Tide characteristics and tidal wave propagation in the Persian Gulf

Hoseini, S. Mahya; Soltanpour, Mohsen

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/os-2021-98

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-2021-98

Preprints

16 Nov 2021

| 16 Nov 2021

Status: this preprint has been withdrawn by the authors.

Tide characteristics and tidal wave propagation in the Persian Gulf

S. Mahya Hoseini and Mohsen Soltanpour

Abstract. A 2D hydrodynamic model is employed to study the characteristics of tidal wave propagation in the Persian Gulf (PG). The study indicates that tidal waves propagate from the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman into the PG through the Strait of Hormuz. The numerical model is first validated using the measured water levels and current speeds around the PG and the principal tidal constituents of Admiralty tide tables. Considering the intermediate width of the PG, in comparison to Rossby deformation radius, the tidal wave propagates like a Kelvin wave on the boundaries. Whereas the continental shelf oscillation resonance of the basin is close to the period of diurnal constituents, the results show that the tide is mixed mainly semidiurnal. A series of numerical tests is also developed to study the various effects of geometry and bathymetry of the PG, Coriolis force, and bed friction on tidal wave deformation. Numerical tests reveal that the Coriolis force, combined with the geometry of the gulf, results in generation of different amphidromic systems of diurnal and semidiurnal constituents. The configuration of the bathymetry of the PG, with a shallow zone at the closed end of the basin that extends along its longitudinal axis in the southern half (asymmetrical cross section), results in the deformations of incoming and returning tidal Kelvin waves and consequently the shifts of amphidromic points (APs). The bed friction also results in the movements of the APs from the centerline to the south border of the gulf.

This preprint has been withdrawn.

Received: 06 Oct 2021 – Discussion started: 16 Nov 2021

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 3771 KB)

Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
Preprint (3771 KB)

Download & links

This preprint has been withdrawn.

S. Mahya Hoseini and Mohsen Soltanpour

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on os-2021-98', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Dec 2021
Review of “Tide characteristics and tidal wave propagation in the Persian Gulf” by S. Mahya Hoseini and Mohsen Soltanpour.

This paper is a very basic study of the tidal characteristics of the Persian Gulf, which have been studied in great detail many times before. The authors do not convince me that their approach is more novel than the detailed study of others such as Ranji and Soltanpour (2021), who included spatially varying friction, as a function of water depth, mean velocity, vegetation, and bed sediment size. The authors claim that “Despite all past efforts, tidal modeling in the PG still needs to be improved, with comparisons to new water levels and current speeds measurements at different locations.” I don’t think that new observational data warrant another tidal study of the Persian Gulf, unless the authors can prove that their model performs better than previous models, which is missing. On the other hand, most data used are 10 years or older, so I don’t understand what new data the authors are referring to. Due to the lack of novelty and scientific advance, I cannot recommend the publication of this paper.

Notes:

The model description is incomplete. Bottom friction treatment is not described. Boundary conditions are also not properly described. What conditions are used for transport components? Do the tidal amplitudes vary along the open boundary?

The first seven figures show different types of maps of the Persian Gulf. This should be reduced to 1 or 2. Some figures show scientific information (such as Figure 4) without any explanation of how this was derived or who derived it. In total there are 28 figures. This is way too many figures. Future submission should reduce the total number of figures to 10-14.

Despite the large number of tidal constituents used and given a lack of comparisons with other models, I am not convinced that this model performs better than previously used models.

The tidal prediction for Kuwait is poor. Why? Do previous models produce similarly bad results?

You missed a possibly important reference => Pous et al. (2012) A Process Study of the Tidal Circulation in the Persian Gulf, Open Journal of Marine Science, 2, 131-140, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojms.2012.24016.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/os-2021-98-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', S. Mahya Hoseini, 31 Dec 2021
  
  We would like to thank the 1^st respected referee for his time spent on our submission and the valuable comments.
  Please kindly refer to the attached supplement file for the responses to the raised comments and corresponding proposed actions.
  Yours sincerely,
  S. Mahya Hoseini
  Mohsen Soltanpour
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/os-2021-98-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on os-2021-98', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Dec 2021

Review of manuscript OS 2021-98 “Tide characteristics and tidal wave propagation in the Persian Gulf” by S.

Mahya Hoseini and Mohsen Soltanpour.

The paper presents a study of the tidal characteristics of the Persian Gulf and on the influence of Coriolis forces, bathymetry, and bottom friction on its propagation. The authors present a validation of the model and discuss the numerical model results and those obtained for an idealized case. The authors claim that the “tidal modelling in the Persian Gulf needs improving despite previous efforts with comparisons to new water levels…”, however this new data covers the same period that the other studies they cite. The novelty of the study is not clear enough in the current manuscript and it is not clear that this model performs better than the one followed by other studies that the cite e.g. Ranji and Soltanpour since no comparisons are provided. The manuscript will also benefit of clarifications at some points. I cannot recommend the publication of this paper. Below I provide some more comments that hopefully will help in future submissions.

The description of the model can be improved. The information on how the model is forced is buried at the end of the section and the way bottom friction is considered is not very clear. It may be clearer to present the model first and then the sensitivity tests performed on the position of the open boundary and the Manning coefficient.

The period of validation seems too short (i.e. about 9 days). The authors do not show that the spring and tide cycle is accurately reproduced. According to Table 1, the authors should have tide gauge data available to provide a longer validation period.

There are 28 figures, which seems excessive. Some figures could be combined together (e.g. Figure 1 and Figure 6) and others are probably not necessary (e.g. 5). I am a bit confused by the results presented since some figures lack an explanation of how they were derived (i.e. Fig. 4, Fig. 20, Fig. 25, Fig. 26) or about why those stations or data are chosen and not others (e.g. Fig. 9). Some figures lack units on the y axis (Fig 8 and Fig. 11) and others would have increased readability with a larger font.

The authors say that they select Jask-Almasnaeh as the open boundary. This is the larger domain of the two that they have. However, in figures 12-17 they present results for the small domain, in Fig 21-22 they present the results for the large domain, and again in Fig. 23-24 and 27-28 they present the small domain.

Notes:

L110-117 and table 2 I do not think this is necessary in the introduction

L130 “The mangrove forests and salt mashes at the Khuran Channel, located north of Qeshm Island, are excluded from the computational domain to improve the modeling results” I do not understand how excluding them can improve the results, do you mean you do not consider a different friction there? Is this land? Also because afterwards in L137 the manuscript reads “the grid points is also increased near mangrove locations in the Khuran Channel.”

Fig. 6, 18, 19, 21, 22 and fig.23, 24,27 and 28 Please change the jet color scheme and a divergent colour scheme helps understanding when negative and positive values in the same figure and so increases and decreases. Jet rainbow colour schemes can distort perceptions of data and alter meaning since they create false boundaries between values (e.g. Thyng et al (2007))

L150-151 “Although the differences of statistical measures are not significant, it is observed that all three indices correspond to the optimum Manning number of 60m1/3/s-1” This sentence needs reformulating, it is not clear what the authors mean. And the authors should also indicate what the underlined values in the table mean.

L180, L189, L417 Please avoid using good when assessing the model those are subjective terms. The model is satisfactory for the purpose of the study or it is not.

L243 “It is also observed that the map fully conforms to the contribution of shallow-water constituents in Fig. 4. As an example, because of the decrease of water depth the contribution of shallow-water constituents increase from 245 3.3% to 8.9% from Larak to Pohl stations. ” Not sure to what the authors refer to here, Fig4 shows the contribution of tidal constituents on the northern coastline. It is not clear how figure 4 was obtained and except for Pohl station, there are no stations on Fig. 4 on areas where the amplitude of shallow water constituents is high.

L 264-270 Please reformulate, I do not follow the reasoning in this paragraph. How are the checkpoints chosen?

L 285-291 It is not clear for the second and third model whether there is Coriolis forcing or not. Why is 36m the depth chosen? From text later on, I understand this value of 36m is the average depth of the PG, but this could be presented here already.

L294-315 provide theorical information about the development of amphidromic points when constrained bathymetry and influence of Coriolis. However, the information is not presented in relation to the present study.

L426-428 I understood from the description that the bathymetry was considered constant in the second test while the authors refer here to a transverse step that is not shown in the results of the numerical model. A transverse step is shown in Fig. 25 however it is not clear how this is figure is produced.

References:

Thyng, K.M., C.A. Greene, R.D. Hetland, H.M. Zimmerle, and S.F. DiMarco. 2016. True colors of oceanography: Guidelines for effective and accurate colormap selection. Oceanography 29(3):9–13, http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2016.66

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/os-2021-98-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', S. Mahya Hoseini, 10 Jan 2022
  
  We would like to thank the 2^st respected referee for his time spent on our submission and the valuable comments. Please kindly refer to the attached supplement file for the responses to the raised comments and corresponding proposed actions.
  Yours sincerely,
  S. Mahya Hoseini
  Mohsen Soltanpour
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/os-2021-98-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on os-2021-98', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Dec 2021
Review of “Tide characteristics and tidal wave propagation in the Persian Gulf” by S. Mahya Hoseini and Mohsen Soltanpour.

This paper is a very basic study of the tidal characteristics of the Persian Gulf, which have been studied in great detail many times before. The authors do not convince me that their approach is more novel than the detailed study of others such as Ranji and Soltanpour (2021), who included spatially varying friction, as a function of water depth, mean velocity, vegetation, and bed sediment size. The authors claim that “Despite all past efforts, tidal modeling in the PG still needs to be improved, with comparisons to new water levels and current speeds measurements at different locations.” I don’t think that new observational data warrant another tidal study of the Persian Gulf, unless the authors can prove that their model performs better than previous models, which is missing. On the other hand, most data used are 10 years or older, so I don’t understand what new data the authors are referring to. Due to the lack of novelty and scientific advance, I cannot recommend the publication of this paper.

Notes:

The model description is incomplete. Bottom friction treatment is not described. Boundary conditions are also not properly described. What conditions are used for transport components? Do the tidal amplitudes vary along the open boundary?

The first seven figures show different types of maps of the Persian Gulf. This should be reduced to 1 or 2. Some figures show scientific information (such as Figure 4) without any explanation of how this was derived or who derived it. In total there are 28 figures. This is way too many figures. Future submission should reduce the total number of figures to 10-14.

Despite the large number of tidal constituents used and given a lack of comparisons with other models, I am not convinced that this model performs better than previously used models.

The tidal prediction for Kuwait is poor. Why? Do previous models produce similarly bad results?

You missed a possibly important reference => Pous et al. (2012) A Process Study of the Tidal Circulation in the Persian Gulf, Open Journal of Marine Science, 2, 131-140, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojms.2012.24016.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/os-2021-98-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', S. Mahya Hoseini, 31 Dec 2021
  
  We would like to thank the 1^st respected referee for his time spent on our submission and the valuable comments.
  Please kindly refer to the attached supplement file for the responses to the raised comments and corresponding proposed actions.
  Yours sincerely,
  S. Mahya Hoseini
  Mohsen Soltanpour
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/os-2021-98-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on os-2021-98', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Dec 2021

Review of manuscript OS 2021-98 “Tide characteristics and tidal wave propagation in the Persian Gulf” by S.

Mahya Hoseini and Mohsen Soltanpour.

The paper presents a study of the tidal characteristics of the Persian Gulf and on the influence of Coriolis forces, bathymetry, and bottom friction on its propagation. The authors present a validation of the model and discuss the numerical model results and those obtained for an idealized case. The authors claim that the “tidal modelling in the Persian Gulf needs improving despite previous efforts with comparisons to new water levels…”, however this new data covers the same period that the other studies they cite. The novelty of the study is not clear enough in the current manuscript and it is not clear that this model performs better than the one followed by other studies that the cite e.g. Ranji and Soltanpour since no comparisons are provided. The manuscript will also benefit of clarifications at some points. I cannot recommend the publication of this paper. Below I provide some more comments that hopefully will help in future submissions.

The description of the model can be improved. The information on how the model is forced is buried at the end of the section and the way bottom friction is considered is not very clear. It may be clearer to present the model first and then the sensitivity tests performed on the position of the open boundary and the Manning coefficient.

The period of validation seems too short (i.e. about 9 days). The authors do not show that the spring and tide cycle is accurately reproduced. According to Table 1, the authors should have tide gauge data available to provide a longer validation period.

There are 28 figures, which seems excessive. Some figures could be combined together (e.g. Figure 1 and Figure 6) and others are probably not necessary (e.g. 5). I am a bit confused by the results presented since some figures lack an explanation of how they were derived (i.e. Fig. 4, Fig. 20, Fig. 25, Fig. 26) or about why those stations or data are chosen and not others (e.g. Fig. 9). Some figures lack units on the y axis (Fig 8 and Fig. 11) and others would have increased readability with a larger font.

The authors say that they select Jask-Almasnaeh as the open boundary. This is the larger domain of the two that they have. However, in figures 12-17 they present results for the small domain, in Fig 21-22 they present the results for the large domain, and again in Fig. 23-24 and 27-28 they present the small domain.

Notes:

L110-117 and table 2 I do not think this is necessary in the introduction

L130 “The mangrove forests and salt mashes at the Khuran Channel, located north of Qeshm Island, are excluded from the computational domain to improve the modeling results” I do not understand how excluding them can improve the results, do you mean you do not consider a different friction there? Is this land? Also because afterwards in L137 the manuscript reads “the grid points is also increased near mangrove locations in the Khuran Channel.”

Fig. 6, 18, 19, 21, 22 and fig.23, 24,27 and 28 Please change the jet color scheme and a divergent colour scheme helps understanding when negative and positive values in the same figure and so increases and decreases. Jet rainbow colour schemes can distort perceptions of data and alter meaning since they create false boundaries between values (e.g. Thyng et al (2007))

L150-151 “Although the differences of statistical measures are not significant, it is observed that all three indices correspond to the optimum Manning number of 60m1/3/s-1” This sentence needs reformulating, it is not clear what the authors mean. And the authors should also indicate what the underlined values in the table mean.

L180, L189, L417 Please avoid using good when assessing the model those are subjective terms. The model is satisfactory for the purpose of the study or it is not.

L243 “It is also observed that the map fully conforms to the contribution of shallow-water constituents in Fig. 4. As an example, because of the decrease of water depth the contribution of shallow-water constituents increase from 245 3.3% to 8.9% from Larak to Pohl stations. ” Not sure to what the authors refer to here, Fig4 shows the contribution of tidal constituents on the northern coastline. It is not clear how figure 4 was obtained and except for Pohl station, there are no stations on Fig. 4 on areas where the amplitude of shallow water constituents is high.

L 264-270 Please reformulate, I do not follow the reasoning in this paragraph. How are the checkpoints chosen?

L 285-291 It is not clear for the second and third model whether there is Coriolis forcing or not. Why is 36m the depth chosen? From text later on, I understand this value of 36m is the average depth of the PG, but this could be presented here already.

L294-315 provide theorical information about the development of amphidromic points when constrained bathymetry and influence of Coriolis. However, the information is not presented in relation to the present study.

L426-428 I understood from the description that the bathymetry was considered constant in the second test while the authors refer here to a transverse step that is not shown in the results of the numerical model. A transverse step is shown in Fig. 25 however it is not clear how this is figure is produced.

References:

Thyng, K.M., C.A. Greene, R.D. Hetland, H.M. Zimmerle, and S.F. DiMarco. 2016. True colors of oceanography: Guidelines for effective and accurate colormap selection. Oceanography 29(3):9–13, http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2016.66

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/os-2021-98-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', S. Mahya Hoseini, 10 Jan 2022
  
  We would like to thank the 2^st respected referee for his time spent on our submission and the valuable comments. Please kindly refer to the attached supplement file for the responses to the raised comments and corresponding proposed actions.
  Yours sincerely,
  S. Mahya Hoseini
  Mohsen Soltanpour
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/os-2021-98-AC2

S. Mahya Hoseini and Mohsen Soltanpour

Viewed

Total article views: 1,447 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
867	549	31	1,447	21	25

HTML: 867
PDF: 549
XML: 31
Total: 1,447
BibTeX: 21
EndNote: 25

Views and downloads (calculated since 16 Nov 2021)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2021	157	28	1	186
Dec 2021	219	37	2	258
Jan 2022	111	37	4	152
Feb 2022	33	22	0	55
Mar 2022	21	13	1	35
Apr 2022	13	7	0	20
May 2022	10	13	1	24
Jun 2022	5	14	1	20
Jul 2022	9	8	0	17
Aug 2022	10	14	0	24
Sep 2022	8	27	1	36
Oct 2022	14	29	0	43
Nov 2022	16	12	0	28
Dec 2022	16	19	0	35
Jan 2023	5	22	1	28
Feb 2023	12	16	0	28
Mar 2023	19	17	0	36
Apr 2023	3	23	0	26
May 2023	13	11	1	25
Jun 2023	10	16	1	27
Jul 2023	5	11	0	16
Aug 2023	8	15	0	23
Sep 2023	18	16	4	38
Oct 2023	26	23	2	51
Nov 2023	16	15	0	31
Dec 2023	18	13	2	33
Jan 2024	15	25	2	42
Feb 2024	25	22	3	50
Mar 2024	23	16	2	41
Apr 2024	9	8	2	19

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 16 Nov 2021)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2021	157	28	1	186
Dec 2021	219	37	2	258
Jan 2022	111	37	4	152
Feb 2022	33	22	0	55
Mar 2022	21	13	1	35
Apr 2022	13	7	0	20
May 2022	10	13	1	24
Jun 2022	5	14	1	20
Jul 2022	9	8	0	17
Aug 2022	10	14	0	24
Sep 2022	8	27	1	36
Oct 2022	14	29	0	43
Nov 2022	16	12	0	28
Dec 2022	16	19	0	35
Jan 2023	5	22	1	28
Feb 2023	12	16	0	28
Mar 2023	19	17	0	36
Apr 2023	3	23	0	26
May 2023	13	11	1	25
Jun 2023	10	16	1	27
Jul 2023	5	11	0	16
Aug 2023	8	15	0	23
Sep 2023	18	16	4	38
Oct 2023	26	23	2	51
Nov 2023	16	15	0	31
Dec 2023	18	13	2	33
Jan 2024	15	25	2	42
Feb 2024	25	22	3	50
Mar 2024	23	16	2	41
Apr 2024	9	8	2	19

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,361 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,361 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 25 Apr 2024

Short summary

A 2D hydrodynamic model was employed to investigate the dynamics of tidal wave propagation in the Persian Gulf, a water body that has not been comprehensively studied before. The numerical model was verified by extensive field measurements all around the Persian Gulf. Numerical tests revealed that the Coriolis force, combined with the geometry of the gulf, results in generation of different amphidromic systems of diurnal and semidiurnal constituents.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0