the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A Submesoscale Eddy Identification Dataset in the Northwest Pacific Ocean Derived from GOCI I Chlorophyll–a Data based on Deep Learning
Abstract. This paper presents an observational dataset on submesoscale eddies obtained from high–resolution chlorophyll–a data captured by GOCI I. Our methodology involves a combination of digital image processing, filtering, and object detection techniques, along with specific chlorophyll–a image enhancement procedure to extract essential information about submesoscale eddies. This information includes their time, polarity, geographical coordinates of the eddy center, eddy radius, coordinates of the upper left and lower right corners of the prediction box, area of the eddy's inner ellipse, and confidence score. The dataset spans eight time intervals, ranging from 00:00 to 08:00 (UTC) daily, covering the period from April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2021. A total of 19,136 anticyclonic eddies and 93,897 cyclonic eddies were identified with a confidence minimum of 0.2. The mean radius of anticyclonic eddies is 24.44 km (range 2.5 km to 44.25 km), while that of cyclonic eddies is 12.34 km (range 1.75 km to 44 km). This unprecedented hourly resolution dataset on submesoscale eddies offers valuable insights into their distribution, morphology, and energy dissipation. It significantly contributes to our understanding of marine environments, ecosystems and the improvement of climate model predictions. The dataset is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7694115 (Wang and Yang, 2023).
- Preprint
(5923 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1129 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-188', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Sep 2024
The manuscript presents a study on the submesoscale eddy identification. The high-resolution chlorophyII from GOCI I is used. The technology and methodology employed in this paper is well presented and the results are notably impressive. This work is poised to contribute to the future research in understanding the marine dynamics and environmental process.
Comments:
1. Coda availability and code example. It will be beneficial if the authors could provide code for this research. Making the code available would not only enhance transparency but also facilitate further research by enabling other researchers to replicate and build upon the findings. Besides, to code examples for how to use the dataset would be highly beneficial.
2. A discussion on the selection and optimization of these parameters would be particularly valuable, like learning rate, the number of weights.
3. How the author solves potential biases introduced by the predominance of cyclonic over anticyclonic eddies in the training dataset is not mentioned in the manuscript. In general, an imbalance in the number of data samples can significantly influence the behavior of a deep learning model.
Technical Corrections:
Paragraph 15: confidence minimum of 0.2 is unclear. “minimum confidence threshold of 0.2” may be more clear.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-188-RC1 - AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Yan Wang, 21 Oct 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-188', Qianguo Xing, 13 Oct 2024
Ten years of eddies in the NE pacific ocean are presented in this paper. The fine spatial and temporal patterns derived from the GOCI-I chlorophyll-a data is very interesting although the widely-used deep leaning model for eddy extraction is not so novel.
This paper can be published after amending some information:
In Fig.10, please amend error bar to illustrate the standard deviations in hourly , monthly and yearly eddy numbers; amend the inter-annual changes. And, accordingly, the impacts of cloud cover on the above patterns should be discussed. It will be much better if the cloud dataset is presented.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-188-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Yan Wang, 21 Oct 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yan Wang, 21 Oct 2024
I apologize, I replied to the wrong person. This reply was meant for RC1. I will publish new response to you in a few days.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-188-AC2 - AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Yan Wang, 25 Oct 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-188', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Sep 2024
The manuscript presents a study on the submesoscale eddy identification. The high-resolution chlorophyII from GOCI I is used. The technology and methodology employed in this paper is well presented and the results are notably impressive. This work is poised to contribute to the future research in understanding the marine dynamics and environmental process.
Comments:
1. Coda availability and code example. It will be beneficial if the authors could provide code for this research. Making the code available would not only enhance transparency but also facilitate further research by enabling other researchers to replicate and build upon the findings. Besides, to code examples for how to use the dataset would be highly beneficial.
2. A discussion on the selection and optimization of these parameters would be particularly valuable, like learning rate, the number of weights.
3. How the author solves potential biases introduced by the predominance of cyclonic over anticyclonic eddies in the training dataset is not mentioned in the manuscript. In general, an imbalance in the number of data samples can significantly influence the behavior of a deep learning model.
Technical Corrections:
Paragraph 15: confidence minimum of 0.2 is unclear. “minimum confidence threshold of 0.2” may be more clear.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-188-RC1 - AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Yan Wang, 21 Oct 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-188', Qianguo Xing, 13 Oct 2024
Ten years of eddies in the NE pacific ocean are presented in this paper. The fine spatial and temporal patterns derived from the GOCI-I chlorophyll-a data is very interesting although the widely-used deep leaning model for eddy extraction is not so novel.
This paper can be published after amending some information:
In Fig.10, please amend error bar to illustrate the standard deviations in hourly , monthly and yearly eddy numbers; amend the inter-annual changes. And, accordingly, the impacts of cloud cover on the above patterns should be discussed. It will be much better if the cloud dataset is presented.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-188-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Yan Wang, 21 Oct 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yan Wang, 21 Oct 2024
I apologize, I replied to the wrong person. This reply was meant for RC1. I will publish new response to you in a few days.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-188-AC2 - AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Yan Wang, 25 Oct 2024
Data sets
A Submesoscale Eddy Identification Dataset Derived from GOCI I Chlorophyll–a Data based on Deep Learning Yan Wang and Jie Yang https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7694115
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
470 | 101 | 123 | 694 | 32 | 18 | 17 |
- HTML: 470
- PDF: 101
- XML: 123
- Total: 694
- Supplement: 32
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1