16/11/2019

Dear Dr. Rasquin,

Many thanks for the V3 version of this paper. I am happy that you have
responded well to most of the comments of the reviewers and also my comments
and that the paper is now much better. I read it through again myself and
I do still have a large number of additional comments shown below.
However, many are simple editing ones and should not take you long.

Could I ask that that when you have a new version then, as you have three
co-authors, you have them read it through again to spot any remaining
errors and bad wording? I hope V4 can be the last one.

Philip Woodworth

p1, 9 - drop 'By definition'. Maybe 'Models cannot adequately represent ..'

18 I did not understand this sentence as you show in Figure 6e,f that the
10 m pattern is much the same for the two models. Maybe change to:

.. amplitude increases in both models with largely similar spatial patterns.

Anyhow this sentence needs changing as the end of the present one doesn't make
sense.

25 - .. have been observed ... and 1990 at an average rate of 1.4 mm/year (IPCC, 2019).

This should be 1.4 and not 0.14.

26 .. by 2100

27 .. exceed several ..

then drop the IPCC, 2019 reference as given alreadly.

p2, 2 ... which are, in contrast ... coastlines, especially ..

3 - .. in a changing climate .. in themselves ..

4 - .. to the protection of coasts due to storm surges, but will also influence ..

8 .. velocity will lead ...

13 - .. in Europe such as Rotterdam ..

15 - measures,

27 - dissipation along

28 - dissipative areas

31 - .. and realistic flood defence representations are needed ..

33 .. of flood defences but also the correct description of
topography in shallow

p3, 1 - to assess reliably

2 - ... MSLR. In particular, shallow ..

6 - structures might lead to imprecise [or incorrect?] results.

18 - equations.

19-21 This sentence is modelling jargon and makes no sense in English. Please
reword.

25 - proper reference needed for the NOAA reference

31 - phases --> phase lags. And please check through the paper that phase is
replaced by phase lag throughout.

.. of the 22 main tidal ..

drop (22). It is not clear what this is.

p4,1 - 16 --> Sixteen

2, and also in the reference list - Carrere has an accent over the first 'e'

11 - journals tend not to like footnotes so can you move the words of FN1 to this
caption which is anyway where the reader first spots mNHN. I suggest

Figure 1: Domain of the DCSMv6FM model. The black box ... Bight. The unit ..

p5, 2 - equations

8 - occur

13 - .. boundary, water ..

17 - The salinity boundary condition employed is a result of a simulation ,,

18 - estuaries,

this sentence needs a reference adding.

21 - in the estuaries

what does preceding mean here? preceding AufMod? In which case say 'by the KLIWAS
project which preceded AufMod (Seiffert ...

22 reach --> range

23 of the water level,

move the footnote as mentioned.

A sufficiently

25 - is included using the same ..

26 - drop the reference. It has already been given on the preceding page

p6, line 1 caption - The area within the black

6 - the error message is presumbly for Table 1 and there are other error
messages in this document. Why was this not spotted?

7 and Table 1 - tidal mean water is usually called mean tide level

8 - listed for 5 different ..

There are 5 stations in Table 1 but 7 in Figure 2. Why are not all 7 in the
table? Also the order in the table is not the same as in the figure:
Helgoland and Hornum are swapped. Please tidy up these things.

15 - what does 'measured data' mean? You mean to hourly (or whatever)
water level measurements? Reword something like

... compared with hourly measurements of water level at seven
stations located ...

16 - normalized by the

p7, 1 - normalized by the

line 1 Table 1 caption. tidal mean water should be mean tide level. Also
the caption should say that the units in the table are metres.

Figure 4. I mentioned last time that I didn't understand why, if the
7 stations are the same as you say, they have different names in the
box and in a different order. Also they are in a different order to
those in Figure 3. Also why does Figure 3 have 1-7 and Figure 4 has
A-G. These should be the same. Also the caption should say the
numbers are normalized ones. Anyway reorder:

.. for the comparison on the DCSMv6FM and German Bight model .. so
this sentence is the same order as the box.

Then, I really don't understand why we have to have a different order as
you say in the last sentence of the caption. Please remove that and tidy things up.

p8, 16 ... DSCMv6FM and throughout its domain.

17 - This appears to be a reasonable assumption ..

18 - .. conceptual one to investigate the

p9, 1 - .. coastal zone, rather than fully characterising the future ..

2 - time series

3 - Sufficiently long ..

8 - reword (I think):

... GBM_80_NE), the main difference to the reference runs is that the
volumes of the tidal basins are changed. In addition, no river discharge
is included. A simulation of the original reference model (GBM_ref) but with no
river discharge is denoted GBM_ref_noQ (Table 2).

p10, 9 - The results for wet areas ..

13 - please could you spell out the notation? e.g. the overbar on Fzero refers to
the depth averaging. The suffix H means what? And to be clear say that U is
the 2-dimensional depth-averaged velocity vector. Otherwise U will look to be a scalar
to some readers.

Also I mentioned last time that I didn't think Kang was a good reference, rather
than a standard text book, but if you want to have it then at least in the
references give the web address which I think is
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/8804623

p11, 10, 11 and 13 - supplement --> supplementary

13 - figure S2. I think you need an extra sentence here to say exactly
what the figure is indicating.

Please see also below my comments on the colour scale you have used.

20 - .. removal of the estuaries in the German Bight Model. In .. considered
and there is no river discharge in the two runs.

p12, 3 - spotted and the general

At this point I realised that you sometimes refer to places you are of course familiar
with e.g. North Frisian Wadden Sea, Weser estuary etc. which many readers will
not know. Could you please go through the text and where you mention places like this
perhaps add a few extra words to say where they are? Ideally one would have a map
with the names on but I won't insist on that.

p15, 5 - Figure 7a should be 8a

7 - restricted locally

9 - 7b should be 8b

9 - model response (Figure 6c).

10 - drop (Figure 6c) here

p16, 7 - .. DCSMv6FM (Figures 6c and 8b), we ..

.. dissipation rate in the different runs (Table 3).

p17, 2 - (shown by the polygon)

3-4 - I would drop the 2 last sentences. They have been explained before.

5 - In both situations with the highly ..

8 - drop this 'case study' business and just reword:

.. between the runs. With fine bathymetry, the dissipation .... whereas with
coarse bathymetry ...

19 .. in the near-shore parts of the German Bight.

26 - as I mentioned last time I would drop (global). This is not global! It is
the German Bight. Instead say: In the domain-averaged . which I think is what
you mean.

p18, 5 - current --> currents. andd drop velocities

Table 4, line 2 - averaged over the entire German Bight Model domain ..

and drop (global) on line 3. And in the table itself, column 4 say domain and not
global

p21, 3 - 10 min --> 10 m in

5 - in two case studies [why do you now start talking about steps?]

6 - the first study

9 - the second study

10 - Within this second study, the German Bight Model was found to respond in

14 - in a way

14-16 - I think this needs rewording. It says first that overflowing is not
allowed then it says it is. Please read and make clear.

27 - 'in the same characteristic' --> 'to the same extent'

p22, 6 - using subgrids.

14 - characterised by larger intertidal flat areas relative to channel areas

22 - I would start this paragraph as follows:

Several points can be mentioned concerning the extent to which model simulations
such as described in this paper can be applied to estimate the tidal response
to MSLR in a real future.

28 - drop 'concerning the point of matching reality'

29 - ... rise. For example, a vertical growth of tidal flats can be expected
given a significant MSLR (Hofstede

30 - the simulations with 10 m MSLR especially

32 - These simulations are included here only to ... system response ..

p23, 2 - .. Bight, the small-scale representation of the bathymetry .. role in the ..

6 - and the geographic area of interest.

7 - .. the response of the wider North Sea, the use of a

References - Carrere (see above), IPCC 2019 update the reference, Kang (see above)

Figure S2. phase should be phase lag. The colour scales for c,d,e,f are ok but that
for a,b is not. 0 and 360 degrees is the same angle and so should be the same colour, so
this needs to be a rotating colour scale. Please look at any paper on tides that shows
phase lags.

28/11/2019

Dear Dr. Rasquin,

Many thanks for the V4 version of this paper. I am happy that you have
been able to make use of my comments on V3 and I am happy to accept it now.

I looked over the track-change pdf briefly and found a couple of remaining things to
change if you can:

p17, line 16 - change 'minutely' to '1-minute'.

p22, line 28 - ... shows the phase lags of M2 in the German Bight Model
and in the DCSMv6FM and their corresponding changes due ..

p34, line 1 - remove the first 'especially'

SM Figure S1b - Thanks for changing to the rotating colour scale for
(a) and (b), but don't you think you need a rotating scale also for
(e) and (f) as there are big areas of black off the limited scale you
use? I'm not sure about (c) and (d). See what you think.

Phil Woodworth