Potential Sea Level Rise Impacts in Acapulco Diamante, Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments should be viewed in the context of my experience in analyses of climate variability under observed and model-simulated global climate change.

 

This paper presents the impacts of future sea level rise on the flood area of Acapulco Diamante, Mexico based on the model-projected sea level and satellite images. The paper was clearly organized and written, results and analyzing methods were given in detail. However, according to my understanding, the only highlight of this study is the numbers of flood area increase under different emission scenarios. Their results do not provide any new scientific insights to climate science but may serve as reference for risk management and decision making of policymakers. If this fits the aim and scope of the journal, I would recommend a major revision. Below are some points that can be improved before being published.

 

1. It is unclear how the sea-level data was obtained. Was the data simulated by a single climate model, or a result of ensemble model simulations? If it is a multi-model result, uncertainty analyses should be performed to tell the confidence level of the conclusions presented in this study. The names of models used should also be listed.
2. Climate systems, including sea level, consist of multi-timescale variability in addition to the long-term linear trend. In particular, interannual variations have a large order of magnitude that the linear trend does. Thus, in the context of future climate projection, it is more appropriate to report the analysis results (i.e., flood area change) of a period (e.g., 2080–2100), other than a year (2100).
3. Introduction: Missing review of previous relevant studies
4. Caption of Fig. 11: ‘floor area’ should be ‘flood area’?
5. 11: The shading color of flood area in 2050, 2080, and 2100 are non-distinguishable.
6. Table 8: What does ‘Null’ refer to?
7. Repetitive figures: According to my understanding, Figs. 12c, 13c, and 14c are the same as Figs. 11a-c. The authors may want to consider reorganizing their figures.

Author Response

1. The sea level projections are based on the climate projections made by Kopp et al. [2017].

2. We understand and agree with this comment, the reason we did not express it this way in the manuscript was for simplicity and to avoid repeating the time ranges multiple times. But if you believe that the reader would benefit from this change, we have already changed the text.

3. A new paragraph has been added.

4. Thank you very much for this correction.

5. The reason behind this is that the maps are intended to be interpreted as a cumulative flood, if an area is estimated to be flooded in the period 2041-2060, that same area will also be flooded in the period 2081-2100.

6. The areas designated as Null are those that will not be affected by flooding caused by the increase in sea level as a result of climate change until the period 2081-2100. The possibility that these areas may be flooded in subsequent time periods is beyond the scope of this study and will require further analysis of the data.

7. They are not the same maps, but since other reviewers have brought to my attention that the number of maps and tables is excessive, we decided to remove the maps in Figure 11 from the document, as they may appear repetitive.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript represents a good test for the development of the Integrated Procedure for Sea Level Impact Assessment (IPESLI) in Acapulco Diamante (Mexico) for decades to come. However, the estimate of the areas subject to submersion in the hypothesized scenarios, at least in the form presented, would not be sufficient to give unambiguous indications to policy makers. The title is informative and reflects the content of the document. The studied area is not sufficiently described and is sometimes not clear. The paragraph relating to materials and methods is instead clear and quite complete, in particular it allows you to get closer to the procedure used step by step. The results are quite well exposed in the different maps that represent the different scenarios, but then their description and comparison are almost completely lacking. In addition to a series of percentages, the reader is unable to assess the impacts on the areas that would be submerged on the coast. There can be no concern for the overestimation of the results, having completely ignored the morphological characteristics of the coastal stretch, which often tend to emphasize some coastal processes. The results of other similar tests carried out in other parts of the world are not compared, nor reported as citations. The bibliography, in fact, even if updated, almost essentially includes generic and procedural publications. Illustrations are needed to illustrate the results; however, I recommend improving the framing of fig. 1. The tables are numerous and consistent with the organization of the work, but perhaps I would eliminate some of them preferring a text and add another as indicated in the attached revised manuscript to better describe the topography of the study area. The results highlighted in the figures and tables could be better discussed in the text, thus the discussion could be improved. It is proposed to accept the publication after having properly revised the manuscript and subsequently having carried out a major revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We have taken into account each of your kind and conscientious comments, and evaluating them together with the comments of the other two reviewers, plus that of the editor, the manuscript has been modified. We would like to extend special thanks for the time and effort in providing detailed comments in the body of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents a relevant analysis of regional consequences of global phenomena such as global warming and sea-level rise. However, in my opinion, the work could be improved in different aspects that I mention below:

The introduction and methods present many figures that could be reduced and simplified for a better understanding of the text. For example, figures 1 and 2 could be unified?

From my point of view, the methodology with three tables with sea-level scenarios and eight images/maps is excessive. A simplification of this section would be very appropriate.

In contrast, figures 12, 13 and 14 with the results are poorly explained in the text.

Finally, the discussion lacks a more general perspective, comparison with other areas of the world and other research that are not from same region.

The conclusions do not adequately highlight the most fundamental findings of the work, so this article's importance and new knowledge is not correctly addressed

Author Response

1. Figures 1 and 2 have been merged into one.

2. The number of Tables in the methodology has been reduced from three to two, and the number of Figures has also been reduced from eight to six.

3. The explanation of the Figures currently named 9, 10, and 11 (previously named 12, 13 and 14) has been expanded.

4. The discussion section has been expanded to take a more global perspective.

5. The conclusion section has been expanded to emphasize the value of the article. 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all my comments. Again, my major concern of the paper is the lack of scientific insights as stated in the first review report: ‘their results (i.e., reporting the impacts of climate change on flood area) do not provide any new scientific insights to climate science but may serve as reference for risk management and decision making of policymakers’. Leaving that aside, the manuscript is well organized and clearly presented. Conclusions are supported by the analysis results. No further comments from me.

Author Response

Thank you for your very careful review of our paper, and for the comments, corrections, and suggestions that ensued. A major revision of the paper has been carried out to take all of them into account. And in the process, we believe the paper has been significantly improved. Regarding the "lack of scientific insights", we have made a minor revision, adding three new paragraphs in the discussion, highlighting the importance of the results, and comparing them with similar studies.

Reviewer 2 Report

The resubmitted manuscript "Potential sea level rise impacts in Acapulco Diamante, Mexico" is quite improved in content. The authors took into account most of the observations and suggestions. However, some potential impacts as thorough as they could have done with all those processed images. Despite this, I propose to publish it in this version without further changes.

Author Response

Thank you for your very careful review of our paper, and for the comments, corrections, and suggestions that ensued. A major revision of the paper has been carried out to take all of them into account. And in the process, we believe the paper has been significantly improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version of the manuscript has been considerably improved. However, in my opinion the discussion is still very poor.
The current version of the paper lacks scientific interest for an international audience. It will be necessary to make a comparison with other research studies related to sea level rise impacts and future scenarios.

Author Response

Thank you for your very careful review of our paper, and for the comments, corrections, and suggestions that ensued. A major revision of the paper has been carried out to take all of them into account. And in the process, we believe the paper has been significantly improved. Regarding the "lack of scientific insights", we have made a minor revision, adding three new paragraphs in the discussion, highlighting the importance of the results, and comparing them with similar studies.