Presenting a Long-Term, Reprocessed Dataset of Global Sea Surface Temperature Produced Using the OSTIA System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made some modifications and improvements to the paper based on the previous review comments, but there is still a formatting issue, such as 5 5.1 1 2 3 4 5. Please further improve it according to the requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Hi, I am not sure what you are referring to by the numbers "5 5.1 1 2 3 4 5".

However - I have checked the formatting for all the numbered items in the document and they appear to be correct.

I also contacted the editor who is not sure what the formatting issue is either but has stated that the journal layout team should be able to resolve the issue.

Based on previous experience, I think that this formatting issue was likely caused by conflicts between different versions of Microsoft Word.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a second review of this manuscript.  The authors have addressed all of the previous comments and I recommend accepting in its present form. 

Author Response

Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend this version to be published.

Author Response

Thank you.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully read the paper you submitted and have expressed interest in your research. You have evaluated the CMEMS v2.0 data. The data were compared with independent observations, CMEMS v1.2 respectively. The results of the study showed that CMEMS v2.0 performed better.I recommend the manuscript to be published with minor revisions. The specific comments and suggestions are given below.

 

1.Line 1-2, the abstract section introduces the work of this paper after a brief introduction of the significance of the study, with little reference to previous work done on the subject, which could have provided a clearer and more detailed account of the background of the study.

 

2.Line 153，163，etc.，it is recommended that data download address can be added.

 

3.It is recommended that a flowchart of the research steps be created to show a more concise and direct presentation.

 

4.Line 484-489，please add picture descriptions of the validation code, such as algorithmic flowcharts, schematic diagrams, etc., and add more detailed descriptions, such as what programming language was used.

 

5.Line 537, more details can be added about bootstrap.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Presenting a long term, reprocessed dataset of global sea surface temperature produced using the OSTIA system" mainly analyze and evaluate the SST data of CMEMS v2.0 and CMEMS v1.2, and other datasets, which has the potential to be published in RS. Major revisions are needed.

 

First, the manuscript seems like a technique report, not a research paper.

The introduction is not written with a good logic, must be revised to better clarify the scientific contribution of your work.

The structure of this manuscript should be adjusted, this version is a little difficult to understand for the readers.

The manuscript should be written with the format of RS journal, the present version is very rough.

The paper has a large number of image duplication issues, and the font size of the paper is chaotic.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A new global historical SST record called CMEMS v2.0 56 has been created, spanning the period 1981-2021.  Measurements taken from scientific buoys were used to compare CMEMS v2.0 to the previous version (CMEMS v1.2). The results showed that the SST values calculated by v2.0 were more accurate. This paper is an evaluation study of the SST data used in scientific research, which is a fundamental and important work. but there are significant issues with the writing format, clarity, and accuracy of individual figures in the paper. We hope to make careful revisions

 

1. section 1.2 is the Overview of currently available long term daily SST products. The introduction of various sea surface temperature data can be more academic, and now it looks a bit like reading a manual.  The description of OSTIA climate configuration in Section 2 is also similar.

2.Why is there suddenly a table between Line 319（329） and Line 320（330） that looks exactly like Figure 1.The statements immediately following the figure 1 are also repeated. Figure 1 with captions only officially appears between lines 344 and 345. Figure 1 appears again between lines 384 and 385, line 577-579

3.The tables in scientific papers are generally presented in a three line table. The figure or table appears for the first time and is best placed in the corresponding chapter. For example, Table 4 can be placed in section 3.2

4.Suggest merging the data and methods from Sections 3 and 4 into one section, and assessment of the accuracy of CMEMS v2.0 is only given in section 4

5.The distinction between colors in the legend of Figure 3 is not very clear. I can't see the shaded areas clearly either.

6.Figure 4 mismatches between ordinate and curve values

7.Suggest that all the methods in Section 4.2 involve formula numbering and sorting, and should be uniformly included in the data and method introduction. Otherwise, there will be data and methods appearing one after another, which is very messy，similar to the 4．

８.In a section, sometimes 1),2),3),sometime A) B) ....,sometime 1,2,.... Suggest unification

9.Line 788-793----Figure9 again？

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This article presents the design and creation of a precise and long-term dataset of sea surface temperatures (SST), which is essential for monitoring and studying global oceanic changes. However, significant issues are identified within the manuscript. 1. In the abstract section, please provide accurate and straightforward information about the methods used in the dataset, including the overall accuracy or regional accuracy (e.g., different oceans) while highlighting the role of the dataset in case analysis. 2. The graphic summary needs to be reorganized for better clarity. 3. The charts in the article suffer from formatting issues and lack organization. For example, Figure 1 appears three times, and table information is duplicated across the article. 4. The article seems to be divisible into two parts, with some studies being suitable for publication in journals such as "Earth System Science Data," while others can be published in standard journals as applied case studies.

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive analysis of a reprocessed long-term dataset of global sea surface temperatures (SST) using the OSTIA system. The study aims to validate the accuracy of this new dataset (CMEMS v2.0) against independent observations and earlier versions (CMEMS v1.2), focusing on its performance during significant volcanic eruptions. Overall, the study is well-structured, the methodology is robust, and the findings are significant for the climate and oceanographic research community. However, there are several areas where improvements could be made to enhance clarity and depth.

1.      Introduction:

·       The introduction provides a good background but could benefit from a clearer statement of the main research questions or hypotheses that the study addresses. Adding a few sentences about the expected impact of this new dataset on future research would also be beneficial.

2.      Data and Methodology:

·       The description of the data assimilation process is detailed. However, the manuscript could benefit from a more in-depth explanation of how the OSTIA system's upgrades impact the CMEMS v2.0 dataset compared to v1.2. A diagram illustrating the workflow would enhance understanding significantly.

·       Could the authors clarify if any new data sources were integrated in the CMEMS v2.0 dataset that were not used in the previous versions? How do these additions impact the overall quality and reliability of the dataset?

3.      Results - Accuracy and Validation:

·       The results are well-presented and supported by appropriate statistical analyses. It would be useful to see additional comparisons with other global SST datasets not involved in this study to position the CMEMS v2.0's performance within the broader field.

4.      Discussion on Volcanic Eruptions Impact:

·       The discussion on the datasets' performance during volcanic eruption events is intriguing. I recommend expanding this section by including a theoretical framework explaining why these effects are observed. This could provide readers with a better understanding of the physical processes influencing SST measurements post-eruption.

·       The manuscript discusses the dataset’s performance during volcanic eruptions. Can the authors elaborate on the specific methodologies used to isolate and analyze the impact of volcanic aerosols on sea surface temperatures?

5.      Conclusion:

·       The conclusion succinctly summarizes the findings but does not touch on the limitations of the study or future research directions. For a more comprehensive conclusion, a discussion on potential limitations of the dataset and suggestions for future research avenues are recommended.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required