An Improved Sea Spray-Induced Heat Flux Algorithm and Its Application in the Case Study of Typhoon Mangkhut (2018)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
These are the only changes to the MS needed.
Line 47: the circulation of the TC... add "the" in the appropriate place.
Line 131: Add the article “a”: “...used to simulate a super typhoon. “
Author Response
Please read the Response_Revision#1.doc.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
See attached review.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please read the Response_Reviewer#2.docx.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper proposed by the authors focuses on the use of innovative parametrization implementations of marine sprays and aerosols in coupled atmosphere-wave models, in order to study and reproduce more faithfully the air-sea interactions, and the role of sea-aerosol spray in an intense tropical super-cyclone. The paper is relative well organized and of extreme scientific interest and attempts to shed light on technical and theoretical problems that are very relevant to marine and atmospheric sciences. Despite this, the paper can be improved in some respects, and suggest (relative) major revision but the potential overall merit for the strong interest and significant improvement produced by this paer, in particular if share the code (is an open source model, and need a open source “approach”).
1) The introduction is very long. I understand that the topic is very complex, but from my point of view, some very in-depth topics should be included in a sub-chapter, in “materials and methods”.
2) I also suggest expanding the description of the use of coupled models (in the introduction). This is because it is important to contextualize this extensive work, carried out by the authors, in the current modeling context, describing in more detail the problems, limitations, repercussions of the "standard" approaches, extending the topic not only to tropical cyclones, but to many atmospheric events and to the climatological study, which is now faced with the use of coupled models.
3) To this end, I suggest the addition of some quotations, milestones of this field and this field of study and not just the air-sea-spray interaction
4) Line 83 Add citation Rizza et al 2018. Which uses a very similar, but less “integrated” approach, and compared with this paper. It is important, because, with your work, you have added a great advance, compared to this approach (Rizza et al 2018), which was already very pioneering.
Rizza, U.; Canepa, E.; Ricchi, A.; Bonaldo, D.; Carniel, S.; Morichetti, M.; Passerini, G.; Santiloni, L.; Scremin Puhales, F.; Miglietta, M.M. Influence of Wave State and Sea Spray on the Roughness Length: Feedback on Medicanes. Atmosphere 2018, 9, 301. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9080301
5) The description of the COAWST model is very short and not very detailed. Many citations are missing that can increase the value of this article and underline the enormous scientific value of this numerical model, the vast fields of application (underline this point please), and the potential of COAWST. I believe it is essential to add some citations (published in very prestigious journals and on very different research topics, but with the same COAWST model), and many others could be added:
Xu, Y., Kalra, T. S., Ganju, N. K., & Fagherazzi, S. (2022). Modeling the dynamics of salt marsh development in coastal land reclamation. Geophysical Research Letters, 49, e2021GL095559. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095559
Porchetta, S, Temel, O, Warner, JC, et al. Evaluation of a roughness length parametrization accounting for wind–wave alignment in a coupled atmosphere–wave model. Q J R Meteorol Soc. 2021; 147: 825– 846. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3948
Ricchi, A., Bonaldo, D., Cioni, G. et al. Simulation of a flash-flood event over the Adriatic Sea with a high-resolution atmosphere–ocean–wave coupled system. Sci Rep 11, 9388 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88476-1
Defne, Z., Ganju, N. K., & Moriarty, J. M. (2019). Hydrodynamic and Morphologic Response of a Back-Barrier Estuary to an Extratropical Storm. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 124, 7700– 7717. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JC015238
Zambon, J.B., He, R. & Warner, J.C. Investigation of hurricane Ivan using the coupled ocean–atmosphere–wave–sediment transport (COAWST) model. Ocean Dynamics 64, 1535–1554 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-014-0777-7
Xu,X.;Voermans,J.J.;Liu, Q.; Moon, I.-J.; Guan, C.; Babanin, A.V. Impacts of the Wave-Dependent Sea Spray Parameterizations on Air–Sea–Wave Coupled Modeling under an Idealized Tropical Cyclone. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 1390. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9121390
Liu, N., Ling, T., Wang, H. et al. Numerical simulation of Typhoon Muifa (2011) using a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere-Wave-Sediment Transport (COAWST) modeling system. J. Ocean Univ. China 14, 199–209 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11802-015-2415-5
Bruneau, N., Toumi, R. & Wang, S. Impact of wave whitecapping on land falling tropical cyclones. Sci Rep 8, 652 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-19012-3
This is the base, I suggest you to can add other.
6) Line 128: change blew up to blowup. How do you contextualize the sentence? Which component of COAWST “explode”? the WRF? Because? For very high fluxes? The wind speed?
7) Line 133-134: it is not entirely true, there is Rizza et al 2018 that implements the sprays in WRF offline, starting from COAWST output, but there are probably others too.
8) Line 245: the statement may be true under certain conditions. Specify it
9) The authors do not introduce any technical elements regarding the implementation of their parameterizations. This is a fundamental point, because it would allow the scientific community to enhance their work and implement their scheme in other basins, other events, and to reproduce the experiment (which is the basis of the scientific method). I suggest the authors add a sub-chapter where it describes in detail which modules have been modified, if "native" WRF is used under COAWST or if “WRF Chem” has been used, added in COAWST, if technical problems were found and how they were solved. You can add the algorithm implemented in the WRF and SWAN models (the code used and the modules and lines in which it was implemented is also fine in the supplementary material. This point is essential. We must share the scientific progress you have made, and make your improvements available to everyone.
10) Describe, also with the help of a figure and schemes, the model workflow and the exchange of variables, describing the standard approach and the approach used with your scheme.
11) Has a spinup of the SWAN model been carried out? If so, how long?
12) How many seconds do the models communicate?
13) When you talk about "best track" do you mean the track observed or the track of a simulation that is the best for you?
14) I suggest adding information about the configuration used in SWAN (in detail).
Author Response
Please read the Response_Reviewer#3.docx.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewer thanks the authors for responding to my comments. Personally, I would still like to see the ocean-coupled results, with the additional point that the intensity improved through the use of better model physics. I think that would be a more valid demonstration of the overall utility of the improved sea-spray parameterization that could be applied to real hurricane models. But I won't delay publication of the manuscript if the authors choose to continue with it in the present form.
