC15: 'Reply on EC4', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Mar 2024
-
EC4: 'Reply on RC13', Andrew Wickert, 02 Mar 2024
-
RC13: 'Reply on EC3', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Mar 2024
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 543 | 111 | 54 | 708 | 23 | 11 | 13 |
- HTML: 543
- PDF: 111
- XML: 54
- Total: 708
- Supplement: 23
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1