Analysis of Faster-Than-Real-Time (FTRT) Tsunami Simulations for the Spanish Tsunami Warning System for the Atlantic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is fairly written. However, it sounds more like a technical report than a research article. Therefore, the following comments should be addressed to improve its quality:

Point 1: The abstract should be redrafted to avoid unnecessary stories. Please stick to the following format:

Briefly start with a general overview of the research problem, the study's objective, and its motivation. Then, briefly provide a basic clue on the methodology; avoid details and stories in the method description in the abstract. Next, discuss the results that directly relate to the research objectives and conclusions, including the numeric findings, if any. Lastly, conclude by selecting the most important implication, application, or suggestion related to the problem statement and main results. 

Point 2: The study did not review similar prior studies. A literature review is required to cover the topic discussed in the manuscript to identify the holes you need to fill. The literature review can form part of the introduction or a separate section. The authors should consider the following in adding the literature review:

• The literature review should inform readers where the new material fits in the evolution of the topic being addressed. Emphasize trends in the recent literature, e.g., within the last 5-10 years.
• Demonstrate that you have read and understood relevant works on this topic. It should show how the paper comes out of earlier lines of thought and contributes to them.
• Most importantly, it should demonstrate a clear conceptual and theoretical stance. For example, what general theories/principles inform the study?
• It should lead to the research questions.
• It should describe and compare the various studies on tsunami warning system simulations, identify their research gaps, and explain how the present study fills the gap.

Point 3: Please define each acronym at its first mention in the manuscript, such as CINECA, CHEESE, and the like.

Point 4: Avoid using the first person constructions for scientific research writings (such as I, we, and us, for example).

Point 5: The author should provide a detailed description of the study area with high-resolution maps showing the tsunami area (Figure 1) under the Materials and Methods section as a subheading. The yellow polygons in Figure 1 are not showing yellow clearly. Details about geographical boundaries and past tsunami events with photos should be added.

Point 6: Results and discussion

The authors can merge these two sections as one, the results & discussion section. This section should highlight important discoveries and how they support/corroborate or differ from prior studies and likely explanations. That is why it is necessary to review similar previous studies. Therefore, the result and the discussion section should:

• Present major findings. What have you found that is new?
• Then, relate the findings to the research questions.
• Stress the manuscript’s value-added to the literature. What have you shown that we did not know before? Are the results generalizable: can they be applied more broadly? Are there analytical implications?

Point 7: There is no conclusion section. The authors should provide a separate section for a conclusion. The current Discussion section can be changed to a conclusion after revisiting. In a nutshell, the conclusion should summarize the following key lessons of the manuscript:

• State the importance of the findings to the field, including implications for policy and practice,
• Limitations of the study, and
• Future research direction

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate very much your comments on this study. We have tried to follow them in order to improve the draft of our work. We hope you find the paper worthy to be published.

Please see the attachment with our reply to your review.

Sincerely,

B. Gaite

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The proposal of the work is very interesting both from the scientific perspective and from the perspective of tsunami hazard management. It is presented a good bibliographic revision and methodology proposal.

The manuscript refers to a case study on tsunami simulations in high processing performance for one of several possible tectonic sources for the 1755 Lisbon earthquake.
The title of the work is very comprehensive/generic. It should point to the specificity of the analyzed event and source. It is suggested to change/adjust the title.

It is not usual to present Material and Methods and Conclusion in the Introduction. Assess whether removing these excerpts will compromise the Introduction comprehension.

Although the meaning seems known, it is important to show the meaning of the all acronyms used in the work (for example, ATL, GCIC, GCN and GC).

Change to ° (degree) intead º (first)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate very much your comments on this study. We have tried to follow them in order to improve the draft of our work. We hope you find the paper worthy to be published.

Please see the attachment with our reply to your review.

Sincerely,

B. Gaite

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The paper is interesting, well organized, and written. It is appropriate for the journal. It provides a good contribution to the TWS in Spain.

 

I have some suggestions, listed below.

1. Introduction: One or two paragraphs should be added to acknowledge the significant efforts that have been made by the PTWC (Pacific Tsunami Warning Center), and well as Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), and after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, the Tsunami Warning System (TWS) in the Indian Ocean, that unfortunately has been canceled due to lack of funding – please check. The Atlantic Ocean is quite behind, however, this study shows some efforts to make the TWS in the Atlantic operational and realistic.

 

2. Discussion

Please add one or two sentences about this (Fast results with poor coastline details Vs slow results with good coastline details) in the methods and discussion:

2.1 I understand the need to use a computational setting that provides fast results. However, given the complexity of the local bathymetry/coastline, ½ arc is not accurate enough. This is particularly challenging in Galicia and Gibraltar.

 

2.2 Moreover, the Green coefficient (eq 1) does not provide a realistic forecast for the water level height; please discuss the shore configuration, such as a gentle beach compared to a steep cliff.

 

Please also add the following.

2.3 The use of supercomputers is very important to provide a real-time TWS. However, the technology is pointless if:

a) the earthquake source parameters that are being used are incorrect. Please check this paper, which discusses an unnecessary evacuation in Hawaii, issued by the PTWC, (https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2015.1065292).

Although we need fast information, sometimes USGS or local/national institutes cannot provide the correct seismic data in real-time. Most of USGS initial parameters are later corrected and verified by a team of seismologists, which takes some time. However, when an earthquake generates a tsunami, that crucial time may not be enough. Please develop how the earthquake parameters will be obtained and how they will be updated in Spain.

Please add this in the discussion section.

 

b) the information does not reach stakeholders and the public. Please review the 2011 Tohoku Tsunami: although JMA continued to perform and broadcast the calculations of tsunami travel times and maximum water level through the media, the data itself was not being updated due to the lack of power. Some coastal communities did not receive any information at all. Please develop how the warning maps (for example, Figure 6) will be disseminated to civil protection and the public in Spain. Please add this in the discussion section.

3. The paper needs a “Conclusion” section.

Please add one or two paragraphs about this.

 

For these reasons, I recommend “minor revisions”. After that, the paper should be published.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate very much your comments on this study. We have tried to follow them in order to improve the draft of our work. We hope you find the paper worthy to be published.

Please see the attachment with our reply to your review.

Sincerely,

B. Gaite

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Geohazards 1641419 – Review. 

 

In my opinion, this is a thorough study of tsunami warning modeling using the variability of source parameters and should be published.  I have only minor comments and suggestions for clarity and completeness.  

 

[1] Page 2, second paragraph, first line: Define NTWS.

 

[2] Page 2, second paragraph, second line: Perhaps define GPU (graphics processing unit) for the unfamiliar reader.

 

[3] Page 3, second paragraph, line 5: Since this is the first use of the acronym FCP, it should be defined here (forecast point).

 

[4] Page 5, end of first paragraph: Are these values taken from the first entry line in Table A1, the scenario id with the asterisk?  Is that the reference scenario?

 

[5] Page 6, top:  How likely is it that the hypocenter will be close to a corner of the rupture area?

 

[6] Figure 2c: For clarity, it might be worth also stating in the caption of Figure 2c that each computational domain is a rectangle whose coordinates are given in the ChEESE Live Demo/Computational Domain box of Table 2.

 

[7] Page 6, four lines above eq. (1): NTWC = ??

 

[8] Page 6: Would it be worthwhile to give a reference for equation (1)?

 

[9] Page 8: The coloured symbols are not easy to see in Figures 3a and 3b.

 

[10] Page 9, 3 lines above eq. (2): Perhaps state why varying only one parameter at a time is sufficient?  Would varying more than one make a big difference?

 

[11] Page 13, second-last line: TEWS = Tsunami Early Warning System ?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate very much your comments on this study. We have tried to follow them in order to improve the draft of our work. We hope you find the paper worthy to be published.

Please see the attachment with our reply to your review.

Sincerely,

B. Gaite

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have adequately implemented all the comments raised in the first round of the review.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on this paper.