A monthly tidal envelope classification for semidiurnal regimes in terms of the relative proportions of the S2, N2, and M2 constituents

Byun, Do-Seong; Hart, Deirdre E.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/os-16-965-2020

Articles | Volume 16, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-16-965-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Developments in the science and history of tides (OS/ACP/HGSS/NPG/SE...

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-16-965-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 16, issue 4

Research article

|

18 Aug 2020

Research article |

| 18 Aug 2020

A monthly tidal envelope classification for semidiurnal regimes in terms of the relative proportions of the S₂, N₂, and M₂ constituents

Do-Seong Byun and Deirdre E. Hart

Download

Final revised paper (published on 18 Aug 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 11 Dec 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of paper', Philip Woodworth, 22 Dec 2019
- AC1: 'Reply to Philip Woodworth interactive comment of 22 Dec. 2019 on “A monthly tidal envelope classification approach for semi-diurnal regimes with variability in S2 and N2 tidal amplitude ratios”', Deirdre Hart, 20 Jan 2020
SC1: 'Use of names and a couple of other comments', Glen Rowe, 20 Jan 2020
- AC2: 'Reply to Glen Rowe interactive comment of 20 Jan. 2020 on “A monthly tidal envelope classification approach for semi-diurnal regimes with variability in S2 and N2 tidal amplitude ratios”', Deirdre Hart, 06 Feb 2020
RC2: 'Referee Comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Feb 2020
- AC3: 'Reply to Anonymous Referee #2’s Interactive comment on “A monthly tidal envelope classification approach for semi-diurnal regimes with variability in S2 and N2 tidal amplitude ratios”', Deirdre Hart, 05 Mar 2020
EC1: 'handling editor's comment', Mattias Green, 14 Apr 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Deirdre Hart on behalf of the Authors (30 Mar 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Apr 2020) by Mattias Green

RR by Philip Woodworth (21 Apr 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Comments on resubmission of
'A monthly tidal envelope classification approach for semi-diurnal
regimes with variability in S2 and N2 tidal amplitude ratios' by
Byun and Hart (OS special issue)

I didn't look back in great detail on my comments on the first version
and the replies of the authors, I decided to just read it afresh. I think it now
reads much better than it did before, although it is still a bit repetitive.

I list below some things that I noticed with the new version but couple of
main things:

One thing that looks wrong is sentence lines 126-128. This sentence is ok for S2/M2
but the ratio variation is the opposite for N2/S2. Just look at Figure 4(a,c).
Rewording needed.

The other is that, as I mentioned last time, the most interesting figure to
me is the present Figure 7 which made me wonder at the value of the new E.
Forget Type 1 for the moment which has only one red dot. You can see that using
E to decide between types 3 and 4 at 1.15 is problematical - the curve
just scrapes the blue and yellow dots. A more efficient selection would be simply
by N2/S2 ratio at 4.0, as for the division between types 2 and 3 at 1.0.
I hope you see what I mean and can put in a sentence along these lines in the
Discussion.

Other things in line order:

title - I wondered if the title would be better as 'A monthly tidal envelope
classification for semi-diurnal tidal regimes in terms of the relative proportions
of the S2, N2 and M2 constituents'. Or something like that, it is your paper so
up to you.

7-8 and 187-189 - I didn't understand 'access .. wharves'. What are you saying? That access
to marine environments by boat is difficult and/or to infrastructure? Needs rewording.

26-27 - as I mentioned before these references are all about tides rather than non-tidal
signals. But ok. But I would add Stammer et al to the others - there is no reason to
separate it.

137 - Fig 3 and 4

142 .. ratio are between ..

146 - you have UK spelling here (colour) and US (color) in the figure captions. I suggest
you use UK spelling throughout as Copernicus is a European journal.

162 - please add '.. occurs at N2/S2 =1 when also E = 1.'

You need to spell out what the divisions between types are.

This is also a point to mention that you call these things Types here, but in the tables
you call them E-Types. Because I think they can just as easily be defined by N2/S2 (see
the second of my main points above) I think they would be better as Types throughout.

lines 181-185. There are several problems here:

- one is the last sentence returns to mention of NZ after you have digressed to the rest of
the world. Could you somehow work the last sentence after line 180 probably, then go onto
other places.

- then, Alaska and Hudson Bay are also N America as are the Bahamas. This list needs
rewording.

Another problem with your lists in this paper is you seem to use semicolons and commas randomly.
In lists one starts with a colon, with semicolons between items (or some people have commas).
Please can you go through and tidy that up?

- then a couple of these examples such as N Carolina/Virginia or Gulf of Ob just don't appear
on Fig 1c, no doubt because the dots are so small. So you should say that to save people wasting
time looking for them. Where is the Gulf of Ob anyway?

187-189 copies verbatim from the abstract. Could you maybe change the wording a little to show
willing?

228 - reword something like: Monthly tidal envelope types and values of monthly (E) and daily (F) form factors
... of 5 tidal constituents ...

column 2 - Type

As I mentioned before, in the last line you don't seem to realise that 0 and 360 deg
is the same thing. This range is not a very useful anyway when you have shown there
are amphidromes all over the place. I would either not include that whole
line or just show the ranges of amplitude.

279 - Chichester

Table 1, line 300 - E types --> types

column 1 - Type

Figure 2 is fine but it will probably be printed at half this size so I would make
all the fonts larger. Also when it is smaller you won't be able to tell circles from
rectangles so they should be larger also. colored - see above

Fig 3 caption - drop Horizontal

Fig 5 - it doesn't matter much but looks a bit odd to show one ratio like 0.46 to 2
decimals and one like S2/N2 to four

Fig 6, line 1 - versus E values --> and E values. It is not versus which is when you have
y vs. x.

I looked at this draft on paper and I couldn't see the grey points at all - I could on the pdf -
so I would make them a bit darker. Also they are stars (or asterisks) and not crosses.

Fig 7 caption - (a) Distribution ... values and (b)tidal types in .. including (c) in the
.. islands, all calculated using .. In (b) and (c) ..

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (18 May 2020) by Mattias Green

AR by Deirdre Hart on behalf of the Authors (02 Jun 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (16 Jun 2020) by Mattias Green

Short summary

Common ways of describing the rise and fall of the tides are essential for safe, productive coastal habitation. We have long had a useful formula to describe the rise and fall of tides at daily timescales but no purposive method for characterising tidal height variations at longer timescales. This paper uses observations from New Zealand, plus model data, to explain the different tidal envelope types evident at monthly timescales, complementing the existing way of describing daily tidal forms.